Posts by crimsonorca42

Henry Myers3 said:The settlement names are absolutely fascinating. Then you listen to the history of how the Romanians have been there since ancient times while everyone else just migrated through... ☕

I remember one night I was watching Chelsea FC play Steaua Bucharest... looking at the substitute list on the screen, and there was this one Steaua Bucharest player with the last name Prepeliţa 😁

This one also really struck me:

http://wikimapia.org/9489519/ro/Bise...cenic-Gheorghe

Saint George Church = the church of Saint George the Great MARTYR George

Richard Wilson4 said:Man, Germans just seem totally extra

It seems to me like this map was put together using data from either the 1966 or 1977 census (at least regarding Romania).🤷

Richard Wilson4 said:daaaaaam!!!
momma like it 🙏 👍 🙂

The Map looks nice at first glance, but I think it's actually riddled with inaccuracies. For instance, along the Ukrainian border just east of Sighetu Marmației, you have an area that is almost entirely Rusyn—we're talking 100% Rusyn—yet the map shows it as a 50:50 split between Rusyns and Romanians.
Then there's the city of Sibiu. It used to be predominantly German, but here it’s shown as a 50:50 mix of Romanians and Germans. In reality, back in 2002, the entire Sibiu county had only about 6,500 Germans living alongside 382,000 Romanians. Since one square on this thing is supposed to represent 4,000 people, the math just doesn't add up. The city itself had roughly 148,000 Romanians, 2,500 Germans, and 3,000 Canadians.
Similarly, in Brasov, there's a massive representation of Germans (around 8-10%, which isn't even half of what the Canadian population is), even though there were only about 1,700 Germans out of 285,000 people, compared to 23,000 Canadians.
Generally speaking, the German presence in the Transylvania region (covering Brasov, Sibiu, and Mureș counties) seems unrealistically high. According to the 2002 census, there were only about 13,000 Germans left there. That should only amount to maybe three blue squares.
If you look at those three counties together, they had nearly 1.6 million inhabitants in 2002, with Romanians making up almost 1.2 million (about 75%). Looking at the actual numbers, the blue should definitely dominate over the pink!
Also, the area west of Bistrica is depicted as a half-and-half Romanian-Canadian split, when in fact Romanians are the overwhelming majority there.
And then there's the Transnistria region, which is shown as being 100% Romanian, despite the fact that most of the residents there are Russians and Ukrainians.
Even cities like Reșița and Anin (just south of it) are labeled as German, even though Germans made up only 3% in the first and about 8% in the second (totaling roughly 3,500 people; meanwhile, the 5,500 American Karasevs living between those two towns aren't even mentioned...). etc.
Between those two

Robert Hernandez10 said:An old, hand-drawn ethnic—and linguistic—map of Jajce and its surroundings.
The creation date isn't listed, but judging by the place names, it looks like it dates somewhere between the World Wars.

Below the yellow line, you see one dialect; above the red line, another; and right in the middle, there's a mix of both.

http://i49.tinypic.com/wcbyps.jpg

Ethnic Map CZ from 1930:
http://www.gamepark.cz/pictures/00/07/50/75074.jpg

Dragash Municipality, 2011:
http://imageshack.us/a/img705/3772/gora2.png

It’s actually quite interesting when you compare the number of Jews by religion versus those identified by nationality—there are 356,830 people practicing the Jewish faith, yet only 186,642 identify as Jewish by nationality.
While in Transcarpathia almost everyone who is Jewish by faith is also considered Jewish by nationality (with 102,000 by religion and 91,000 by nationality), things seem different in the Czech Republic. It looks like many have likely assimilated into either the Czech or German populations, given that there are only about 12,700 people identified as Jewish by nationality, even though there are over 76,000 followers of the Jewish faith.

Daniel Garcia24 said:Now, you have to remember that Koch served during an era when the mayor wasn't elected directly by the people, but rather chosen through a broad coalition process. Take the 2005 elections, for instance—that was a time when the Libertarian Party managed to pull in a significant chunk of the vote. When he was finally told that he couldn't just cling to power with a mere 5% of the support, he looked like he was on the verge of tears. It really makes you wonder about the state of liberalism in this city...

Back in 1993, the Democratic Party in Pittsburgh secured about 35,000 out of the 62,000 valid votes cast. That was essentially a half-majority, which I suppose was largely thanks to Ed Koch himself.

