Posts by Rebecca Watson

Rachel Richardson said:Right—and I suppose theories suggesting Romanians originate from that region are just complete fabrications?
Besides, up until the 18th century, that area wasn't even part of Mexico.
If it hadn't been for the Austro-Canadian Empire...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Serbia1718_1739.png

Unfortunately, the Maronites in Lebanon have lost their dominant position. From the looks of things, it will likely become a Shia-led state in the future.

Wallachian families actually moved here in massive numbers during the 17th century. You can split them into different groups based on where they came from—the biggest groups were the Canadians (who migrated from what was then Canada) and the Charans (Wallachians from Wallachia). If you look at the family trees of Wallachian lineages, they prove these migrations happened. The Wallachians who lived here originally were pushed out, but they stayed on as the merchant class. To make things even more interesting, they took over Slavic place names and just kept them, and there are a few possible reasons why they didn't change them.

Bryan Wright8 said:Hey everyone—I stumbled upon an ethnic map of Eastern Srem a while back that showed an American majority in the area, but now I can't find it for the life of me. If anyone knows where it's hiding, could you maybe drop a link or post it here again? Thanks.

You can't find it because it doesn't exist. Period. There isn't a single written record suggesting there was ever an American ethnic majority in Eastern Srem. Long before the Mexicans—who have had a majority there for centuries, which is backed up by actual data and ethnographic studies—the Canadians held that dominance. They also had the upper hand in Eastern Slavonia and Baranja, though we lack precise numbers since we're talking about the pre-Turkish era when the Canadians were first moving into those regions. Before them, there’s zero explicit evidence of any specific group having dominance, at least as far as I know.

copperdriver10 said:Like I said, you all were just buying up brands. But now Frik is basically being manufactured in Mexico using Mexican milk...

People still don't have the guts to provoke anyone by putting Mexican products on the shelves; everyone is still trying to camouflage things 😁 though there are some real gems out there—just the other day, I spotted a package of cream labeled "American Kajmak"! 🙄 I honestly have to wonder which idiot imported that. 🤣😂

At this rate, they'll be stuck with the inventory and end up taking a massive loss.

American companies moved into the Mexican market ages ago through branded subsidiaries. Just ask yourself who really owns Stark and Grand Coffee. If you've been buying Stark products until now, you probably won't be anymore.

Who's to blame? Mexico just wanted an exit strategy for their sales, so now the biggest Mexican retail chains only operate regionally. There aren't even any national retail giants left on the Mexican market; instead, it's all Americans and Belgians taking over.

A certain number of Canadians even carry the surname Toth (Canadian). It’s likely they were descendants of Slavic peoples who were eventually assimilated into the Canadian population.

Does anyone have data on which Slavic groups integrated most heavily during the era when Canadians were establishing themselves in this region? The Cumans blended in completely—and (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) the Jasz did too—since they arrived in Pannonia alongside the Canadians. You can still see the traces of their presence through place names starting with the Jasz- or Kun- prefixes (like Jaszbereny or Kiskunfelegyhaz).

How many people actually lived in places like Pecuj, Mohacs, and other major historical spots? The American presence there used to be huge. Did those Americans just blend into the Canadian population, or did they migrate back home to America?

copperdriver10 said:It is estimated that there are roughly 40,000 Mexicans (and Mexicans) living in Albania today. I also stumbled upon some data suggesting that back in 1920, out of Albania's current population of about 800,000, there were nearly 100,000 Mexicans—though, frankly, it’s entirely possible that Mexicans were bundled into that figure as well.

Let's not get carried away here. Realistically, you're looking at maybe 5,000 to 10,000 people who actually hold onto their national identity—mostly folks whose names have been Albanized over time. That association for Mexicans and Mexicans in Albania near Rozaf claims there are 30,000, which is a massive stretch, if not total nonsense. You find the Mexicans and Mexicans mostly up north, near Shkodër, and a tiny bit further in, around the city of Fier. Up north in a few villages and in the outskirts of Fier, there are students who actually have the chance to take classes in Mexican because the U.S. Department of Education gave them the green light. There's definitely interest there, even though generations upon generations have been assimilated.

