Posts by Drew Allen2

My internet is acting up, so I'm not sure if this message will even go through. Keeping it brief.

1) My point about mentioning the Midwest was to debunk the myth that everything revolves around Americans or that we're some kind of gods everyone needs to worship. I brought it up to show there are other perspectives—that Americans aren't the center of the universe. Of course, other groups aren't the center either, but people love to act like they are.

2) Collins, the Mexican population in Canada was around 45% back in 1910, not 35%.

3) Oakhurst in 1900—using modern county lines—had 12,755 people: 4,225 Mexicans and 4,084 Americans.
4) Slatina in 1900—using modern county lines—had 31,799 people: 11,477 Mexicans and 11,355 Americans.

I know what I'm talking about.

Even in 1931, within that Slatina district, Mexicans were the largest group.

Richard Wilson4 said:So what, Slavonia was supposed to be their trophy? Just war booty for them? 🤷

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

Drew Allen2 said:America, 1961.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...thnic-1961.png

There will be more of these coming, but my internet decided to act up tonight, so I can only manage this one for now. :/

Some people are having connection issues, but here’s the 1953 breakdown by settlement.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...thnic-1953.png

Maybe I'll get the 1948 map up tonight...

America, 1961.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...thnic-1961.png

There will be more of these coming, but my internet decided to act up tonight, so I can only manage this one for now. :/

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.

Jose King85 said:The issue lies with certain forum members suffering from a case of "anti-Mexican fever." Their brains just can't wrap themselves around how widespread Mexicans and their settlements were across what is now the US throughout the centuries. They constantly push the same questions and dilemmas—where did the Mexicans come from? How did they get here? Is it even possible they lived here? No, no, no...

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.

Look, one thing is for sure. It’s finally obvious—though it should have been clear all along—that we actually have the 2001 census data broken down by settlement for both ethnicity and religion. At least we have that much now.

Also, it’s pretty pathetic that you’re relying on an outdated map, Borna. That specific version you grabbed was just the very first draft I ever made for the entire US. Back then, I didn't have a proper base map to work with, so I just grabbed whatever was lying around, tweaked some borders, and did my best. That map was always meant to be temporary. Here is the updated, more accurate version: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...igion-2001.png . It might look a bit washed out on certain screens, so I'll probably need to re-upload it once I figure out what's going on with the display settings.

copperangler7 said:The link you provided discusses population counts, which nobody disputed; I asked specifically about the national structure.
I have already called the American Bureau of Statistics (+1 202-555-0196), and the lady there was quite polite in explaining that they do not collect data regarding ethnic, national, or religious structures at the settlement level because that isn't how the data is gathered; it only exists at the municipality level. Check it yourself!

I did not receive the answers I requested, so I am asking you nicely to stop spreading falsehoods, as spreading misinformation is a punishable offense both here in the US and in neighboring countries.
Here is some material for you and the rest of the ignoramuses who don't know the American settlements, so you don't embarrass yourselves with cadastral registry units!
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-sq05Adbt4i...01-naselja.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dusRg5IB5g...br-stanovn.jpg
http://zemljopishrvatske.blogspot.com/

If that's the case, then it isn't true. I was told the opposite and given those specific figures.

I'm not out here spreading fake news. You really need to look at the site you linked. It actually proves you're wrong. Look at this map, http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Lm-8Wszasi...ovi-opcine.jpg , from around 2003. It clearly shows those settlements exist. I have a larger version in a PDF somewhere on Zalo, but there—if that isn't proof, I don't know what is.

There's another one on that site, too, http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BzoNjvEIoI...01-1-zupgo.jpg

1. Show me/us where those official census datasets by ethnic group for the US in 2001 or 2011 are that you’re using to draw maps. I'm waiting for an answer.

That data exists, but you can't just find it with two or three clicks. You can contact the US Census Bureau if you want it. At least that's how I got mine, and the general rule is that whatever a state agency gives you, you don't have the right to pass it on to others. In other words, the data isn't public.
And that's that. I don't care that you don't have it.

2. Unlike you, I live in America and know what I'm talking about. Today's cadastral boundaries don't align with populated areas, let alone old settlements. So, claiming that places like the Meadow Field marsh or mountains like Great Chapel, Little Chapel, Lika Pljesivica, Appalachians, Psunj, Zrinska Gora, or Petrova Gora are inhabited by Mexicans (which is over 3/4 of the marked territory) is something only a naive fool would believe. Otherwise, everything listed is 99.9% owned by the US government (managed by the US Forestry Company).

