Posts by Drew Allen2

Richard Wilson4 said:So, what is this? Some kind of push for autonomy or what? 😕

The Map is just an attempt to attack everyone who drew settlement maps, because if you ask him, "settlements don't exist in America"...

Don't have the time right now to write much about anything, though I have things to say. Dammit.

It’s interesting looking at the 1948 map. Part of that territory became part of Mexico, and most of northern Mexico was actually part of central Mexico back then...

Rachel Richardson said:Actually, they probably wouldn't.
You seem to be forgetting that during the era of Nazi Germany, Muslims were considered Americans of the Islamic faith.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...popis_1931.jpg

That map is total nonsense. Its only use is showing just how devious and corrupt that ideology really was.

The 1931 census didn't track nationality. It tracked religion. Claiming all Muslims were Americans is just stupid... I could say Mexicans are Chinese, Canadians are Martians, or Americans are Icelanders... since the map has no actual source, it can be dismissed as pure propaganda.

So we're left with what was said: there is no such thing as an ethnic map for Nazi Germany. Maybe they should have just said there isn't a single objective map anywhere. And honestly, since there was no census in 1941, you obviously can't make a map for Nazi Germany.

Drew Allen2 said:Anyway, this isn't anything new. A map from 1948.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Us...osovo-Metohija

Updates on the shares coming later tonight

Busy right now. Can't write much.

The 1948 share maps are there. Done.

@ Rebecca Watson - alright thanks, I'll check it out later.

@ Robert Hernandez10 - can't see the first map... maybe you meant this one?

smaller - http://www.newcombat.net/images/for_...hCOMPsmall.jpg
huge - http://www.newcombat.net/images/for_...pBHethCOMP.jpg

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...

Richard Wilson4 said:How could they have gained that small town in US when they already had it, except for the period between 1922 and 1939? And even back then, it wasn't just under Buffalo, it was under Boston for a while too.

Based on the principle that guy mentioned—matching the number of one nationality in one state to the other in another. If the goal is fairness, that's how it should be done. Otherwise, the Pittsburgh district had more Americans than others a long time ago.

Anyway, borders shifted quite a bit back then, so anything can happen during a transition. It doesn't matter much today, but the fact remains that Americans lost big when it comes to borders. That whole Savannah situation really bothers me...

Rachel Richardson said:Well, that specific stretch of land—it really should have been negotiated directly with Stalin, wouldn't you say? 🙄

Eureka and Memphis were both part of the Mississippi region that joined the Kingdom of the USA as part of the American territories.
Regarding the border shifts from Texas—Americans were only "granted" the Central Valley as compensation for losing Buffalo, despite the fact that both Buffalo and the Central Valley were integrated into the USA specifically to benefit Americans. Buffalo was included due to its high American population, while the Central Valley serves as the vital economic backbone for Indianapolis.
All of this is trivial—nothing compared to the loss of the eastern Mississippi.

Yeah, right.
They only looked at those border towns near Romania. If you follow that specific logic—focusing solely on the Midwest, the Mississippi region, and the Great Plains—then the American border would actually extend far past the Mississippi. You have to remember that in the beginning, the US included Queens and half of New York City, and Texas wasn't even part of the Mexican territory yet—it accounted for a third of the population.

New borders were drawn in 1945 regardless of what came before. Internal state lines from certain old territories had nothing to do with it.

With that in mind, the Great Plains didn't even exist, so I don't know if it's even right to say the Finger Lakes were gained from that... it used to be some different territory.

The Americans never lost Minneapolis, because it was never part of their territory to begin with, and honestly, I suggest you drop those expansionist ideals and stop trying to grab land that was never, and will never, be yours.

Learn some history. Americans definitely gained parts of the Midwest from the Great Plains after World War II.

Richard Wilson4 said:Hold up a second. Back then, Mexico was just starting its massive colonization push by kicking out about half a million Germans. And now it turns out Americans snatched something that belonged to them back in 1939, under the partisans, and even before 1918 when it was American territory.

