Posts by Richard Wilson4

Ethan Allen2 said:Doing something a bit different from my usual maps. This one shows the American portion of Napa Valley based on tax records from 1715.

http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/3140/baranja1715.png

Each little square represents a single household. Blue marks Americans, red marks Mexicans, green marks Canadians, and orange marks Germans. Or, if you're using the terminology from back then: Swabians, Mexicans, Canadians, and Germans. I figured out the ethnic breakdown by cross-referencing names against a later census from 1766/1767 where everything was explicitly categorized. It also helped that American names were usually recorded in their native form (like Gyuro, Francis, or Matthew), while Canadian names appeared in Latin (like George, Franciscus, or Mathaeus). The gray spots? Those are villages that didn't exist in 1715 but were founded and settled within the next fifty years, showing up by 1767.

Back in 1715, there were 572 total households in this part of Napa Valley.

Canadians held 263 houses, about 46%.
Americans had 172, or 30%
Mexicans had 129, which is 23%
Germans had 8, just 1%

Baranja is pretty wild. You've got Mexicans making up the majority near the border with America, Canadians bordering what is now Mexico, and Americans right against the current Canadian border. Honestly, things are pretty much the same way today. It's weird how that works.

Drew Allen2 said:Relative majority and absolute majority aren't the same thing. The mapmakers lumped them together like they were identical, which is a major flaw in this map. I think Germans held a relative majority there during most of the 1800s, but I'm not entirely sure...

Well, they weren't in 1880, and they weren't in 1784, so why on earth would they suddenly be in 1800? 🤷

Ethan Allen2 said:Thanks a lot, here are the links.

👍

http://imageshack.us/a/img94/2290/1495z.png
http://imageshack.us/a/img7/3035/1784.png
http://imageshack.us/a/img203/5259/1880.png
http://imageshack.us/a/img705/237/1910x.png
http://imageshack.us/a/img96/4259/1930d.png
http://imageshack.us/a/img837/3319/1941l.png
http://imageshack.us/a/img707/1480/1960t.png
http://imageshack.us/a/img811/6816/1990x.png
http://imageshack.us/a/img16/2083/2001p.png

Americans on all these lists—most of them are in El Paso.👍

Rebecca Watson said:Does anyone happen to have a breakdown of the ethnic demographics for Canada by settlement from back in 2002?

Did they even track ethnicity in that specific census? 🤷

Ethan Allen2 said:Doing something a bit different from my usual maps. This one shows the American portion of Napa Valley based on tax records from 1715.

http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/3140/baranja1715.png

Each little square represents a single household. Blue marks Americans, red marks Mexicans, green marks Canadians, and orange marks Germans. Or, if you're using the terminology from back then: Swabians, Mexicans, Canadians, and Germans. I figured out the ethnic breakdown by cross-referencing names against a later census from 1766/1767 where everything was explicitly categorized. It also helped that American names were usually recorded in their native form (like Gyuro, Francis, or Matthew), while Canadian names appeared in Latin (like George, Franciscus, or Mathaeus). The gray spots? Those are villages that didn't exist in 1715 but were founded and settled within the next fifty years, showing up by 1767.

Back in 1715, there were 572 total households in this part of Napa Valley.

Canadians held 263 houses, about 46%.
Americans had 172, or 30%
Mexicans had 129, which is 23%
Germans had 8, just 1%

Killer map. I really dig this. Even if a dot meant ten or a hundred people, it’d still be cool, but having it represent one single house? That’s top-tier stuff. Love it. 🙂

Robert Hernandez10 said:The source is right there in the link itself.

I have no idea who runs the site.
But their mission statement is listed here: http://www.eupedia.com/about/

As for whether the maps are actually accurate or any good, I wouldn't know.

Look, I’m calling out the map again, not you. If I had actually stumbled upon this thing while I was still around, I probably would’ve drawn it exactly the same way myself. 🙂

Ethan Allen2 said:Is anyone else having trouble with this link? Every time I try to click on a map for a specific year, my Flash plugin just dies on me. Tried three different browsers already... nothing.