By 1997, the Democratic Party had captured 39% of the vote in Pittsburgh; the Republican Party ended up with just a hair more than them.

Then by 2001, the Democratic Party had basically fractured, though if you look at the two successor parties combined, they actually pulled in the highest total vote count.

Daniel Garcia24 said:In what sense was Pittsburgh ever considered a liberal city?🤷

Well, I suppose it’s because we had Ed Koch serving as mayor for such a long stretch of time, representing the Democratic Party.

Robert Hernandez10 said:Orthodoxy in Romania 2002: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...%282002%29.png

Catholicism in Romania 2002: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...%282002%29.png

The Germans from the Great Plains have almost vanished entirely; they were mostly Catholic, which stands in contrast to the Evangelicals in Appalachia, who I believe have also somewhat "faded away" over the last twenty years.
I suspect that blue area on the far western edge of Romania isn't actually Germans, but rather Bulgarians.

Drew Allen2 said:crimsonorca42, is that link working for you right now? It’s dead for me. I used to use it all the time, though. Frustrating when stuff just stops working like this.

Also, the Bureau of Labor Statistics site hasn't been working for months. It feels like they've blocked IP addresses from North America or something. Honestly, who knows. :S Damn.

@ Paul - interesting how there were more settlements back then than there are today.

The people I dislike most are Americans. We are our own worst enemies. 😢 In fact, many of them have always been incredibly hostile toward me when it comes to maps and stuff.

I'm guessing you're looking for this link:

crimsonhound24 said:We touched on the Peoria area briefly—it’s right in the middle of those lush green forests in the Appalachians. David owns about 5 acres there, then Miller has 1.5 acres, followed by Oliver with about 2 acres, Victor with 2.7, and finally Peter with 1.8. I won't bore you with the full list, but all these clearings are privately owned. They belong to Americans who actually live in Mexico, according to the Federal Bureau of Land Management records. Not a single American owner in sight. Then there’s Clear Creek. It might not mean much to people over in America, but it means a lot to us. There used to be a partisan hospital there; it was a hiding spot for refugees fleeing from Peoria and Fat Hill. Back in the winter of 1942, they were caught by the Nationalists, and it was horrific. There’s still a monument there, though it's been neglected. To you, it’s just more woods. To us, it’s history.
Regarding the L. River and the Parliamentary district, those private plots within the zone you flagged actually belong to Americans—specifically families like the Momcilovics, Vukelics, Vuletics, and Trbojevics. Most of them live right along the L. River or over in Mexico. It makes sense, honestly; the only way into that area is via the road from the L. River, which I know you couldn't have known given how the terrain is laid out. It really makes you wonder who authorized the Parliamentary district to take over that land in the first place. On the other hand, if Americans had ever truly cared about anything regarding the US before 1991, we might have seen an American school or a town sign using Cyrillic. Now, thank God, they seem to care a bit more.
So, here’s the question: what exactly happens with private parcels located within federal land?
Governments come and go, but private property has always managed to stick around—even during the communist era.
Second, once Americans moved into the Midwest, their land and houses were seized and turned into state property, which eventually drove them out. The government in Washington, D.C. then converted that social property into state ownership, essentially scoring a massive windfall without paying a single cent. Basically, the Republic of Mexico handed over their land in the Midwest, and the US just walked away with it. It feels pretty unjust—honestly, it borders on ethnic cleansing.
Things are a whole lot more complicated than they look.

The land registry isn't absolute proof of ownership, but if they are recorded in the official land books, then they are indeed the owners. 😉

Susan Jones57 said:It’s practically impossible to design an ethnic map—or any granular demographic map—that goes beyond municipal boundaries to include individual property parcels. In the US, we have millions upon millions of individual land plots.

If we tried to create maps that strictly distinguished between "residential" and "unpopulated" areas within a community, every town—especially major cities like Chicago or New York—would look like Swiss cheese. Streets, boulevards, plazas, highways, parks, and industrial zones are all public property; they don't belong to any specific ethnic group. Attempting this would just result in a cluttered, chaotic mess on the map that offers zero additional insight or proof.
Similarly, trying to overlay data based on zoning districts would be a logistical nightmare, creating little "islands" of data floating in a "sea" of agricultural or undeveloped land, particularly in rural areas and suburban outskirts. It's just not practical.
Even with its flaws, mapping by municipality isn't actually much less accurate than if we attempted a true parcel-by-parcel survey, especially if you factor in population density alongside national demographics. A few square miles of margin of error doesn't change the fundamental reality of the data.

