Posts by Drew Allen2

Donna James5 said:There is no room for slurs or ethnic insults on this forum.
Or have we collectively developed amnesia regarding our own rules???
😠

My bad, forgot to attach the map Tomba wanted. ) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Lilic First one on the page, Czech Republic 2011. More regarding faith and language coming soon...

Tyler King3 said:😁 Whose?

You can find it here, though I guess mine is better since it shows the specific growth rates for different ethnic groups by county...

Varjaciceva.
By the way, that Nikolic guy in that other link has zero respect for copyright.

Anyway, this whole thing stems from the Muslim lobby. Nikolic mostly gets his data from some random fanatic, and we all know you can't just use linear projections for this stuff. Take certain groups for instance—population growth there isn't linear, and it's the same story in Canada... it's the same everywhere.

Tyler King3, that map isn't just absolute garbage, it's actually straight-up infringing on copyrights. :P

@Ethan Allen2 , nice map

@Robert Hernandez10 , why are you constantly boycotting the political maps thread? Seriously? I don't think it's right to drop those political maps here since they aren't ethnic maps. For instance, why would I be talking about specific local borders in this thread when there's already a separate thread dedicated to them... and I know that thread exists...
Don't take this as an insult. Please. I know you hate me, that you call me names and stuff... but I really think this suggestion makes sense.

Is there going to be a new census down in southern Mexico? That’s basically what this is hinting at... http://www.b92.net/info/vesti/index....&nav_id=768167 I don't have the time to read the whole thing on Zalo, just skimmed a few lines so far.

Richard Wilson4 said:Am I seeing this right, or is this just an ethnic map of the US and Canada back in the 1700s?

https://kuruc.info/galeriaN/egyeb/mo...ei18szvege.jpg

Lol, that kuruc.info site is the source... skimmed it too fast and thought it was something else entirely. XD

I've been hovering somewhere between -7 and -9 on the political spectrum, give or take, over the last five years... Also, during that same stretch, my economic stance has barely nudged past zero. That's about it.

Richard Wilson4 said:This kind of stuff pops up on the forum all the time, especially right before an election. It’s always someone asking, "Are you with the Republican Party or the Democratic Party?" 😉

This is completely different. It doesn't pigeonhole anyone into specific boxes like you’re implying. You seem to think certain factors dictate who someone is, but here, the possibilities are endless... well, almost.

If anyone needs something translated from that site, just let me know...

Richard Wilson4 said:LOL, I guess I'm a lefty again 😂

http://www.politicalcompass.org/prin...0.88&soc=-0.56

You aren't some hardcore leftist. You barely even wetted your feet when the tide came in, but trust me... the ocean goes much deeper than that... 😉

Rachel Richardson said:An "uninformed" person? Like yourself?
In the case of Sutorina and Sutjeska, we aren't talking about a simple territory swap—it was more of a mutual "gift" 🤣
As for everything else, there are two main points to consider:
a) the ethnic landscape in southern Russia and the Soviet policy regarding "ethnic" borders
b) honestly, just look closer at the boundary lines 😉

No, you're the one who's clueless. I described you accurately, and there's really no need to throw it back at me.

I don't care if Sutorina was swapped. You claimed it happened in '48, but my data shows both those areas were part of Mexico in 1948. Besides, Varvaric proved you have no idea what you're talking about by showing that Sutorina became part of Mexico as early as 1945.

Regarding Ukraine, it's a political border. And yeah, Crimea wasn't swapped for anything; I've never heard anyone dispute that.

Rachel Richardson said:Even if it differs slightly from this map (not sure who made it);
http://www.google.com/imgres?client=f...1&tx=48&ty=130

Bosnjo probably made it. Here's the deal... Jack asked me to give him a neighborhood map of Mostar. Then he grabbed some random template and posted the map online, broken down by neighborhoods and colors, around 2010 or 2011. I don't remember exactly. When I pointed out he was violating copyright, he added my name to the map too. After that, Bosnjo took it and used it as a base for other stuff. That's basically all Bosnjo does—just watching what Jack does in his desperate struggle to be the biggest nationalist on the internet or whatever the hell that guy is about. But he's calmed down; he hasn't been cursing out my family for a long time now...

