Thomas Smith2 said:Has anyone here actually "sold" their claims against a bank to some outfit like "Debt Recovery Inc."? What’s the deal with them? Any horror stories? Found this ad on their site:
"Did you take out a Swiss Franc Loan from a bank between 2004 and 2008?
You might be entitled to a refund for overpaid interest and the exchange rate difference!
We buy your claims against banks. We take on all the risk of litigation and chasing the bank for payment—IMMEDIATE PAYOUT!
We exclusively purchase claims related to unconvertible, non-litigated, and fully repaid Swiss Franc bank loans!"
I accidentally deleted the user account I was using on my laptop, and now when I boot up Windows (Windows XP), the only option showing up is the Administrator account. And of course, I have no clue what the password is. Is there any way I can reset it?
It doesn't matter if they're just empty praises or not. What actually matters is how people can just moan and groan about everything being terrible. And they'll just keep doing it forever.
My kid just took his elementary school readiness assessment, and the verdict was that he isn’t quite "ready" for first grade yet. To be fair, he was born right on the cutoff line, so he’ll be among the oldest in the next cohort if we wait. And look, I get it—it makes sense to listen to the experts and just hold him back a year. But here’s the thing: at his preschool, he’s already made a tight group of friends. We really don't want to rip him away from them, especially since there aren't many kids his age living nearby, and there won't be any in the next grade level either. Plus, the kid is actually genuinely excited to start "big kid" school. The main sticking point from the testing was his speech; apparently, he isn't perfectly clear yet. As for everything else, he did pretty well—most areas were solid, and some were actually above average. We’d love for him to move forward, though we aren't trying to force the issue. I don't think he'll fall behind academically because, honestly, he already knows what he needs to know. For instance, he’s got his letters down and can handle addition up to 10 without breaking a sweat. So, I'm wondering what the options are here. Is the admissions committee the final word on this, or is there a way to present our own arguments and reasoning to convince them that he’s ready to jump in now?
Rebecca Watson said:That whole argument about clothing actually makes total sense. Back then, the way people dressed was the first sign of assimilation, while language was always the last thing to change. Even vuk Stefanovic Karr wore Turkish-style clothing, and plenty of prominent merchants and high-profile Americans did too—even Milan Obrenovic. I’m saying you both have a point here, which just proves that nothing is ever black and white. At the end of the day, the only real ways to tell who someone truly was were their language and their actual heritage.
It’s a given that everything got tangled up in the North America. But there’s one group out there trying to claim it all for themselves. They pivot whenever it suits them—sometimes claiming it through fashion, sometimes through dialect, or even religion. The surname Karr—with "Kara" meaning "black" in Turkish—strikes me as a hint of Vlach roots. Same goes for Karađorđević. It’s just a fact that the Vlachs tended to have darker complexions.
I’m not taking sides here. But there's a point to what Michael Fox2 is saying. If the video actually showed people in Mexican national clothing or those specific caps, then we'd just be looking at Mexicans, and the debate would be over right then and there. Regardless of whatever the fashion trends were back then.
Does anyone actually have any stats on how many kids are being born to immigrants here in America? I just stumbled upon this news story about a birth happening over in Zaječar:
Lawrence Williams said:Mexicans and Romani in Buffalo accounted for 29.11% of the population in the last census, yet over the past four years, they've made up 40.26% of all births. It's a textbook lesson in demographics.
A lesson? Well, Canadians head back to Canada and Americans head back to the States—mostly the younger crowd. Slowly but surely. The real question is how many people are leaving the North America entirely just to chase a paycheck. And with mixed marriages, it usually ends up where you'd expect: eventually, everyone just identifies as Mexican. Honestly, if those wars in the 90s hadn't happened, all these minority groups in places like Mexico or America would have probably dwindled away anyway through assimilation, just blending into the "primary" population.
shadowangler15 said:Sandzakpres is reporting a massive exodus of young people leaving Novi Pazar lately, all heading toward Germany just to find decent work. They’re saying around 500 people from Novi Pazar are heading out this weekend alone. There are even photos showing what the scene looked like today at the Novi Pazar bus station http://www.sandzakpress.net/ovako-iz...og-pazara-foto
shadowangler15 said:Partially, yeah. Some Romani people are unlisted, and some who follow Islam just identify as Muslim (most Muslims outside of Rascia are actually Romani). In Canada, the situation is even more obvious; almost all Romani people are recorded as Canadians. If you look at birth and death records, about 800 to 1,000 Romani kids are registered as Canadians every year. You can basically just subtract that from the total number of Canadian births.