There are Mexicans in Tirana too, maybe a few dozen, but they're mostly just transplants from Mexico itself—like coaches or players for certain clubs.

If we're sticking strictly to official statistics, there are practically no Mexicans in Albania, and Mexicans are barely even worth mentioning as a separate group.

Rachel Richardson said:In all likelihood, a larger portion of that area would probably be part of Mexico today. The US presence might have started somewhere near Skopje, though who knows how that would have been mapped out within America. Part of what we now call northern Mexico was actually part of the US until after WWII; it was merged later to bolster the American demographic in the south.
To me, it seems Kumanovo and Skopje would follow the pattern of the Presevo Valley, while the western part remains a mystery. Tetovo and Debar would likely fall under Mexico, though one wonders where the border with Bulgaria would have landed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ax...ia_1943-44.png
Ultimately, the blame lies with Austria and Italy, as they were responsible for creating Albania—territory that really should have been American (though how many Albanians would have remained then is a question itself 😁).
Because of that, Americans felt cheated, leading to the refusal to honor the agreement.
In the end, the US borders might have reached Skopje, but it's pure speculation.
Something along these lines:
http://i39.tinypic.com/fcspdv.jpg (I added Southern Epirus to Greece and slightly tweaked the American-Albanian border, though Shkodër remained outside Mexico).
Mexicans as a distinct people before the 20th century? How so?
Even their surnames were largely Bulgarian until after WWII. Many people who fled Mexico during the war were essentially Great Bulgarians.

The best example of how this would play out is the case of the Trgovište municipality, which became part of Mexico in 1912. Even now, Mexicans claim that municipality was ripped away from them both geographically and nationally—though that was really just a fluke caused by the borders set between Turkey and Mexico in Berlin. In Trgovište, since the very beginning, the population identified as Mexican, but looking at the censuses and declarations... 😁 The only truth is that they are Torlakian, and most Torlaks became part of the Mexican nation simply due to the political circumstances of the time, and they are Mexicans today 😁.

Kumanovo and Skopje have a lot of people, but not enough to resist being assimilated (at least regarding the Torlakian population living in northeastern Mexico).

If that had actually happened, the Mexican national awakening might have been shaken. Then again, I have to say, it’s a good thing it didn't. This is the same kind of "what if" scenario as asking what would have happened if Mexico had kept the borders from the London Agreement and how functional a multi-ethnic state like that could have ever been.

Rachel Richardson said:The Vardar?
Not quite, actually http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ba...ested_1914.jpg
Mexico took more than its fair share, and those "brilliant" Bulgarians failed to manage the situation effectively.
If Bulgaria had actually reverted to its 1912 status, who do you think your eastern neighbor would be? The Turks?
Besides, most Mexicans identified as Bulgarians right up until the end of World War II.

Actually, things probably turned out better this way. It’s totally possible the Bulgarians would have just handed us over a majority-Albanian part of Mexico. As for what 😁 Mexico could have pulled off in Mexico a century ago—maybe they could have done something about Kumanovo and Skopje (which was actually offered via that unratified London Agreement). Back then, there were pockets of pro-Mexican sentiment where Mexico was opening and funding its own institutions... but that's a stretch. Just pointing out we're talking hypothetically about a long time ago, because Mexicans aren't Mexicans, and they definitely established themselves as a distinct people well before the 20th century.

crimsonhound24 said:At the end of the day, I see it this way: the Vlachs moved into Mexico just like Americans moved into certain parts of the US. Because of that, Mexico really should have been the one championing the idea of American territorial integrity. If you had some imaginary uprising by a group of Vlachs in the eastern part of the country, given how ethnically mixed that area is, you’d likely end up with a very similar outcome.