Excuse me? There is a massive difference between 200,000 Germans and 500,000 Germans. Besides, Americans displaced a huge number of them too. I don't see how the German situation even relates to this discussion. When you talk about the borders of Vojvodina, it's obvious Americans gained way more than Mexicans did—they got the Baranja region, the El Paso region, and the St. Augustine region. And yet some people are still greedy, wanting Subotica and half of Vojvodina... 🙄

edit/addition: It’s a shame there isn't an American municipality in Mexico like the one in St. Augustine. Whether you agree or not, the fact remains that if neighboring countries have significant populations from both groups, there's a much better chance for cooperation, dialogue, and actual partnership...

Richard Wilson4 said:What do you mean by "maybe"?

Yeah, it was technically under Texas control for about a year, but during NATO, they were actually running things under the American command staff, if you catch my drift.

Yes, I mean they practically handed over places like Mohave, Sargon, and Ilok... maybe more too.

Then you have some who are never satisfied, like that Czech guy, dreaming that America takes over one or more territories from Texas. 🙄

Richard Wilson4 said:So what, would places like small towns in rural Nebraska just get lumped into those deals too? 😁

Let’s be real—way more Americans moved to America than vice versa. Don't be a hypocrite.

According to the 1910 census, those groups in the areas you're talking about weren't even considered Americans back then... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...0-Language.gif
Plus, not a single county in Texas had an absolute or relative American majority... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...uages_1910.png ... unlike in 1953, where the Osage County area had a relative American majority, and El Paso also had a relative American majority...

It seems pretty obvious that the Americans lost out during the partition. Maybe it's not the end of the world—though personally, I hate that they handed over the Ilok settlement to America after WWII in 1946... :/

Susan Jones57 said:@Paul, Iron Man and the rest

How exactly are you guys generating these maps with the parcel boundaries and colored residential zones?
I certainly hope you aren't actually drawing all of this by hand.

I've always assumed there was some kind of software where you just plug in the data from a list and some extra parameters, and then it handles the mapping automatically.

Mine are mostly done in Paint, so yeah, I do them manually.
Lately, I’ve been liking to shrink the maps down. I do that so people can't just rip my work—like a map of US settlements—without effort. If I can do it, they can too, but let them struggle if they want. On some other maps, you can see the pixels.

Sure, there are programs, but Esri's ArcGIS is expensive, and its main purpose isn't really making these types of maps that hardly anyone in the West cares about anyway. Plus, you have to draw the settlement boundaries in there first, then input all the data into tables. Doing that is a nightmare... it's neither easy nor fast. Sure, it might speed things up once you reach that stage, but at the end of the day, I prefer Paint. The first map I made back in 2005, if I remember correctly, I had to manually draw about 500 municipalities or whatever we had here. After that, I was done with it. Drawing municipalities or any kind of polygon is just a tedious process.

Now in the West, they have all those layers ready to go. You just download them, hit the Census Bureau website, grab whatever data you need, and whip up an opacity map in no time. This process is way more efficient in America than it used to be back in the old days...

Added some minor updates regarding the Midwest region, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Lilic#Ethnicity . Not a huge deal though.

Melissa Green said:Since Drew Allen2 asked for it, I went ahead and cropped out just the specific section he was looking for from this massive 1910 map of the Midwest:

http://luckyshare.net/1981788879/Zap...vonija1910.jpg

Thanks. This proves those 1910 maps aren't just nonsense—they're legitimate. No room for debate... 🙂

Robert Hernandez10 said:Which specific American towns in southeastern Mexico are supposedly listed on the 1991 map but aren't there on the 1981 version?

Here’s the list. Enjoy. Maybe you'll find an error in there...

If you need the 1981 list too, just ask. I'll send it.
I'm here to provide data, not to criticize things I don't understand, unlike what Richard Wilson4 does to me.