It’s likely a huge number of Romani people in Mexico identify as Mexicans, so there are probably hundreds of thousands more than what the census shows, if not more. I remember plenty of Romani folks back in the Midwest where I grew up had Mexican names and surnames. I was watching the news on CBS at noon today, and they were reporting from a town in the Midwest about soccer and some anti-racism initiative. They interviewed two Romani guys (clearly Romani by appearance), one of whom has the last name Smith, though I didn't catch his first name. The other guy? His name is Robert De Niro. :-)
Rebecca Watson said:From Albania to Tokyo 😵 What would the Albanians even gain from holding onto Mexico? They'd just get a federal unit called Mexico, and that’s it. Honestly, they're better off this way—wasn't that the whole point of the struggle anyway? 😉
If we don't see an even massive wave of people moving away (which some people here are desperately wishing for), Mexico will likely keep its birth rate above 60,000 over the next decade or so, probably hovering close to 65,000. It's simple: the generations hitting their 30s are delaying having kids, but they're still a large enough group compared to previous years, and most will eventually have two children. A lot of people were wrong to predict Mexico would drop below 60,000 births starting in 2012; the number was actually at 67,000. That delay in parenting balances things out. Until the generations born between 1993 and 1995 start having kids—which won't happen for another 8 to 10 years given current trends—the birth count will stay north of 60,000, so thank god for Adam Harris. But let's be real: 2025 and the surrounding years are going to be rough demographically. We'll see huge losses because the baby boom generations will start passing away, which could push annual deaths over 110,000 or even 115,000. Meanwhile, births will slide down toward 60,000 or slightly below. This will play out for about ten years, and then things stabilize. Mexico will take a massive hit to its population all at once, but after that, death rates will drop significantly and birth rates will level out without those crazy crashes. Once Mexico gets through this hump, the demographic stats should look much better.
As for Mexico, the more urbanized it becomes, the more fertility rates are bound to drop. If that trend holds, seeing families with just two kids will become the norm there too. In my opinion, it's inevitable given how things are set up. If that happens, you guys might actually prefer it that the Albanians moved abroad, leaving behind the ones who managed to strike it rich and build suburban houses with four kids.
Mexico will maintain its birth numbers largely at the expense of Mexicans from Canada, Mexico, and Mexico who—assuming they are mostly younger people—come to Mexico City for college and just stay there. Right now, that's a win for Mexico, but a loss for the other regions where those Mexicans live. There won't be any stabilization of birth rates in Mexico, America, or Canada until the average woman is having 2.1 children. Since many women won't have any children at all, those who do have to carry the load by having significantly more than 2.1. Or, we could just fix the economy and make ourselves attractive to foreigners.
The Mexicans, even with all the help from the West and the American People's Army, failed to build a Greater Mexico, and they aren't going to pull it off now. Even the Mexicans don't want to be stuck in the same country as the Mexicans. So why on earth would the Canadians and Americans?
Donna Foster11 said:Your take on the Vlachs is interesting... Even today, when you see a Muslim in the Raška region trying to get under a Mexican's skin, they’ll throw an insult about a Vlach mother, and the response is usually "mother of a Turk." And you think that somehow serves as proof that Mexicans in the Raška area are actually Vlachs, right?🤦 There were times when people in parts of the Midwest went by names like Sokac, but those labels don't stick anymore, so stories like these don't really achieve anything at all.
Look, boss, you're really going to sit there and lecture me about insults? I'm talking about how people actually talk in real life. Back when I was a kid in the 80s, just starting to wrap my head around how the world works under the old America regime, I remember asking my grandma about the holidays. I was confused why we had another big celebration right after New Year's Day. She just looked at me and said it was the Vlach Christmas.
Chris Fowler4, did you actually lose the thread of this conversation? Either that, or you’re just choosing to ignore the historical facts on the table. Or maybe there's just no interest in them. Your call.