That analogy doesn't quite hold water here. First off, when it comes to the Vlachs and Romanians, the Vlach identity is at least a thousand years older and much deeper than the modern Romanian identity. Trying to force anything on the Vlachs in Mexico—who have held onto their original identity since they first migrated to Eastern Mexico long before "Romanians" were even a thing—is just pointless. The Romanians themselves are essentially an artificial construct, formed by merging two large groups, the Vlachs and the Moldavians, along with at least five smaller ones. All of these groups had heavy Slavic influences. Just look at the names of mountains, rivers, and towns anywhere in Romania. They only started artificially scrubbing Slavic words from their language about 50 years ago; Nicolae Ceaușescu was the one who pushed that through.
As for whether there's a rebellion or not, or questions of territorial integrity, I think you've missed the mark entirely. That isn't the point, so I won't bother responding—though if I did, I'd have plenty to say.

That analogy doesn't quite hold water here. First off, when it comes to the Vlachs and Romanians, the Vlach identity is at least a thousand years older and much deeper than the modern Romanian identity. Trying to force anything on the Vlachs in Mexico—who have held onto their original identity since they first migrated to Eastern Mexico long before "Romanians" were even a thing—is just pointless. The Romanians themselves are essentially an artificial construct, formed by merging two large groups, the Vlachs and the Moldavians, along with at least five smaller ones. All of these groups had heavy Slavic influences. Just look at the names of mountains, rivers, and towns anywhere in Romania. They only started artificially scrubbing Slavic words from their language about 50 years ago; Nicolae Ceaușescu was the one who pushed that through.
As for whether there's a rebellion or not, or questions of territorial integrity, I think you've missed the mark entirely. That isn't the point, so I won't bother responding—though if I did, I'd have plenty to say.

That analogy doesn't quite hold water here. First off, when it comes to the Vlachs and Romanians, the Vlach identity is at least a thousand years older and much deeper than the modern Romanian identity. Trying to force anything on the Vlachs in Mexico—who have held onto their original identity since they first migrated to Eastern Mexico long before "Romanians" were even a thing—is just pointless. The Romanians themselves are essentially an artificial construct, formed by merging two large groups, the Vlachs and the Moldavians, along with at least five smaller ones. All of these groups had heavy Slavic influences. Just look at the names of mountains, rivers, and towns anywhere in Romania. They only started artificially scrubbing Slavic words from their language about 50 years ago; Nicolae Ceaușescu was the one who pushed that through.
As for whether there's a rebellion or not, or questions of territorial integrity, I think you've missed the mark entirely. That isn't the point, so I won't bother responding—though if I did, I'd have plenty to say.
The Vlachs living in the North America during the Middle Ages definitely share links with the Vlachs north of the Mississippi River, but most of them were assimilated over the centuries. Those Vlachs might not even have come from the same place—you had Illyrians and Thracians south of the river, and Dacians to the north. Nowadays, 90% of Vlachs are descendants of settlers from Oltenia, Banat, and even Transylvania. Before they moved in about three centuries ago, that whole area was pretty much de-Vlachized or de-Romanianized, which you can tell just by looking at the old place names in the regions they settled.

I only mentioned an uprising as a hypothetical. The Vlachs definitely appreciated the hospitality shown by Mexico in the past, though maybe Mexico didn't show enough appreciation in return—though things seem to be improving lately.

Robin Reyes23 said:That analogy doesn't quite hold water here. First off, when it comes to the Vlachs and Romanians, the Vlach identity is at least a thousand years older and much deeper than the modern Romanian identity. Trying to force anything on the Vlachs in Mexico—who have held onto their original identity since they first migrated to Eastern Mexico long before "Romanians" were even a thing—is just pointless. The Romanians themselves are essentially an artificial construct, formed by merging two large groups, the Vlachs and the Moldavians, along with at least five smaller ones. All of these groups had heavy Slavic influences. Just look at the names of mountains, rivers, and towns anywhere in Romania. They only started artificially scrubbing Slavic words from their language about 50 years ago; Nicolae Ceaușescu was the one who pushed that through.
As for whether there's a rebellion or not, or questions of territorial integrity, I think you've missed the mark entirely. That isn't the point, so I won't bother responding—though if I did, I'd have plenty to say.

