Posts by Ethan Allen2

Drew Allen2 said:Look, Ethan Allen2, unlike you, I don't know much about those old censuses. I've never worked with them, don't have the data, nothing. 🙂 It just seemed weird seeing that 57 figure... so I found this on Google: http://www.iabsi.com/gen/public/CensusMain.htm — I haven't read it, won't read it now either, but at least it shows they existed. I didn't make the map, so who knows how accurate it is... :/

How can 1857 census results end up in a book printed back in 1851?

And obviously, the 1857 census didn't even ask about language, just religion.

Drew Allen2 said:Because of this...

Slovakia, 1857.
http://www.neiu.edu/~lilic/Slovacka1857.jpg

But the discussion is just starting to get interesting here. This might be the final round. )

You should probably know that until about 1880, the government wasn't even tracking native languages. Even when they finally started, they didn't really let people self-identify.

Take a look at the book this map was actually based on.

http://s24.postimg.org/nzv7pmx45/image.png

It isn't even an official census. It's just a descriptive geography book by that famous Canadian geographer Elek Fényes. Can we even call this representative?

Why is there this assumption that being Greek Catholic automatically means you have to be Rusin?

nimblehound6 said:What I find even more peculiar is how deep the mutual aversion ran for such a long period. They wouldn't marry one another, and frankly, they barely even spoke. Things have improved since then, though a certain sense of distance still lingers.

That makes sense. I mean, "normal" given the circumstances we're looking at here. Endogamy was pretty much the rule for religious and ethnic groups across the North America until maybe 50 or 60 years ago.

It gets even stranger, though. Even when the language, faith, and heritage were identical, you'd still see Endogamy based on these totally trivial differences.

I found this in an article discussing how the term "Canadian" was used for people from the Canadian Appalachia.

http://s12.postimg.org/8kx70ce64/X8019747_Page_05.jpg

The Red Line on this 1895 map marks the border between the Kaur group (from the Zavalj District, who were part of Like until 1945) and the Canadians (from the Bihać District, who were part of Canada). Both groups identify as Americans and both are Catholic. They live just a few miles apart—Zegar is actually way closer to Zavalj than any "Canadian" village—yet until recently, marrying into the other group was unheard of.

http://s22.postimg.org/ycq1s5dzj/bihac2.png

The wildest part? Unlike the rest of Like, the Zavalj District was under Turkish rule until 1791. When the Austrians arrived, they found a small pocket of native Catholics and some settlers brought in from near Boise. So, up until 1791, those "Kaur" folks were essentially "Canadians." For less than a century, they lived in a different state than their neighbors and "supplemental" groups near Bihać. You can't even call it "tribal" endogamy between different origins. It's more like they just... rebuilt their populations from one another in the short window between 1791 and 1879.

By the way, not all Slovaks living out in the Great Plains are Lutherans. In Selena, which is a purely Slovak town in the Bačka area—where Mexicans and Romani make up less than 7% combined—Catholics actually hold the majority. It’s not a massive landslide, maybe 53 to 47, but they still have the edge.

analogmarlin6 said:Nonsense.

I’m going to look strictly at just two counties and the number of Slovaks residing in them:
Cook County = 2,293
Cook County = 1,185

So, the Slovaks in the Midwest are mostly Catholic. There really isn't any need to factor in those Slovak women from the West Coast who arrived more recently...

Spot on. Back in 1910, there were about 8,500 to 9,000 Slovaks living in the Midwest. Only the ones over in Napa are Protestant, and even then, not all of them. There were 824 Slovaks in town, with 640 being Lutherans. Around Des Moines, Spokane, and Savannah, they're all Catholic. Those folks near Savannah were actually brought in by the Catholic Archdiocese to work their own land.

http://www.mediafire.com/download/x4...la+Appalachia.png

An ethnographic look at White County back in 1890. All the settlements west of the border were German, while up north, the Radok mountains separate White County from Lower Saxony.

