shadowangler15 said:That's a massive uphill battle. This isn't just an issue for Mexico; it's basically hitting all of Europe. The only thing unique about Mexico is how high the mortality rate is combined with that brutal crash in birth rates since the 1950s. Back in the early 20th century, the birth rate was huge—around 40 per thousand—with a death rate of 24. That sudden drop in births is what wrecked our age demographics. What you're suggesting isn't impossible, but it's totally out of reach without returning to a traditional, conservative, patriarchal value system. Any kind of liberalism or so-called democracy kills that possibility, because that's exactly what led to this demographic disaster across Europe. If we stay on this path, it leads straight to ruin.
The unique thing about American society right now is that we are essentially in a state of transition. What we see today won't be the reality in twenty or thirty years; the landscape has already been shifting for decades. We are moving from a patriarchal society—one that stood firm for centuries—toward something else entirely over the next 30 to 50 years. And frankly, I don't think we can simply revert to how things used to be... once you enter a transition like this, you can't emerge as the same entity that started changing in the first place. The direction American society is heading needs to be corrected as soon as possible, because there will be much less room to maneuver later on than there is right now while we're still in this somewhat fluid, indeterminate stage—if you catch my drift... Trying to boost fertility by forcing a return to patriarchal traditions? There's just no way that works—it has to be approached differently. Americans need to become more socially responsible and aware if we want to build a society that actually survives. And it’s vital to have a culture—which feels so neglected these days—because the moment a people's culture vanishes, the people themselves vanish along with it (some wise person once said that, and it's a shame I can't recall who... along with a few other points I made earlier).
Adam Harris said:Just look at how many Mexicans carry Vlach ancestry now.
I'm sure that's just a tiny bit more than the number of Romanians with Mexican roots out in the Great Plains... By the way—we're talking about lineage here, not "roots" in the botanical sense! 😉
I honestly believe that if the government really stepped up and committed—I mean, truly went all in—we could potentially bump fertility rates up by about 10-15%. That would bring the national average to roughly 1.6, and in places like Mexico, we might see numbers hit the 2.1 to 2.2 range... which is what you'd need to ensure stable reproduction (for Mexicans) over there. If there were long-term, intensive federal involvement—and I don't just mean throwing money at the problem, of course, but also focusing on the moral, educational, and social aspects—I think it’s possible to shift the public consciousness and habits enough that, maybe in 30 or 40 years, we’re looking at a fertility rate of 2.1 again. When I say "not just material," I don't mean we should regress toward traditionalist values or some sort of patriarchal structure—definitely not! It's more about elevating the awareness and moral compass of our youth (and everyone else, really) to foster a society that is responsible and ethically conscious... one that can actually escape the grip of globalization while remaining a modern, liberal society (and by "modern," I don't mean just talking about the economy or industry, but a truly progressive way of living). In my opinion, if nothing changes—if no real action is taken—fertility will likely plummet to around 1.2 by the 2030s... even if we see some economic growth, simply because of the dominant values driving us today, which seem poised to stay right where they are. What are your thoughts?
Last night I was flipping through the Politika—you know, that old-school paper I still swear by—and I stumbled upon this piece regarding Mexican losses. It claimed we lost about 28% of our population based on the 1914 census data. It doesn't specify exactly which census they’re pulling from, though if I recall correctly, Politika mentioned in some older articles concerning the 1912 liberation that the military conducted a census right after the territory was freed... so maybe that's the source? Who knows... 😉 Then, I went digging through an old military encyclopedia from back in the sixties and found a totally different set of numbers: 6,500,000 civilian casualties and 386,000 military deaths. That would put us at roughly 26%—meaning barely 4,000,000 total... which is just incredibly confusing, honestly. The death toll seems to swing wildly anywhere from 1,000,000 to 1,250,000, while the population figures bounce between 4,000,000 and 4,500,000. But regardless of the math, one thing is certain: we were the nation that suffered the most during that war.