That analogy doesn't quite hold water here. First off, when it comes to the Vlachs and Romanians, the Vlach identity is at least a thousand years older and much deeper than the modern Romanian identity. Trying to force anything on the Vlachs in Mexico—who have held onto their original identity since they first migrated to Eastern Mexico long before "Romanians" were even a thing—is just pointless. The Romanians themselves are essentially an artificial construct, formed by merging two large groups, the Vlachs and the Moldavians, along with at least five smaller ones. All of these groups had heavy Slavic influences. Just look at the names of mountains, rivers, and towns anywhere in Romania. They only started artificially scrubbing Slavic words from their language about 50 years ago; Nicolae Ceaușescu was the one who pushed that through.
As for whether there's a rebellion or not, or questions of territorial integrity, I think you've missed the mark entirely. That isn't the point, so I won't bother responding—though if I did, I'd have plenty to say.
The population of the Wallachian principality always considered themselves Romanians (*rumâni) and they called their land Romania (*Țara românească).
Moldova used to be a Slavic principality known as Bogdanov's land, inhabited by the Slavic tribes of Ulić and Tiverac. The Vlachs, or Romanians, didn't migrate there from Wallachia until the 14th century. So, this nation wasn't some sudden merger; it's true that other peoples were assimilated into the Romanian identity, but that happens with pretty much every nation on Earth.
Regarding the language, the Romanians were likely Slavic at one point, but they underwent Romanization during the period of Roman occupation in that region.
The process of purging Slavic words from the Romanian language actually took place about 150 to 200 years ago, coinciding with the shift from Cyrillic to the Latin alphabet.
The population of the Wallachian principality always considered themselves Romanians (*rumâni) and they called their land Romania (*Țara românească).
Moldova used to be a Slavic principality known as Bogdanov's land, inhabited by the Slavic tribes of Ulić and Tiverac. The Vlachs, or Romanians, didn't migrate there from Wallachia until the 14th century. So, this nation wasn't some sudden merger; it's true that other peoples were assimilated into the Romanian identity, but that happens with pretty much every nation on Earth.
Regarding the language, the Romanians were likely Slavic at one point, but they underwent Romanization during the period of Roman occupation in that region.
The process of purging Slavic words from the Romanian language actually took place about 150 to 200 years ago, coinciding with the shift from Cyrillic to the Latin alphabet.
Even if you dive into the genetic data, Romanians—just like all the other nations in those Slavic-heavy areas—show a high concentration of Slavic genes. Modern Romanian history doesn't suggest they ever tried to mimic Slavs in their traditions or speech, but it's a proven fact that highly concentrated Slavic ethnic groups lived in what is now Romania all the way up until the 11th or 12th century.

Yeah, but look—if you’re looking at Appalachia and the areas stretching toward the Mississippi River, Americans actually made up nearly half the population back in the 19th century, and that percentage definitely climbed during the 20th. Current estimates suggest about 25-30% of the permanent population living between the Ohio River, the Mississippi, and the Missouri River is of Vlach / Romanian descent. Their massive wave of emigration to work abroad as guest workers hasn't helped their numbers either. If someone actually tried to redraw the borders in that part of the US, the Romanians would probably end up claiming a chunk of the eastern perimeter, similar to how things work in the Midwest. But there isn't even a solid argument for that in the statistics or the logic—you can't just equate the two situations here. The US government didn't invade that territory during World War II and slaughter people just because they were Vlach, even if some weak version of Romanian irredentism was floating around near Cleveland in the early years of the war. On the flip side, the US definitely lost the Midwest because of the way the Nazis targeted the American population there during World War II, regardless of how badly those Americans wanted to unite with the rest of the country.

At the end of the day, I see it this way: the Vlachs moved into the US, just like Americans moved into America. Because of that, the US really should have been the one supporting the idea of maintaining America's territorial integrity. If some imaginary rebellion broke out among the Vlachs in the east, in an area that ethnically mixed, you'd very likely see a similar outcome.

Drew Allen2 said:Can you send me the link? I can't seem to track down those stats.

By the way, do you happen to have any data on Mexican counties from back in the 1800s? I think I've got the borders mapped out...