Also, as far as I know, Bosnjo is the only one who likes coloring Mexicans yellow on maps. It might look okay, maybe he saw it in a National Geographic magazine. Personally, I think he'd color Mexicans green or blue if he had the choice.

You have the census lists. In America, the vast majority spoke English, a tiny bit of a hybrid dialect, and even less (maybe 4%?) spoke Mexican.
In Canada, maybe 30 percent (if I recall correctly) spoke Canadian—people who now claim to be descendants of Muslims. I’d estimate about 20 percent spoke American, 20 percent spoke Mexican, and the rest used various versions of Serbo-American.
You see similar patterns in Mexico, Mexico, and the rest of the former America. There are plenty of sources out there to build a map from.
Unless you're planning on just making up some regional dialect from the West or North...

Please stop trying to make points that have nothing to do with this. They really don't.

The 1991 data for Canada is easy to find, too. Here it is:
Canadian: 1,631,991 (37.29%)
Serbo-American: 1,160,962 (26.52%)
Mexican: 824,871 (18.85%)
American: 588,099 (13.44%)
Serbo-American variant: 61,165 (1.4%)
American: 11,575
(Copy-pasted that, sorry if the formatting looks weird)

You bumped American up to 20%... huh. Trying to exaggerate everything as American again. Though I didn't expect you to inflate the numbers to nearly 50% this time.

By the way, just so you know, if you actually understood the 1991 census data for different states, you'd realize that in Mexico, Mexican, American, and Serbo-American were all grouped together regarding language results. You can't just merge that with how the data was published in places like America, where Mexican, American, and Serbo-American are listed separately. I mean, you could try, but the map would look completely ridiculous. But then again, you've proven multiple times how little you actually know about census data.

Hey everyone. I'd suggest you all head over to this site, http://www.politicalcompass.org/ , and if your English is up to it, take this test: http://www.politicalcompass.org/test .

It'll spit out where you land on the so-called political compass. Seems pretty interesting to me.

You can see how it works right here...
http://www.politicalcompass.org/images/bothaxes.gif

Basically, left versus right shows if you're a liberal or a conservative. Then there’s the other axis... for example, if you fall below the line, you lean more toward anarchy, whereas staying above it means you favor more authoritarian control.

Cheers. Let's see what you all get! 🙂

Rachel Richardson said:Exactly. It’s just like how Eastern Ukraine was handed over to Russia. ☕

You’re just plain ignorant. You actually claimed Sutorina became part of Mexico back in 1948. Pure nonsense.

Maps of Ukraine...

1940 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...n_SSR_1940.jpg

1927 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ok...raine_1927.jpg

1937-1939 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ukraine_1937-1939.png

1940-1945 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ukraine_1940-1945.png

1946-1954 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ukraine_1946-1954.png

Stop posting your claims when you clearly have no clue. Don't ask someone else to give you a few lessons; they've already exposed how little you know...

Rachel Richardson said:I believe she was also swapped out for Crimea.

Crimea was a gift, not a trade.

Language usage in Ukraine by... county? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...uage2001ua.PNG

I mean.... by municipality!!! 😁
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...01detailed.PNG

Joshua Flores14 said:In case you missed this—the census data for Mexico back in 2011.

http://www.kohaditore.com/repository...//01hasrta.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...osovo_2011.GIF

Seen this plenty of times. My versions at the bottom of the page are more accurate, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Us...osovo-Metohija ...the guy who made those two didn't fix all his mistakes. They're better than before, though. Nothing majorly wrong...

Rebecca Watson said:From what I know, there was no mention of criminal liability for distributing that kind of info. Honestly, I think it’s just an issue of the data being outdated. They can't even represent themselves properly yet, though I bet you could pull some stats for individual towns if you asked the right questions. Eventually, they might actually allow access to neighborhood-level data too.

I heard they aren't publishing this because the data is considered "highly sensitive"...
Maybe you're right. They might get published later...