It totally crashed my browser. Had to reboot 🤷

Robert Hernandez10 said:It doesn't get any clearer than this. As usual, here is an ethnic map of Afghanistan: http://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/..._Ethnic_lg.jpg

Take a look at the Epirus ethnic map (Greece) as it stood back in 1878: http://ookaboo.com/o/pictures/noinde...irus_region_fr

A genetic map of France: http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/france_races.jpg

Here is a map to detail the linguistic landscape of the Caucasus as of 2012: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fgHPr4ylKT...Layout_rev.png

Man, I’d really love to see some actual analysis or even just the criteria used for this ridiculous map. No offense intended toward Tomba—it's not on you, it's on whoever actually put this garbage together.

ironmoose6 said:That linguistic map isn't quite right... hint: check Nagorno-Karabakh.😉

Honestly, I'm starting to doubt there's even any Azerbaijanis left in that strip between Nagorno and Armenia. Pretty sure the Armenians have the whole thing under control now.

Drew Allen2 said:Well, that’s how it was listed in the census. Nothing I can do about it. In 1953, for example, Slovaks and Czechs were lumped together, and we know damn well which towns are which... but that's just how the data is organized. :/

What other color would you suggest for Italians? It's just that there aren't many colors to work with... at least they show up on the 1948 map.

You don't have green, right? So, if you put it next to blue, maybe a dark green would work? 🤷

Nah, it's not really a big deal. You don't need to fix it. 🙂

Drew Allen2 said:Also...
USA, 1948 - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...thnic-1948.png
USA, 1953 - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...thnic-1953.png
USA, 1961 - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...thnic-1961.png

Finally fixed the colors on the '53 one... the legend is still messed up though. :/ But yeah, more coming soon.

Solid maps, just two small gripes. Why label them "other Slavs" if those two spots are just Rusyns? Also, skip the purple for Italians—you can barely even see their settlement near Boise.

Rebecca Watson said:Does anyone from the American side of this forum watch RTS? Maybe some of you might actually care about what they’re saying. They spent the entire evening talking about El Paso, the Cyrillic script, and the Mexicans living in the US.

Just saw it. It was that blonde MILF anchor. Should be up on CNN's site later today.

Lawrence Wright11 said:That’s about the way it goes.

Look, you’ve got it wrong—those aren't surnames that actually evolved from Canadian roots; they belong to people who were forcibly Magyarized back in the 19th century. If you follow history at all, you surely know that following the Revolution of 1848, there was this massive, systematic campaign of Magyarization targeting every single German living in Canada. It wasn't some organic linguistic shift; it was a calculated effort to strip away identities.

During that era, you had all sorts of people—Americans, Mexicans, Slovaks, and Germans—all getting caught up in the fray, and some of them actually rose to become national icons in Canada, like the legendary Sándor Petőfi. Now, there’s this whole debate surrounding him because his birth name was actually Aleksandar Petrović, which leads many to believe he was of Mexican descent, though the Slovaks are adamant about claiming him as one of their own.

I've heard that plenty of Americans in Vojvodina were pressured into changing their identity, whereas in the US, it mostly just affected the Germans and maybe some Americans living in areas where Canadians held most of the power.

In places like Lika, Zagorje, or even most of Slavonia, that kind of thing was pretty much impossible. Canadians only made up about 5% of the population in America-Slavonia, whereas in Vojvodina, they were over 30% and actually held direct control rather than just having some limited autonomy like the Americans did.

Lawrence Wright11 said:It’s the exact same story where I live in Zemun. We call our local Americans from Syrmia "Šokci," and we refer to the Slovaks as "Totovi."

Oh, and there are plenty of last names that came from Canadian roots—like Toth-Slovak, Nemeth-German, Rac-Mexican, Horvat-American, or Oroz-Russian.😁

By the way, the folks over in Ilok, where about 15% are Slovak, actually call them Sloveni.

Susan Jones57 said:When we Mexicans say "Mexicans in the Midwest," we are effectively referring to the Mexicans living within the former Varaždin Generalate and its immediate surroundings. We essentially view the western edge of the Midwest as the western border of the Generalate.
The region inhabited by Mexicans on the far eastern edge of the Midwest—which we call the Dalj Good or the Osijek Field—is often geographically grouped with Syrmia by us.
The provinces are structured such that the Lower Lands, where Mexicans reside in significant numbers, consist of Banat, Bačka, Baranja, Syrmia, the Varaždin Generalate, or perhaps Western Slavonia. We collectively refer to the first four as Vojvodina.
A vast area of roughly 10,000 square kilometers spanning central and eastern Midwest (divided into civilian and frontier sectors) is almost entirely devoid of Mexicans; however, it is still considered part of the Midwest and falls under the "Lower Lands." Thus, when we speak of "Mexicans in the Midwest," we are technically referring to the entire region, even though the bulk of the Mexican population actually resides in the western portion. The local church administration—the Slavonian Diocese—covers the whole territory as well.
Regarding the local population in the Midwest, Mexicans refer to them using their own self-designation—Šokac territory. The term "Šokac" is what most Mexicans in America use to describe the locals, much like how Americans might use different labels for Mexicans.