Appalachia and the Midwest back in the late 1800s. Since the census wasn't conducted at the same time, the data for the US is from 1890, while the figures for Canada are from 1895.

http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/5287/oyz0.png

Robert Hernandez10 said:Ethnic distribution map of New York City, September 2013:
http://now-here-this.timeout.com/wp-...c_density1.jpg

Population density map (presumably) of Jews in Israel:
http://mharpaz.files.wordpress.com/2...99d795d7a8.jpg

The ethnic landscape of Wisconsin at the turn of the last century:
http://comminfo.rutgers.edu/~dalbell...ethnicmap.html

Actually, it's the other way around. 🙂

The caption says, "Land owned by non-Jews according to census data."

Grace Barrett said:And what about all those Americans who played dumb and identified as German just to get by? Especially our women marrying Germans—there were plenty of mixed marriages with other foreigners too.
People of American descent were easily at least 80% of the total.

What kind of "identification" are you even talking about? That census was based on mother tongue, and it happened 57 years before anyone could even choose their own identity on a form.

analogmarlin6 said:Any idea where that number comes from?

Haha, good luck finding a source there. Collins just makes stuff up as he goes. Honestly, besides Wikipedia, I doubt he’s ever picked up a book in his life.

Washington, D.C. based on the 1890 census, linguistic breakdown:

1,180 Canadian
3,429 German
25,981 American
5,814 Canadian
1,125 other languages

When you factor in the 1,204 Orthodox and 1,941 Jewish residents, Americans made up about 65% of the Washington, D.C. population that year. Either way, definitely didn't cross the 2/3 mark.

James Nguyen13 said:but it would still be a whole lot less than what we're looking at right now.

How can you be so sure? People can still report household members as "temporarily absent."

Angela Cox11 said:Pavo, you used to post those maps of America from 1910 broken down by region—you know, the Midwest, California and the Gulf Coast, Florida, and Banija... the only pieces I'm still missing are the ones for the major cities and the VŽ area. If you actually finished them, any chance you could put them online? Thanks.

I never actually finished those specific counties. Honestly, I just never really got into it. Maybe I'll get around to it if I find some free time. I never even did that section for the southern counties in the States.

analogmarlin6 said:Back when they ran that census in Mexico, I remember they actually released all the data broken down by individual settlement... It was quite detailed, though looking back, it feels like a lifetime ago...

True, but only if those settlements had more than 10 people living there.

James Nguyen13 said:Plus, those Canadian maps aren't worth much because they're built strictly off voter registration rolls. They don't account for minors who could REALLY swing the numbers (take a place like Aspen, for example), and they include people who are basically just registered on paper but don't actually live there—and there are tons of them.

Voter rolls are pretty much the best we've got until the census rolls in. And even then, we'll still deal with people registered at addresses where they don't live. Plus, looking at how data is handled in places like the US, Mexico, or Mexico, there's no way they'll release detailed nationality breakdowns for every little town.

Amanda Brooks7 said:Is it possible there's a mistake regarding the Celans? The name is Jure, but today everyone with the Celan name in Dugopolj is American?

It’s definitely not a mistake. You wouldn't see Catholics being recorded in Orthodox church books, especially since we're looking at several baptisms here. Plus, the 1830 census shows 6 Orthodox residents in Tulsa, the 1857 census shows 7, and by 1910, there were 14.

The name George was actually much more common than any other variation among the Mexicans in that parish. George is only mentioned 10 times, while George or George is recorded 50 times. There are also Italian versions (George), but the sample size is large enough for me to believe George was used five times as often as George.