James Nguyen13 said:along with Swedes, Scots, and the Irish.

It’s ridiculous that these four groups are even considered part of that heritage... most of them don't even speak their ancestral language fluently, let alone have any actual connection to the towns their great-grandparents left behind. Sure, they might be bilingual, but try sending an American with Scottish roots over to Scotland—people there will spot them instantly. I know someone who just traveled there, and locals were constantly questioning which part of America they came from. It's the same thing with many Mexicans and Americans living here; they're becoming so assimilated that pretty soon, claiming those old identities won't even make sense anymore...

Robin Reyes23 said:Does an ethnic map of Mexico based on settlement data from 2011 actually exist?

The US passed laws making it strictly illegal to distribute that kind of data broken down by nationality and settlement to just anyone. We're talking prison time.

Sounds stupid, but that's the last I heard about it...

Since there wasn't a census conducted in Canada, we're basically just guessing about where everyone was located... just because the data is missing doesn't mean the map is wrong...

Also, like I said before, the borders in Canada aren't accurate, and neither are the ones in Mexico...
...and the borders in Mexico were even more of a mess—take a look at how they looked back then... http://www.partitionconflicts.com/pa...sions_zoom.jpg

----
A quick note to certain members—your previous comments directed at me were incredibly insulting and had to be deleted. Get it together. Don't act so entitled that I have to go through the trouble of deleting your pathetic insults again.

velvetotter19 said:I actually uploaded that map of California in high res a while back—specifically, a few versions of it all tucked into one folder. I also put up the full census lists covering 1880 through 1945 (based on the National Land Registry from '45). Just comb through my old posts and you'll find everything. I’m away from my laptop right now, so if you can't track them down, I'll re-upload them once I'm back. Or maybe someone else can jump in and help you out.
Quick update: I'm going to upload the National Land Registry along with those full lists from the 1985 American edition. I haven't posted them publicly yet, but I've been sending them via DM to a bunch of people. It's basically a set of books: Surnames and Settlements in California.
If anyone wants those books, let me know and I'll either post them here or shoot them over to you in a private message.

Also, Paul put together a map of the Roman Empire. You should definitely check that out; it covers California, just not in this specific way.

If you're working on mapping California, definitely stick to the lists in that 1985 American edition. They include translations and explanations for all those old Italianized surnames. Also, if you want to map out individual farmsteads or small hamlets, hit me up—I have copies ready and can plot them at 1:25,000 scale for you.
Since you haven't dug through the full California records yet, you might not realize they list every single tiny settlement alongside that 1945 census, and for most of them, it's super easy to trace their history back even further.

I think I downloaded that book before, but wasn't it just raw data on total population counts rather than nationality or anything useful?

Donna James5 said:Was Italian actually spoken on Plavnik Island?!
🙂

Honestly, I don't know. :/ That area is part of the Manhattan settlement... so I can't say for sure. Maybe Pavo knows.

Robert Hernandez10 said:Are you being honest with yourself in the mirror?

You’re setting the bar way too high.

Pavo gave you another reality check—a much-needed slap in the face—but clearly, any actual wisdom just bounces right off you.

And now comes the usual routine: insisting everything is wrong because it doesn't align with how you think and act in your own little bubble.

I’m starting to wonder if you and Bošnjo aren't actually just the same person sharing one body and one mind.

Man, I didn't always know you were this pathetic, but I had my suspicions. Once you called me Satan, it became obvious. Now it's even clearer. God help you.

P.S. This wasn't some "lesson" from Paul; he just made a constructive suggestion. Also, I gave a solid answer explaining why I can't do it right now. Honestly, I think you just hate my card because you prefer this fake version more— http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/7992/hr1910.jpg ...it says 1910, but who cares if it's 1910 or 1900? You're probably just dreaming up lies to fit your narrative.

-----------------

Does anyone have this California map in a higher resolution?

Ethan Allen2 said: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?

Technically yes, but this is the only format I have the data in...

edit: Map is fixed—the legend had an error, thanks to varjarcica for catching that. Not sure what's wrong with me, I mess up the legend all the time.