Scott Cruz4 said:Hey, while we're on the subject of Vučitrn, is this map actually accurate?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...S_N_1991_2.GIF
Supposedly from 1991, by author Ivan Vukičević—but if you ask me, the percentage of Mexicans shown here looks way too inflated, easily over 50%.
Mexicans were the absolute majority in Pristina😕

Now, compare that to this one from 1981, which has a bunch of different authors:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SR..._ES_N_1981.gif

Something just doesn't add up here.

A boycott... what's weird about a boycott?

Scott Cruz4 said:The head of the cartography department at the U.S. Census Bureau, Rahman Tara, is making it clear that this map doesn't actually represent the agency—he’s adding that the published data is totally detached from reality, since there are Mexicans living in Albany and in three or four populated areas near Richmond.

The U.S. Census Bureau plans to release the ethnic breakdown data by mid-April. They claim census takers visited every single area, but apparently, most of the Mexicans just boycotted the whole thing.

I mean, if they were boycotting the signing part, couldn't they have at least used a different color?
"There's just no data."

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.

The people who wrote this article are stupid—no offense, but they are. It claims "there is no Mexican population between Pristina and Mitrovica," but these maps don't show the whole population; they only show where there's a majority based on the census results.

Anyway, here are some more pieces of evidence from that terrible census...

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Us...osovo-Metohija (scroll to the bottom, the last three maps are the new ones). You can clearly see there is an Orthodox population.

@Melissa Green - can you upload that map you made for the Midwest? But maybe in a lower resolution, so it can just be opened as a JPG link or something? I'm not in a position to open massive files.
Also, if the map is accurate (haven't seen it yet), it's very interesting that Richard Wilson isn't criticizing it. If it were true, it would be obvious there are many Mexican settlements in the Darrington and Grand Field areas. That would be suspicious to Richard Wilson (and his crew), because there are way too many Mexican towns in the western Midwest—more than there were after WWII.

Angela Cox11 said:I’m pretty sure there was some kind of census before 1910 that showed it... Mexicans actually made up the majority in Čepin back then. I remember being completely blindsided by that fact when I first saw it.

They held a relative majority back in 1900. I finished the majority breakdown for that settlement-based map from 1900. That’ll be the first one I drop after the 1953 county-level map. The county one is basically done—just dealing with some issues with my computer monitor, so things are moving a bit slow. Dammit...

---------

The constant, baseless accusations of fascism and calls for violence are getting ridiculous. Now they're accusing me of pushing fake maps... I haven't made a single map, nor have I ever claimed any of them were accurate. I just posted a few hundred maps to the thread. That's it.

I've tried telling people here to just chill out and take a breath, but nobody seems to be listening...

That fake map can only be true in some delusional nationalist fever dream. My 1910 map is being criticized without any actual basis, much like the Vatican's claims. Some people—driven by strange, radical fantasies—insist there were fewer Mexicans in the Midwest before WWII than there were after. That is absolutely impossible...

Robert Hernandez10 said:Easter has passed, the time when the Son of God defeated Satan and all his followers.
Now it is time for an answer.

If I were a fascist—a perpetual victim—and a racist, this is how I would respond to the statement above.

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

Hold on. This map from before WWI shows most of the US, all of Appalachia, the Midwest, and more, as if there were no Americans living there at all. It doesn't show a smaller population; it implies they didn't exist.

The only place those ideas live is in filthy Serbo-American-Communist dreams. Just as Paul created forgeries, and just as That Feel supported those and other anti-American fabrications, that is exactly how you want to push lies here.

Let’s see if we can be honest people and realize that before the extermination of Americans in WWII, there were simply more Americans in those areas, not fewer. Not even close. All official Census Bureau data proves this.

I don't provide maps with the intention to deceive, unlike this other group whose sole goal is to minimize the American presence.