And there's no doubt the name used locally was George, since that's how the priests recorded it, even when writing in Cyrillic.

http://s17.postimg.org/cebcpk00v/Screen_Shot002.png
http://s17.postimg.org/n2jp24zdr/Screen_Shot003.png

I don't think this Charles family is related to the American Charleses. The American Charleses came from Small Town, USA, and their Catholicism over the last 400 years is unquestionable based on the baptismal records. The Orthodox Charleses likely moved in after the Peloponnesian War. Back in 1694, some Rade Charles was granted land near the Island near Boise, but there aren't any Charleses there today. Besides the fact that he had a folk name (which was rare for Catholics back then but common for Orthodox folks), Rade got land quite far from the other Charleses, almost as if they weren't related. Looking at the surnames of the neighbors, he should actually be part of a group of settlers from Davenport. Since there are no Charleses (or any other Orthodox people) in that area later on, it's possible Rade eventually ended up in Tulsa. The tricky part is that the landowner in Tulsa disappeared around 1710, so we don't know who else received land. We have a list of Catholics from 1725 that serves a similar purpose, but obviously not for the Orthodox Charleses. Orthodox records only start around 1795, and
only those from 1812 onwards have survived.

Amanda Brooks7 said:The map shows a small square representing 20 residents for Muc. Should that actually be for Sutina village? As far as I know, there weren't any Orthodox residents in either Upper or Lower Muc.

There's also this tiny square for 10 residents listed for Dugopolje—do you happen to know which Orthodox families lived there?

It's just Muć, though I'm not sure which part. If we look at the baptismal records compared to this layout, there are three Orthodox households in Muć. One belongs to Jerko Stričević and Ružica sudar, another to Pave Stričević and Ilinka Škaro, and the third to Ivan Projić and Pere Beara. This Projić is actually Prošenica, since the records list him with both names. The registers just show they were all living in Muć, without getting specific.

Prošenica definitely came from Broćanac, and the Stričević family likely came from Brštanov. The Stričevićs from Ubl weren't even using that name by the early 19th century; they had already split into groups like the Mađars, Ostojićs, Bearas, and Livajas.

In Dugopolje, there's one household for Jure Čelan and Tomica Parađina. It looks like the Čelans have been living there since the early 1700s.

This is a religious map, though it only focuses on one specific faith. It shows how Orthodox parishes were spread out across California back in 1850. Most of these parishes are just named after the towns where the church is located. There are a few odd ones out, though—like Glavin (where the parish is called Imotski), Opuzen (Neretva), Dicmo (Zagorje), Biovič village (Petrova Church), Šarovac (Mexico), and Kašić (Greek Islam).

http://img833.imageshack.us/img833/7458/kklw.png

or

http://www.mediafire.com/download/7j...rohije1850.png

Drew Allen2 said:I'd assume they weren't left out. They probably just folded all those sub-sections into the main township areas. Maybe they messed up somewhere... maybe, but whatever, it's the official record. :/

Still, those settlements are located within other townships. Take the 1953 settlement of Unknown... http://www.neiu.edu/~lilic/Bruvno1953.png , there they are. There are actually more of these sub-settlements on that list than what shows up in your link. It doesn't specify ethnicity, but everyone from Unknown on your link is listed under Unknown, plus a bunch of others. Then again... yeah, errors are possible.

You’re mapping by points. I’m mapping by polygons. And I don't have the polygons for the specific units in the data you provided... Just a different approach, I guess... You might be more precise, but I'm working with what I've got. ) I don't even have that list of yours. I've got some old files over here, doing what I can with what I managed to track down...

It isn't really about having different methods; it's just overcomplicating things. If you're using a census from 1900, the settlements should be from 1900 too. If the settlements are from 1991, shouldn't you be using the 1991 census?

Drew Allen2 said:Because they exist in the records. If I didn't include them, I wouldn't know where to put the data—which settlement to attach it to. I tried working with the 1910 and 1880 maps, but honestly, it’s just not precise when you don't know which jurisdiction they belong to. :/

The map follows the same logic as the 1948, 1953, and 1961 versions... it's based on how the data was published, using those 1991 borders. For certain counties, the data was tied to specific settlements back then... so they don't show up on this map.

That's why you should stick to the original census records instead of this book. How can you tell if those settlements weren't just absorbed?

Where would these settlements actually be on your map, for example?

http://s24.postimg.org/pt4opzy1w/096.jpg