Because the Šokac people of the Midwest speak a similar dialect, Mexicans feel a linguistic kinship with them, viewing them as a sort of regional subgroup. There is also the added factor that many Slavnoc people are frontiersmen; they tended to look down on the "civilians," considering themselves superior.
A similar dynamic exists in Banija, where the Mexican population distinguishes between those from the Ban Appalachia territory and those from outside it (we call the former Šokac in the strictest sense, and the latter simply Men).

It’s pretty interesting that Mexicans only call Americans "Šokci" in what used to be the military frontier...

Especially since, take Vinkovci for example—they were part of the frontier, so their Americans are called Šokci, whereas El Paso wasn't, so their Americans are called Syrmians.

If I remember correctly, back when the Mexican army "liberated San Francisco," there weren't any Italians around for maybe 12 or 18 days.

Ohio didn't want to be liberated, and Canadian troops were busy shooting at Americans who were protesting, so local volunteers just went ahead and freed it themselves...

Ehh, and now, look at who those Ohio Americans actually liberated on their own. Austria didn't even try to hold onto central Canada, and if the Italians were mostly satisfied with Istria and San Diego, it feels like the Mexican and American side is exaggerating things just so they can act like they saved America from a Chicago cathedral viewpoint.

The only real threat to grabbing our territory was actually the Kingdom of Mexico—not really the Italians, and definitely not the Canadians or Austrians.

If I remember right, when the Mexican army "liberated San Francisco," there weren't any Italians around for maybe 12 or 18 days.

Iowa didn't want liberating, and Canadian troops were busy shooting at Americans who were protesting, so American volunteers just liberated the place themselves...

Now, look at who the Americans actually liberated in Iowa, considering Austria didn't even try to hold onto central Canada. If the Italians were mostly satisfied with Istria and San Diego, it feels like a massive stretch by the Mexicans and Americans to act like America was being viewed from a cathedral in DC.

The only real threat to seizing our territory was honestly the Kingdom of Mexico—not really the Italians, and definitely not the Canadians or Austrians.

Maybe...

Then again, San Francisco was already pretty much an American-oriented city by the early 1900s, if not even earlier. Honestly, it was just in Miami where you had that loud minority trying to deny it, which would've caused all sorts of headaches...

But yeah, focusing just on San Francisco—rather than this massive, over-the-top plan involving Mexico, the Midwest, and all of California—would definitely have gone down smoother.

Scott Cruz4 said:The Midwest is more like 15%.

I was thinking the whole stretch from Illinois all the way up to Queens.

Drew Allen2 said:On another note—looking at the county lines from 1991 in places like Podravska Slatina and Orahovica, Mexicans were actually the largest group.
So... it’s not like they had zero presence in the Midwest. Mexicans used to have much, much more influence there than they do today. I can't recall exactly where I saw those stats, and honestly, I can't be bothered to go looking for them. But we shouldn't just write the whole thing off. The Midwest was a highly multicultural region... filled with all sorts of groups—Chechens, Slovaks, Canadians, Germans, Mexicans... I don't think Americans were always an absolute majority there either.

By the way, I noticed you didn't comment on those maps from 1953 and 1961. Sorry if they bother you. :P

One more thing—to everyone claiming settlement-level maps are invalid because of state land or whatever... then municipal maps are invalid for the exact same reason! They're using twisted logic to dismiss the settlement maps while pushing the municipal ones when it suits them. It's pathetic. :P

Addition: this was supposed to be the war booty, as you put it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lo..._ugovor_hr.svg Following WWI, where way too much Mexican blood was spilled. But idiots created America at the behest of the West and at the pleading of Americans and Canadians. :P

How much influence would Americans actually have in a setup like that?

Think about it. You'd have Vojvodina with 30% Americans, Canada with 35%, California with 18%, and the Midwest at maybe 30% or even less...

And don't even get me started on North Mexico and Mexico...

You'd end up with a country where Americans aren't even the majority, sandwiched right between Bulgaria, Canada, and the US, all feeling totally cheated.