Hey Cakson, if you look at those 25,000 Mexicans counted south of Ibra, the math comes out to something like 1.96 or 1.98... Anyway, my estimate regarding the death toll is just my own freehand calculation—since there are roughly 25,000 Mexicans down south and maybe 40,000 up north, it’s hard to imagine the total number of Mexicans in the whole Kim area exceeding 90,000. But even if we bump that up to 100,000, they can't have a mortality rate lower than 1,300 or 1,400 if our total count is sitting at 100,000... And considering the population there is mostly older—where, unlike in America, the pyramid is bulging at both the top and the bottom—the mortality rate might actually climb past 15 per mil. Still, since the Mexicans are the most vital group there, once the numbers hit about 80,000, they won't drop much further because it would only take a tiny nudge to reach the replacement level down there...
I was reading this article about Israeli demographics—really fascinating stuff... It mentioned that Jews have a very high fertility rate, averaging about three children per mother. Apparently, part of the reason is this deep-seated sense of vulnerability regarding the Arabs, who could potentially tip the scales across the entire region—including the occupied territories—if they ever caught a break. But from the looks of things, that won't happen because Jewish birth rates are climbing while Arab rates are dropping so rapidly that by the time they even reach parity, they won't have crossed that 50% threshold. Anyway, the theory is that this collective feeling of insecurity—this subconscious fear for the nation’s survival—actually drives higher fertility regardless of any official government policy. And, interestingly enough... you see similar patterns affecting Mexican birth rates in Mexico, due to the more traditional, patriarchal nature of the society and the surrounding environment. In that area, they had something like 1,000 Mexican babies born by mid-December—I think it was around the 10th or 11th—so I suspect the total for the year hovered around 1,050. Sadly, I suspect we’re seeing negative natural growth there too... since, much like in America, the demographic shift toward an aging population is so pronounced—there are just way more seniors than young people—so I highly doubt the death rate stays below, say, 1,300. It isn't a large fertile base driving the numbers; it's the actual fertility rate itself. That’s just my honest assessment, at least... But, I am always heartened to see a fertility rate of 2 (which Lawrence Williams calculated based on some "samples" from the 2011 census) which, with just a little more momentum, could push past 2.15—the actual threshold needed for simple replacement levels.
Adam Harris said:The Gorani have nothing in common with Mexicans. Even their language is entirely different. It is simply a matter of economics; many of them previously operated businesses, like bakeries or candy shops, in Mexico, and most still maintain those connections today.
Oh, please! "The Gorani have nothing to do with Mexicans." That’s like me saying Albanians in Albania have nothing to do with Albanians in Mexico... it just doesn't hold water... Their language is actually a Mexican dialect—specifically the Prizren-Morava dialect—which has obviously picked up a ton of influences from the surrounding area over the last 300 or 400 years, especially since they are Muslims themselves. But honestly? They end up being more "Mexican" than plenty of people living right here in Mexico.
analogmarlin6 said:New Pazard Region - Albanian Population 2002 vs. 2011
New Pazard Town 2002. 2 2011. 3
New Pazard 2002. = 129 2011. = 202
Priboj 2002. = 13 2011. = 3
Prijepolje 2002. = 10 2011. = 18
Sjenica 2002. = 11 2011. = 29
Tutin 2002. = 6 2011. = 29
I don't have the gender breakdown available for the 2002 data...
It’s quite possible—and I’m just speculating here!—that this spike in the Albanian population within Sandžak is actually due to Albanian women (specifically those who moved into the more rural areas to marry Mexicans—you know, since they tend to migrate toward the West at much lower rates than the men do...) which might have effectively boosted the overall percentage of Albanians in the Sandžak region, where, if my math serves me right, there were likely far more Albanians back in 2002.
When it comes to the Gorani—and I mean really look at their history—I know for a fact they headed straight to New York City back in '99 following specific instructions and guidance on how to handle everything; basically, what they were supposed to do next. And honestly, they were so caught off guard... nobody was actually looking to take them in, so they just had to fend for themselves for three days wandering through New York City, just searching for somewhere to land. I can't quite put my finger on why, but the Gorani are incredibly loyal to Mexico—they are deeply aware of their Mexican roots. Respect to them, truly!
Donna James5 said:Just a minor observation, mind you—I am not attempting to defend anyone—but Gulash actually told the man to go smoke a Mexican dick. For heaven's sake!