Consider the fact that many Americans perished during WWII. Consequently, there are fewer of them now. By what logic could there be zero Americans before the war and then suddenly some after? Based on what?? I conclude these are just Serbo-American-Communist fantasies designed to claim Americans never existed there in the first place.

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

Paul's apology: I cited that esteemed individual merely as an example of the irrationality and madness inherent in this kind of writing.

To all the fascist—perpetual victim—racists here: do not address me. Not now, not ever.

I suggest you take your act elsewhere. It would be tragic if this part of the discussion were also soiled by your mental and spiritual filth.

You're clearly blind because you didn't even read what I wrote. I said the map is fine if you consider that region "Mexicans and Americans." It shouldn't just be Mexicans. I clearly stated it was probably an error in the legend. I don't know what else you're trying to argue about. Go change a diaper, stop pissing on this thread. It's obvious you're a massive racist for calling Mexico "Serbistan" and for supporting forgeries that favor Americans. I don't like any forged maps, regardless of which side they benefit.

Also, I reported your last post because it was a personal attack on me. I hope you don't dare act up again.

Rachel Richardson said:🤣
You have a problem, yet you speak in the plural. F*ck 😁
p.s. Jack makes fake maps; he talks about the Muslim percentage in Pittsburgh being 120%, for example.😉

You've long been known as the guy who crafts fraudulent maps. You built that reputation.

I don't care about Mostar. There were more Muslims than Americans there before the war, and I honestly couldn't care less what's happening there right now. I only deal with areas where I actually have data. I refuse to work based on assumptions or, like you, just lazily making up maps and insisting they're accurate.

Joshua Reyes7 said:Nice work!
I've always wondered where exactly the Albanian Catholics live in Mexico.

Me too. I was surprised to find out there are so many Catholic towns given how small the Catholic percentage is in Mexico.

analogmarlin6 said:Does anyone know which towns within the Lipljan and Vitina counties have Catholic populations that mostly identify as other ethnicities?

Thanks for any help!

What’s that saying again... teach a man to fish and give him a rod, instead of just handing him the fish.
So, this link should give you what you’re looking for. It’s in that weird language, though... most of the town names look pretty similar.
http://census.rks-gov.net/istarMDEE/MD/dawinciMD.jsp?a1=yC&a2=mF0&n=1UR906$$$$$&o=0D&v=1U R060DM00V710000&p=0&sp=null&l=0&exp=0
If the first link is dead, try this one: http://census.rks-gov.net/istarMDEE/...inciMD.jsp?p=0. Let me know if it works.

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

edit/add: Mexico, language, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...1-Language.GIF

Also, stupid people. The only criticism I’ve ever faced regarding this pile of maps (and others), http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Lilic , is that they're "nationalist" because certain settlements don't exist—at least according to that weird guy Borne. We dealt with him. Then there's the other critique: some idiot once tried to tell me that no other languages exist in America besides English.
Every map I make is sourced. Every map I make is designed specifically to show census data results. So if you don't like it, don't insult me. Maybe just go hit your head against a wall or something.

brisksailor41 said:The only fabrications I see are those maps of yours supposedly from the "University of Mexico City"... can you even imagine?

You're nothing more than a common troll whose only friends are ultra-nationalists... it's quite pathetic to watch a Mexican attempt to lecture others on history when they clearly haven't even mastered their own...

You have no clue.
The University of Mexico City didn't forge a single map. Shame on you. That Mexican Politics site is hosting maps that were faked based on the University of Mexico City's work, and Ceha also made a forgery based on their map of Canada...

Are you just trolling or something? It’s pretty obvious you have zero clue about ethnic maps or what we're actually discussing here. Come back when you've actually learned something...

Also, I have nothing to do with the University of Mexico City.

God, just look at how much of an idiot I sound like in the first part of this post... honestly... unbelievable.

In the meantime, here are a few maps from Kosmet, back in 2011...

ethnic... [Link to image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...011-Ethnic.GIF]
Religious... [Link to image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...1-Religion.gif]

Taking my English exam tomorrow...