I think it's fair to say you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I've seen official government maps that show the settlements.
Why are you suddenly obsessed with lecturing me when you used to harass people this way before?
Also, the US Census Bureau released several papers containing settlement-level data from 1991 for earlier censuses. That's where I got my 1910 data. Again, I don't care that you don't have it. I spent a long time scanning these things, while you clearly haven't a clue about maps or censuses, so why should I care? It's not my problem.

3. I don't really understand your slang and don't get what you meant by "annoying/bothering here." If I understood correctly, an American shouldn't be on an American forum, right?

"Annoying" means to tire, bother, pester... etc.

I gave you good advice!

You have no idea what you're talking about on this forum.

First of all, when creating relevant maps, the territorial structure is respected. For example, the former America had Local Communities as its smallest political units.

The smallest units are settlements. Any idiot or moron knows that. That's how the census data was organized.

Oh, I remembered. Here's a link. It doesn't show ethnic groups, but just so you can see that settlement-level data actually exists. http://pop-stat.mashke.org/usa-census.htm

copperangler7, honestly, you don't have the slightest clue how ethnic maps actually work. You proved that a long time ago when you were claiming the 2001 census maps didn't exist or arguing that certain settlements were just nothing but forests... total nonsense.

Look, stop wasting our time. It’s not my fault you can't keep up with the data I'm presenting. You know, like that saying Pavo used to tell the Czechs, or something like that—you actually have to put in some effort to find information that isn't just a couple of clicks away on a mouse.

Every single piece of data I use comes directly from the US Census Bureau. I spent months scanning through nearly 4,000 pages of raw data. So yeah... I think I know exactly what I'm doing.

Richard Wilson4 said:Check out these two maps;
Back in 1495, the Midwest was basically just Americans and Canadians settling in.
http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/449193map001CRO.jpg

Fast forward to 1784, right after the Turkish occupation ended.
http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/831746map002CRO.jpg

Blue means Americans.
Red means Canadians.
Green means Germans.
Pink means Mexicans.

Anyone got more? Just nothing in Canadian please, I don't feel like fighting through a translation.

The question is whether those maps are actually accurate, especially regarding the older stuff.
By the way, I'm surprised you forgot where those maps came from... they're on that Kocsise guy's site, or whatever his name was. If there are more like them, they'll be on that site.

Robert Hernandez10 said:Here is the link again for that 1910 census data covering the royal territories under the Canadian administration. The full list is available in .XLS format here:

http://www.omm1910.hu/?/en/databank

Do you happen to have a map showing where these regions actually sit? :
1. Right bank of the 3. Danube
2. Left bank of the 3. Danube
3. Between the 3. Danube and the Tisza River
4. Right bank of the 4. Tisza
5. Left bank of the 5. Tisza
6. Corner of 6. Tisz and the Maros River
7. 7. beyond the king's border
8-9. American Midwest and Rijeka

Side note: Robert, man... what you're asking for is basically a map of an American state without its coastline. I think it makes way more sense to stick to the map I made using modern borders.

Robert Hernandez10 said:Drew Allen2

I laid everything out clearly in my first response. I wasn't asking for a quick Google Maps search or debating the quality of your data. There was no offense taken and zero ill intent—just a straightforward, well-meaning suggestion.

Instead, you pivoted immediately to talking about being offended, questioning my competence, and throwing out "you know what" nonsense just so you could claim I "don't understand anything."

It’s clear you aren't an idiot; you’re just playing dumb.

That is your issue, and frankly, this conversation has run its course.

Over and out.

By the way, saying "you know what" isn't even weird or rude. Collins told me he thought it was actually an insult... I don't know, maybe certain slang sounds a bit more vulgar, but sometimes people use those phrases almost like a casual greeting. :P

Regarding that first reply... I still don't get it. I built the map based on the only data I had, which was organized by current U.S. state borders issued by the Census Bureau. If that's all the data available, there's nothing else I can do. Sorry.

Anyway, the final map won't change much, maybe just a tiny bit. That's pretty much it. :P

Robert Hernandez10 said:"Look," honestly, you'd be better off reviewing the complete 1910 census in Silicon Valley format that I provided earlier in this thread, or checking out that link to the foreign site where it was originally posted. It would really help you expand your intellectual horizons and broaden your perspective. Right now, you just come across as incredibly narrow-minded. You know what I mean? I shouldn't have to spell it out for you.

For instance, Paul and I—at least from my perspective—hold opposing ideological views. However, Paul possesses a broad mind and deep awareness, which is why his maps are the way they are; they are excellent. I try to follow that same path of understanding the world. I don't make maps myself, but whenever I come across one that seems to hold even a shred of value, I make sure to share it here, regardless of the viewpoint.