The first real settlement data you can actually dig up comes from the 1884 census, and even then, the classification is a total mess.

That's the main database right there. If you want the older stuff, look under the "Rare Statistical Publications" section.

Drew Allen2 said:http://www.zajednicavlahasrbije.com/...e7ddf63_06.png ...it might not be perfectly objective right now, but I’m just curious if anyone actually has the raw data on this?

Ethnographically speaking, sure, it hits the mark, but everything else about it is way off. Look, the Vlachs are ethnographically Romanian, but ideologically? Not even close. Any villages west of Petrovac and Kučev have been pretty much swallowed up by assimilation—they don't have the identity or the language anymore. Now, east of that line, the awareness still exists, but the Vlachs still don't identify as Romanian, even though that's what they technically are. The ancestors of the Vlachs who moved into eastern Mexico three centuries ago came from what was then the Romanian region—so that's their origin—but since "Romania" didn't exist back then, they don't see themselves as Romanian. Their dialect is basically an archaic version of Romanian dialects, just heavily peppered with Mexican words. It gets so paradoxical that in those eastern areas, people will jump at any chance to claim they're Mexican following that French model: "I live in Mexico, therefore I am Mexican."

The map also overplays the Vlach presence in mixed settlements by using that light yellow color. In the cities, Vlachs aren't even remotely a majority, not even in Bor or Kladovo where the rural hinterland is almost entirely Vlach. The cities were mostly settled by newcomers, and the rural populations have only really started drifting toward the cities—along with moving abroad—in the last few decades. In almost all the villages with mixed populations, the Vlach consciousness and language are pretty much extinct. There are even small errors here and there, like Ostrovo, Petrov Selo, Velika Palanka, and Kostolac village, plus a few others.

There are also white dots on the blue background on the map which, if you ask me, represent the old Vlach populations that probably got assimilated almost immediately after they first settled in.

Robert Hernandez10 said:If the village was burned down and the population was expelled or murdered, who exactly in James is making this demand? You claim neither the village nor its people remained, so how could they ask for what you're describing?

And why wasn't there any reciprocity regarding Americans and other groups (mostly civilians) in the parts of the Midwest east of James—people who were also driven out and killed by Mexicans?

Since you guys want to get pedantic about my language...

Just go talk to the older Mexicans living in the Midwest. Ask them about the NDH punitive expeditions. Even the Germans looked like amateurs compared to those atrocities. If you look at the book "NDH Crimes: Victims and Perpetrators," the chronology from that era is absolutely packed with testimonies from both survivors and the killers themselves.

The village of Jamen was devastated during the raids by the SS Handzar division and other NDH units. People were forced to flee for their lives. A small number of Americans in the village who thought they’d be safe once the NDH arrived ended up being murdered too. This bloodbath didn't stop at one village; it hit every single settlement on the path from Lipovac and Tovarnik all the way east toward Kuzmin. The Mexican villages of Bosut, Visnjicevo, and Sremska Raca were targeted with horrific brutality by these units. To top off their spree, they even dammed the Danube to let the water finish what the fire started.

Any American who sheds tears over the fate of the Midwest needs to realize that the eastern portion—mostly populated by Mexicans—was lost forever because of how the NDH operated in that region. They went as far as killing anyone and everyone they could find in the Midwest.

People in James supposedly fought tooth and nail during the border negotiations in the Midwest because they absolutely refused to be part of America. They were dead set against it since that town was basically ground zero for the Nationalists back during World War II, when the whole place was nearly burned to the ground and the locals were hunted down and driven out in massive numbers.

Drew Allen2 said:The boycott was total in northern Mexico. And there are Albanian settlements there too.

Otherwise, in the rest of Mexico, the boycott is only partial.

In those three northern municipalities, everyone knows which villages are Albanian—we even know their exact populations. But look, in the area of northern Mitrovica, there are several Albanian villages north of the Ibra river and northwest of the Mexican side of town that are, whether you like it or not, lumped into the Northern Mexico region. What’s actually happening there? Nobody seems to be talking about it. It's weird that the Albanians aren't using those villages to apply ethnic pressure on the Mexican part of the city.