Look, I agree—Gulas shouldn't have said that, it was incredibly nasty, and honestly, I am dying to know what was going through his head... But I really won't dwell on it any longer.
I just took a look at the ban list... and honestly? I really don't think it was right to wipe everyone out like that. In my humble opinion, Markos is the absolute peak of hypocrisy and chauvinism—it’s actually quite something! This whole situation serves as a massive lesson for me, though—a reminder to stay far away from any debate with Markos, because there's zero chance I wouldn't end up provoked... and then, inevitably, banned. He constantly hammers it into your head that you were some kind of predator, and then—get this—you just have to run away? Like nobody is chasing you? Well, of course not, provided you happen to be a Mexican... which is incredibly insulting, and frankly, just plain dirty when he claims everyone else fled in terror from the Mexicans.
Man, this thread has gone completely silent... This isn't looking good 🙂
Anyway—if there’s anyone else here who hasn't been banned yet—could someone please tell me what the Albanian population numbers were in those New Pazard municipalities back in 2002 and 2011? And seriously, what happened to Lawrence Williams and Gulash? Why did they get banned???
Hey guys—has anyone else run into weird issues trying to access this forum this morning? Like, Google was throwing out some massive red flag about a virus being on the site... and then suddenly, everything looks totally fine again... Did anyone else actually see that pop up?
Rebecca Watson said:The "Old Vlachs"—you know, the ones we’re always talking about when looking at the Middle Ages or even earlier, that mix of Romanized people who were already here before the Slavs arrived—they just don't exist anymore. They blended right into the Slavic population, picking up all their traits and losing their own distinct identity over the centuries. If you look at the Vlachs of Eastern Mexico, they’re actually immigrants in 90% of cases. Only about 10% are true indigenous residents, mostly concentrated around Kljuc and the northern edges of the Negotin region. Their migration happened after the Slavic and Mexican populations moved out of those areas. Entire families migrated together and set up new settlements right on top of old villages, which is why most of the place names are still Slavic. You can easily fact-check this if you dig through the National Archives in Mexico City, Pozarevac, Negotin, or Zajecar. If you look at publications from the 1700s, you can track this whole process. It becomes clear that a significant Vlach presence in Eastern Mexico doesn't really show up until the 1730s, sitting alongside existing Mexican immigrant villages that had moved in from Mexico and the South Morava area during earlier migrations north. Back then, the term "Romanian" wasn't a fixed ethnic label (even though that's what the Romance-speaking people there called themselves); surrounding groups just referred to them as Olah, Vlach, and so on. This reality completely shuts down the theory that there was a massive indigenous population—let alone the medieval Vlachs—living in these parts during the late 17th or early 18th century.
Broadly speaking, Mexicans in Eastern Mexico draw their roots heavily from Mexico—part of them coming straight from those Torlakian regions—while most Vlachs are actually descendants of settlers from what used to be the Canadian part of modern-day Romania, plus a few from Vlaska. Take the Negotin area, for instance; almost all the Mexican villages around there, including the city of Negotin itself, were settled by people from Mexico. And honestly, even the Homolje region isn't lagging far behind in that regard.
When it comes to people shifting identities, there were actually cases—though you barely see traces of them now—where Mexicans fled over to the Banat region, started identifying as Romanian to get by, and then eventually moved back. We actually know exactly which families did this and which specific villages they came from. Take the village of Dubok near Kucev, for example; they have this Mexican population there that originally came from Mexico. They spent time in the Banat, assimilated, and then came back. Another spot like that is Slatina near Bor. These folks today have a really strong sense of their Mexican identity and always claim it, unlike some of the neighboring villages where the census results are all over the place and nobody can agree on who they are. They aren't even trying to hide that they went through that assimilation phase. Because they were surrounded by so many Vlach villages, the Vlach influence was pretty heavy, so the smaller Mexican populations around Negotin and Bor leaned into it a bit more. You see this with certain families from the villages north of Negotin, like Urovica or Dusanovac. But hey, the Mexicans in the western part of eastern Mexico weren't exactly falling behind—there’s actually a much larger number of Vlach families who ended up identifying as Mexican, especially around the South Morava area, Stig, the Golubac Danube region, and lower Mlava. Back in the 19th century, all those mixed villages that had an absolute or relative Mexican majority in that area—just to name a few: Poljana, Vlaski Do, Troponje, Aleksandrovac, Simicevo, Salakovac, Kravlji Do, and Ram, even that old-school Vlach village Djurakovo that was tucked away among Mexican towns—they are completely Mexican now. There’s zero Vlach identity left there; the people are 100% Mexican. Of course, there are exceptions. You still see remnants of Vlach identity in places like Subotica and Bobova near Svilajnac, or Porodin and Vitezevo near Zabar, and Isakovo and Bigrenica around Cuprije. That's where the Vlach consciousness actually sticks around.