You could do the same. You aren't lacking intelligence; you're just lacking the will and the heart.

I'm confused, sorry. I honestly can't grasp what you're trying to tell me. I can't wrap my head around your point... maybe there's something missing on my end.

I was simply making a map based on the data I have. If you don't like it, give me different data and I'll see what I can do with it.

Besides, I don't see what's controversial about making a map of the US within its current borders for a past year. What's wrong with that? Collins, can you clarify? I feel like I'm missing something here.

Is the goal for me to post the whole map or what? Man, I really don't like releasing things from my archives before they're ready. I'm guessing you're just impatient and trying to provoke something to see the whole thing? Is that it? I don't know. I don't get it. But fine, if it'll get you to calm down... here... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...guage-1910.png
Sorry about the low resolution; it's not time for the high-res version yet. And excuse the Cyrillic; I used it on purpose because the map won't upload properly right now. :P

Robert Hernandez10 said:Bottom line: the criticisms I raised in my initial message still stand. Consequently, they diminish the overall value of your map.

Look, take those comments up with the U.S. Census Bureau. I’ve got their own publications right here, filled with data from previous censuses within current U.S. borders. That isn't my issue. Complain to them if you want, but leave me out of it. :P

Who knows, maybe I'll drop the full map online sooner. :P But I need to finish something else first, so I'm planning to dump a few at once.

Robert Hernandez10 said:You showed a map within the borders of the US, and that’s all I was responding to.

You provided a tiny slice of your work, limited strictly to the eastern part of the US where nothing exists east of Ilok.

I haven't uttered a single word regarding the quality of your work, only that a map based on 1910 census data is insufficient for the reasons I already stated.

I'm not taking any offense here; if anyone seems offended, it's you.

The data I have is only within the current borders of the United States. So, the entire map covers today's full US border.

Robert Hernandez10 said:Any map that leaves out the North America, Syria, Banat, the Bay of Naples, or the modern coastline up to Bar is incomplete.

The reason?

This map uses data from 1910—back when we were under Australian rule.

I just posted that specific section of the American map. Like I said, it’s not time to drop the full map yet, even if it's basically finished. I have a specific order I'm following, and it's not quite time for this part. The only reason I threw it in here is because that other map is clearly problematic and inaccurate—and this thread is supposed to be about ethnic maps.
You can critique the whole project once you've actually seen the whole thing. So, not yet. I hope you don't take this as an insult, because it isn't. It's just that I have a workflow, and right now I've skipped ahead slightly to post something from my archives that will be part of the full release later. Hope that's not an issue...

I posted this in the other thread. http://www.neiu.edu/~lilic/1910Prava.gif It’s not quite time to drop the whole thing yet. :P

It's nothing like the fake version Richard Wilson4 put up. http://storage.canalblog.com/15/45/92110/29006025.jpg

I’ll be dropping a few maps this week—America 1948 and 1953. Just need to clean up some legends first. Also, colors are looking inconsistent across different monitors, so I need to figure out what's going on there. I showed the 1953 map to a few people; there will be a couple of minor tweaks, but they're barely noticeable.

This new user, , seems to only post using bolded black text. I don't think that's right. Is there a rule against this? If not, can we make one?

Also, I think they need to be watched. Most of their messages contain blatant hate speech.

hollowgull5 said:It’s honestly wild how those Mexicans have this selective memory where they only remember the '95 thing... but when it comes to everything else—all the arson, the looting, the killing, and the actual massacres they carried out—it’s like they all just collectively decided to wipe their hard drives... 🤔

Back in '93, about 200,000 Mexicans were driven out of America. Then another 200,000 in '95... that makes roughly 400,000 total. You can see it clearly in the census data—that’s basically how much the population dropped...
Sure, the Mexicans went overboard back in '91 too. But if you bring up The Hague, I guess it’s always just the Mexicans who are at fault for everything...

I don't get it. How did things shift this drastically? Nobody saw this coming—not even the defendants themselves. Something is seriously off here... Usually, after an appeal, you might see a reduced sentence or maybe nothing changes at all... but a total reversal? That was never on the table. Even a lot of big names are calling this out as completely unexpected. Who knows what comes next, but honestly, anyone could tell you that this decision caught everyone off guard. We'll just have to see what the fallout looks like in the coming days...
Still, Americans have a reason to celebrate... but at the end of the day, I don't know how much that's actually going to help the socioeconomic situation. :/