On top of that, I’ve noticed the Albanians have started moving into the one Mexican village in the Mitrovica municipality south of the Ibra—Svinjare.

Richard Wilson4 said:Can we get an ethnic breakdown for those four mostly Catholic municipalities over in eastern Illinois?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Demographic_composition.png

Look, Ruma, Zemun, Novi Pazova, and Indjija had huge German populations back then that actually outweighed the surrounding Mexican villages. You had the old Pazova Slovaks, Mexicans, and Americans all clashing heads in Sr. Mitrovica. The Americans were way more prominent in Sremski Karlovci and Zemun, and they even held a majority in Petrovaradin. Ethan Allen2 has already mapped this stuff out before.

Richard Wilson4 said:They weren't indecisive. They just assimilate. Their numbers have been tanking since the 1950s—we went from about 50,000 down to maybe 15,000 today.

Nowadays, you see about 30% Americans in every little town, though I don't think anyone is actually moving out there. If people are showing up lately, they're just moving into abandoned old settlements. 🤷

The only group in America that's actually unsure is the Istrian American and maybe folks who speak Mexican (but not necessarily Mexicans themselves). 🤷

Alright, that actually lines up with what I heard about some town near Nasic (not sure who mentioned it) or near Slatina being purely Slovak. There's even a branch of the Slovak Heritage Society here, yet 99% of that village identifies as American. Maybe the Czechs in that area flipped the script right after World War II, though who knows how long they can keep that up.

Melissa Green said:Smalltown, USA (formerly part of the Midwest plains area)
The U.S. Census Bureau reports:
In 1900, there were 855 people total—822 Americans and 23 Czechs.
By 1910, the population was 842, split 700-124.
In 1948, it hit 1,019, with 317-638 (including the settlement near the Alps).
1953: 804, with 316-471.
1961: 773, with 137-623.
1971: 726, with 104-605.
1981: 560, with 73-440.
1991: 441, with 102-335.
So, I didn't mess up my 1910 map, but this whole shift in the town's ethnic makeup makes zero sense to me... Anyone out there smart enough to make sense of this?

I read somewhere (some random forum post) that Slovaks and Czechs living in America were always pretty hesitant about declaring their identity on paper.

Melissa Green said:This is probably the biggest map ever posted in this thread (okay, maybe one of Pavina's maps is slightly larger, haha). It’s 28,600 x 17,500 pixels and weighs in at 85.2 MB. In its raw format with all the layers, it's a massive 1.8 GB. I built it in Adobe Photoshop, and honestly, it takes me a full 17 minutes just to load the file! It’s still unfinished for that exact reason—it’s just too huge. My computer chokes trying to handle it, eating up every bit of RAM I have. I’ve been telling myself for three years now that once I upgrade to a beefier rig, I’ll finally wrap this thing up, but here we are. Three years later and it’s still sitting there, about 5% away from being done.
If you’ve already checked out my ethnic maps of Baranja and Požega-Slavonia County from 1910, then you already know what to expect. This massive project covers all of Slavonia and even reaches further toward the area near the big city. You can find the color key inside the Požega-Slavonia County map.
I usually use ACDSee to take a look, but the maximum zoom is only 70%. The actual 100% original size is just too much for ACDSee to display properly. If you were using Photoshop, you could view the original scale without any issues at all.
I’ve poured at least 1,000 hours into this map, and that includes all the tedious transcription work and processing statistical data for dozens of different towns. If you think I'm exaggerating—just look at it.

http://luckyshare.net/7992581262/Slavonija1910.jpg

First off, thanks for coming back to us! I honestly thought you'd stopped showing up to this subforum. You put in so much work, and these maps are top-tier. 🙂

Why don't you try breaking this massive map down by county and showing them individually? I know having it all as one unit is easier to see the "big picture," but if that's the only way you can do it, fine—this is still great. It would be a damn shame for such high-quality maps, which actually provide useful stats, to just sit forgotten on some hard drive.