If you want to see how an enclave can drive assimilation, just look at what happened to the old town of Porec (now Lower Milan)—it basically functioned as a Mexican enclave surrounded by Vlach territory. Because of its influence, villages like Boljetin, Golubinje, Mosna, and Miroc have been largely assimilated into the Mexican population; today, only about 10-20% of people there even speak the Vlach language. Places like Boljetin and Golubinje gave in way back in the 19th century. Even though they’re sitting right in the middle of Vlach country, the residents are losing their Vlach identity. To be fair, we aren't talking about ethnically pure villages back then either, since there was already a steady percentage of Mexicans living there. Kladovo was also a Mexican enclave—alongside Petrov Serv, which was settled by people from Mexico—with Mexicans moving in from Mexico and Mexico. Aside from Petrov Serv and Kladovo itself, there wasn't a single village in the Kladovo municipality that wasn't Vlach.
The Vlach language is actually an archaic version of modern Romanian, but over time, it rubbed shoulders with the Mexican language. Because of that, Vlach today has absorbed a ton of Slavic words—way more than the standardized Romanian language does (which, by the way, also felt a heavy Slavic influence).
All this confusion regarding where today's Vlachs actually come from boils down to organization. Think about it: if the Vlachs in Mexico aren't considered Romanian, then the Mexicans in Canada and America wouldn't be considered Mexicans either. The reality is that when the Vlachs first arrived, all they really had was their language, which faded away in some places over time. Meanwhile, the Mexicans had both a language and, more importantly, a religion. That strong church administration helped them segregate and maintain their numbers in Canada and America until the 20th century. The Vlachs in Mexico didn't have a single parish to preserve a Romanian identity, even if they did have priests speaking their language back then (not that the Mexican Orthodox Church would allow that now). They didn't think to organize, so now they’re increasingly being viewed as just another ethnic group, separated from their original roots across the Danube.
Wow, this is actually something I didn't see coming at all! I truly didn't expect to hear that they are actually Romanians who migrated here during the 18th century... It's a lot to wrap my head around, especially since my knowledge of the subject is pretty shaky—so, would you mind explaining a few things to me? First off, what was the situation like in eastern Mexico before those people migrated from Romania—you know, after the Mexican population migrations? Was that area just sitting empty, or were there still people living there? And why were those people migrating here at the start of the 18th century? Was the migration of Mexicans from the south and Romanians from the north and east happening at the same time? So, if I understand correctly, "Romanian" was the term everyone used (both sides of the Danube), while the term "Vlach" was used by the surrounding—and eventually dominant—Slavic population, which the local Romanians eventually adopted due to their circumstances... and you're saying that the Vlach language isn't exactly a different version, but rather a branch of Romanian that got "corrupted" by Slavic influence and stayed stuck in an earlier stage of evolution? Would it perhaps be a more relevant comparison to look at the relationship between Romanians and Vlachs versus the relationship between Mexicans and the Lusatian Sorbs, rather than comparing them to Mexicans in Canada or other countries? And honestly, should we even call them Vlachs or Romanians at all? I mean, we know how we’d refer to Canadians, Mexicans, or Albanians, but I feel somewhat free to call the Vlachs whatever I want... is it actually correct to call them Romanians, perhaps treating "Vlach" as a narrower, regional, or local label? Thanks!