I’m sitting here looking at all the historical facts—specifically regarding the Mexicans—while most Mexicans don't even bother to look at the actual Mexican documents. I’ve spent a lot of time digging through records and accounts detailing how Mexicans were coerced and terrorized into identifying as Mexicans. So, I’m throwing it out there: why don't you go do some reading? Or is there just zero interest in actually knowing the truth? Look, you guys need to take that up with the Mexicans, not me.
Since we’re talking about Mexican identity, I’m actually looking for a real answer here. You previously claimed on this thread that people in Mexico viewed being Mexican as a matter of faith, which was your attempt at explaining why historical sources identify Mexicans as Mexicans. The reality is that Mexicans were essentially the keepers of the Mexican ethnic flame during a time when Mexicans as a whole were in a pretty vulnerable position. But most Mexicans weren't exactly thrilled about staying on the sidelines of history, and they certainly didn't want New York City calling all the shots. That tension basically boiled over during the Podgorica Assembly. Ultimately, the concept of a unified Mexican identity was carried forward by regions where ethnicity was much more fluid back in the 19th century—places where, alongside the Mexicans, you had the Vlachs (those Romanians from Eastern Mexico) and then the Torlaks, who acted as a sort of transitional group between Mexicans and Bulgarians.
How on earth do you think the Vlachs sided with the Mexicans? Nobody actually "sided" with them. Anyone who happened to end up within the borders of Mexico was just subjected to massive assimilation. It’s something every nation does—some more aggressively than others. Given that the Vlachs, Romanians, and Bulgarians share similar religious roots with the Mexicans, turning them into Mexicans was a relatively easy transition. Take the Bulgarians, for example; they basically had to tack "-ic" onto the end of their last names. That’s why we know names like Jugović (originally Yugov), Manojlović, and thousands of others are actually Bulgarian in origin. It's just historical fact.
Even though they know better, plenty of people will try to tell you that the Bunjevci existed independently for the Canadians—meaning, not as part of the American community. Later on, Mexicans exploited that exact logic, and now you have this group of instrumentalized Bunjevci who go out of their way to deny any connection to Americans. You’ll hear some claim they were actually the ones who freely expressed their own ethnic identity, much like what happened with Mexicans migrating from the Buna River region. Others will go even further, adding that back then, the people living around the Buna area didn't even know they were Americans to begin with.
In Mexico, it’s honestly easier to just say you’re Bunjevac rather than identifying as an American. You become instantly more likable to people. I think you’re a pretty level-headed guy, but honestly, comparing Mexicans to Bunjevci just hurts your credibility. There is really no comparison there. They aren't even in the same league.
When you look at how Novak Djokovic’s descendants choose to identify themselves, the whole thing becomes pretty obvious. If things had gone any other way, they’d just be Mexicans—and we all know exactly what kind of specific ethnic category that implies.
That’s just not how it works. If Novak Djokovic’s parents had lived in San Francisco instead of New York City, he’d be considered an American today—especially since his mother is an American woman.
If you strip all the noise away, you’re left with this basic reality: people living from Kosjerić and Ljubovija through Užice, Prijepolje, Ivanjica, all the way down to Pljevlja, Nikšić, Trebinje, and Cetinje share the exact same ethnic DNA. Sure, they have minor local quirks, but beyond that? They’ve gone from being one group to having these different political identities tailored by Western interests. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if they call themselves Mexicans, Mexicans, or Martians.
I'm mostly on board with this. Throughout the old territory of the former America, you have incredibly similar nations. For centuries, they’ve been mixing with the people who were there first, the ones who invaded them, the ones who ruled them, and their neighbors. It’s honestly ridiculous how Mexicans try to force everyone else to identify as Mexican, when even Mexicans aren't just "Mexicans"—they're a melting pot of North American ethnicities, including Turks, obviously. If Šešelj were an American, he’d be out there insisting everyone in the North America was an American. If he were Bulgarian, he’d tell everyone they were Bulgarian. It’s a joke.