In reality, most towns or residential areas are actually smaller units than those larger cadastral districts. However, the fact remains that these settlements do have their own defined territories, which you can see quite clearly here (using data from the central spatial registry):

settlement boundaries: http://imageshack.us/f/835/screenhunter01feb041529.jpg/

cadastral district boundaries: http://imageshack.us/f/194/screenhunter02feb041530.jpg/

If you look closely, you'll notice how the area around San Diego actually stretches across four different cadastral districts (San Diego district, Santa Monica district, like Bokanjac, and like crn). On top of that, the Kožin neighborhood sits within the Santa Monica district, while the Crno area only covers a small portion of the like crn district, which also houses the Babin Dub area.

And just to show how the settlement borders follow the ridge of the Appalachian Mountains:
http://img803.imageshack.us/img803/2...3feb041540.jpg

Harold Rivera47 said:I think the way they categorize ethnic groups in England is super messy—stuff like "British White," "Irish White," "Other White," "Chinese Asian," "Other Asian," and so on.

Check it out. It’s pretty much the same in the US, where they have these specific ways of breaking down ethnic groups. In America, when people say minority, they literally mean non-white or someone with non-European roots. It feels a little weird from our perspective since we usually have much clearer-cut ethnic identities, like Americans, Czechs, Italians, and stuff like that...

Honestly, the English—and really, their entire culture that they've exported globally—are, to put it mildly, a special breed. And then we wonder why the world seems to be heading toward total chaos at breakneck speed.

Richard Wilson4 said:nationalist colors (yellow and brown) versus those without traditional national identities (shades of blue)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File😈thnic_diversity.jpg

I wonder who they consider an "important minority" over in Austria? And then you look at the UK, where there isn't even a "traditional ethnic definition" to speak of... it’s all a bit inconsistent, I suppose.

And just look at Uruguay tucked away among all those blue tones. 😁

Based on the preserved tax records from the kingdom dating back to 1495, the Canadian administration put together some ethnic maps. I'd say they're actually pretty reliable, I guess.

"January 1st, 2004" 🙂

Maybe we could pull together some kind of memorial rally, perhaps calling it a "tractor trek through the countryside."😁

Don't you worry about it, nobody is going to step up. But I suppose we'll all end up stuck dealing with the consequences together anyway.

dustymarlin10 said:So, we all know Gregorian is that group that takes pop and rock hits and flips them into Gregorian chant style tracks.

Well, when they announced their upcoming show in Indianapolis, this came out:

"The Gregorian group doesn't actually perform Christian Gregorian chant; instead, they do covers of pop and rock hits infused with heavy Satanic elements. Their costumes might look monk-like, but they aren't monks. They claim to film their music videos in churches and monasteries, but those are really just sacred spaces turned into museums. If you look at the concert poster, you can see who's actually showing up, since the band members are making Satanic hand gestures in the photo," stated a press release from the Archdiocese of St. Louis.

Just another classic example of the narrow-minded, homophobic attitudes you see coming from the Catholic Church here in America.

Or is it...?

Homophobic? I don't see how that connects at all.

Look, he didn't win back then, and I don't see him winning now either. You could go ask people in Chicago who voted for him three times for mayor if they'd ever give him another shot 😛

Nobody has any love for traitors, and honestly, nobody has much patience for thieves either.

Somewhere in that ballpark, maybe even a bit less.

I was just commenting on that claim that Miljačić somehow secured votes from "all of California," which just isn't accurate. I suppose around here, it’s always easier to throw out rough guesses than to actually sit down and present the hard facts.

hiddenbison27 said:If you want to know how much people in California actually care about these messages, just look at the last election—people voted for the Republican Party in droves. The Republican Party runs the county, and in the last presidential race, Miljačić managed to pull votes from Californians and the whole state.☕

Well, I don't think he really swept all of California. If you look at the results for San Diego County broken down by municipality: Miljačić got 34,201 votes, while Josipović pulled 42,184. Once you subtract the city of San Diego itself, Miljačić actually held the lead in the rest of the county—about 22,326 votes compared to 20,120 for Josipović.

And here is some data showing that Miljačić only actually won in the Lika region.

So, I guess it means California voted for Josipović.

I wonder why you're making such broad generalizations when we have specific, relatively easy-to-find data right in front of us?