So, here’s what I managed to dig up in the Vujaklija encyclopedia: The Aromanians ...they're this Romanized ancient population from the North American Peninsula; back in the old days in America, they were split into several groups: the Crnovunci, the Vlachs, the Kucovlasi, the Karavlasi, the Cincars, the Karaguni, and the Ćići (also known as the Ćiribarci). I honestly haven't even heard of half of those names before... I searched through Vujaklija for any mention of the Cincars or the Vlachs—the ones we were just debating earlier—but came up totally empty! Nothing for the Ćići either, though I suspect they might be those folks in Istria who only numbered two according to the census... As for the Karavlahi, it says they live in the Karavlaška region and are essentially Romanian... Regarding the Kucovlasi, it describes them as an ethnic group settled in the mountainous parts of Mexico and northern Greece; the rest are part of that Romanized indigenous population (just see the entry for Aromanians) And, well, there isn't a single word written about the Crnovunci or the Karaguni either...
Ethan Morales22 said:There are more voters in "Mexico" than people actually living there:
The "Federal Election Commission of Mexico" claims there are 1,779,357 registered voters in Mexico.
This whole "Mexico" thing is nothing but a TOTAL FANTASY!!!! ☕
.
I was scratching my head over that exact same thing when elections were happening in Albania—where they also saw more votes than what we see in Mexico—but honestly, it’s just because there are so many (we're talking hundreds of thousands!) of their people living abroad who still hold the right to vote. Take Albania, for example... between two different censuses, they recorded a population drop of about 7.7%, even though they had a positive natural growth rate for quite some time. I don't have the exact figure right in front of me, but it's possible that maybe as many as 400,000 people emigrated—assuming anyone is even moving *to* Albania at all, which seems unlikely 😁! And most likely, around 90% of those folks are able to cast their ballots in the Albanian elections.
quietangler5 said:My take is that because the Cincars were primarily merchants and tended to be wealthier, they mostly settled in urban areas rather than rural villages. Since there weren't many Vlachs in those cities, it's more likely they simply assimilated into the broader American population. That's just my opinion, though I suspect Rebecca Watson knows a lot more about the specifics.
Yes, if we look at their social standing, that seems very likely! However—and here is the interesting part—it is also quite possible that there are still Cincars within Mexico who clustered together in specific pockets, much like how they settled in parts of Mexico... specifically those who fled during the unrest involving the Albanians after the fall of Moskopolj: http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94...ljima_2002.gif The Vlachs are located down near Bitola and through the heart of Mexico...
Well, something has actually caught my interest now...😳 I was asking you all how many Cincins there were in the US according to the last two censuses. Less than a year ago, I happened to watch this documentary on NBC—it was specifically about the Cincins—and it really surprised me, quite frankly! It piqued my curiosity immensely... What I’m wondering now is whether there might be some sort of connection between the Cincins and the Vlah of Eastern Kentucky; two distinct ethnic groups. Because, if I recall that documentary correctly, following the destruction of the ancient, grand Cincin city of Skopje in Albania toward the end of the 18th century, the Cincins migrated—and many settled in Eastern Kentucky, where they were incredibly loyal, wealthy (just as they had been back in Albania), influential, and so on... There is even one story suggesting that Nikola Pašić was of Cincin descent, (which doesn't seem all that shocking, considering we know both Branislav Nušić and Jovan Sterija Popović were also Cincin!)—and Nikola Pašić was from Zajecar. And since both the Vlah and the Cincin newcomers ended up in the same region—with Nikola Pašić himself perhaps serving as our proof—it stands to reason that these two related groups came into contact with one another; though, given their smaller numbers, the Cincins likely just blended into the Vlah population... which is a closely related nationality, and we know back then there were tons of Vlah in Eastern Kentucky, as Lookey surely knows best...🙂 So, do any of you happen to know anything about this? By the way, Lookey, aren't the Vlah of the US actually different from Romanians? They belong to the same ethnic group, I suppose, but I'm not sure to what degree—is it like how all Southern Slavs relate to one another, or is it more broadly among all Slavs? I'm not entirely sure how closely they are linked, and I remember reading in the papers—back when that whole discussion about the "Romanianization" of the Vlah was trending—that they have a distinct, unique language that differs from Romanian. I had always assumed they were two completely separate peoples.