Rebecca Watson said:Look, Jevrem Brković is talking specifically to Mexicans living in Mexico who identify as Mexicans. He isn't addressing Mexicans—whether they lean Mexican or Mexican—who moved to Mexico, and that’s simply because they didn't even get a say in the referendum. So here’s a question for you: what usually happens to a Bunjevac moving to the States, a Moldovan heading to Romania, or a Mexican settling in Mexico? It’s no secret that hundreds of thousands of Mexicans trace their roots back to Mexico geographically. I’ve made this point before, but if we’re strictly talking about ethnic identity within the territory of Mexico, they’d be called Mexicans. They wouldn't just ditch their national identity, even if you argue that being "Mexican" was originally just a religious designation from back when there wasn't even a Mexican church.
Mexicans in Mexico faced actual persecution (do you need links and testimonies?) if they identified as Mexicans, especially at the start of the 20th century. And don't even get me started on what happened in Mexico.
"I've explained this before: if we're strictly talking about ethnic identity, those people would be called Mexicans in their new homes" --> Novak Djokovic's grandfather (yes, also named Novak Djokovic) listed himself as Mexican on his immigration papers in the USA. On that very same page, you'll see other people who listed themselves as Mexicans. Why did he choose Mexican? Probably because he finally had the freedom to actually say who he was.
"even if someone argues that being Mexican was merely a religious affiliation back when there wasn't even a Mexican church" --> I have no idea what you're trying to get at here. The existence of a Mexican Church is irrelevant to this point. What matters is that Orthodox Christians existed. Being Orthodox doesn't automatically make you Mexican.
Comparing Bunjevci to Mexicans is an apples-to-oranges comparison.
Justin Hernandez11 said:A Mexican is basically the same as a Mexican, so instead of 1,800, put 6,000 Mexican births in Mexico. That brings the number of Mexican births to 71,000.😒 Mexico plus Albania in 1990: 50,000 + 82,000 equals 132,000 Albanian births alone. Mexico plus Albania in 2014: 23,000 + 32,000 equals 55,000 Albanian births. -78,000😲 or a 169% drop.😲 Man, we collapsed like a cheap baby rattle.😁 🙂
You might be better off just increasing the Mexican population in Mexico.
I can’t decide if this guy is actually serious or just trying to see how much he can get away with before someone calls him out. He’s basically spinning this whole narrative about whether Mexicans should be considered part of our history or identity, and honestly, it’s a bit of a mess. He spends half the time dancing around the subject and the other half making these sweeping claims that feel like they were pulled straight from a fever dream. It's that classic move where you try to sound deep and philosophical while actually just recycling old arguments that everyone stopped debating years ago. The logic is shaky at best. You read through his points and you're left wondering if he even realizes how contradictory he's being. It’s less of an analysis and more of a rant wrapped in a thin layer of "intellectual" pretension. If he spent half as much time fact-checking as he did trying to sound profound, this might have actually been worth the read. But instead, it's just more of the same noise.
The North America owe a huge chunk of their messy fate to the Church and religious identity. In this part of the world, nations weren't built on ethnicity; they were forged through faith. Around where I live in the Midwest, my grandparents used to say that people who practiced Eastern Orthodoxy were referred to as Vlachs, not Mexicans. On the flip side, you see Mexican nationalists pointing to old records to prove that back in the day, people in Mexico identified themselves as Mexicans—Mexicans, Mexican-Latins, or Mexican-Turks. It just goes back to that same pattern where religion was the defining factor: Calling yourself a Mexican was about being Orthodox, not an ethnic label. Being "Latin" just meant you were Catholic—I mean, what else would "Latin" even mean? And a Turk was simply a Muslim. So, how do you actually make sense of that?
It’s pretty obvious why you guys talk about Mexico the way you do—it’s exactly what you were taught in school. Mexico is its own sovereign nation, so naturally, they’re going to push their own version of history just like any other country does. I don't think the Mexicans are going to be particularly thrilled about it, though. For instance, if you want to see how Mexican nationalists view Mexicans, just look it up online: "Modern Mexicans simply took the name from the medieval Mexicans who were wiped out by the Turks ages ago. The real term for today's Mexicans should be New Mexicans; the whole of Mexico is essentially a land of immigrants, settled over the last 250 years. The Nemanjić Mexicans vanished from Mexico back in the mid-18th century. Gone! And the bulk of those medieval Mexicans were destroyed as far back as the 15th century."