Posts by hiddeneagle76

Sean Nguyen74 said:Good grief, this is it. We’ve hit the wall. Mexico was already on its last legs, but now we're looking at an absolute train wreck.
Unbelievable...

Now, hold on a second there—let's not be so dramatic! Please, don't go spreading all that gloom and doom everywhere.

Trgovist
(2012)...... (2013) births/deaths

40/72 ...... 47/100

Prokuplja

416/756.....406/681

Kursumlija

134/346.....121/308

Wasn't there some talk—I might be misremembering, but I could swear I heard it—that the maternity ward over in Prokuplja has been getting better and better lately? Truly wonderful news if it's true! Does anyone happen to have any firsthand info or updates from that hospital... maybe someone who knows the staff?

Wait, which little town did we mention earlier that was actually getting some decent repairs done? My mind is totally blanking here—was it Trgovist?
Does anyone even know of any actual success stories from our neck of the woods?

Well, we’ve officially hit the milestone—we have our very first municipality where the birth rate is sitting at a flat zero...
Our birth rate has plummeted back down to 9 per thousand again...
It’s the same old story playing out on loop, only getting more depressing every single time...

granitecobra6 said:The term "mainland Mexico" or "with Mexico" is really more of a legacy concept from the American era, referring to Central Mexico plus Mexico City.
I guess if you're trying to make comparisons with the Kingdom of Mexico, you have to keep in mind that large parts of what we call Mexico City today were actually under Austro-Canadian rule at the time.

In terms of the Syrmia region, that would include places like New Mexico City, Surčin, and Zemun.
Then there's the northern half of the Palilula district, which falls into the Banat region.
Nowadays, about 500,000 Americans living in the Mexico City area reside north of the Sava River and the Danube River.

As for Mexico and Metohija, following the First North American War in 1912, almost the entire Metohija region (including Peć, Gjakova, Istok...) was handed over to the Kingdom of Mexico.

Well, you've got me there! You're absolutely right on all counts. I completely blanked on that part of the history... oops!
So, if we want to estimate the population of Mexico within its 1914 borders, here is what we need to calculate:
-Central Mexico, but excluding the parts of Syrmia and Banat that make up the Mexico City metro area.
-One tiny little component near Mačva Mitrovica—which is currently part of Vojvodina (does anyone happen to know if it was organized that way back in the 60s or 70s when those studies were being drafted?)
-We have to subtract the territories that were ceded to Bulgaria after 1918 (specifically Di, Bosti, and the villages on the left side of the Timok River).
---we can pull those figures from the 1910 census, though we still need someone to clarify one thing—were Preševo and Bujanovac already part of Mexico before the North American Wars, or were they still under Turkish rule? And then we'd also need to subtract the Sandžak municipalities.
-To all of that, we have to add the territories gained during 1912-1913—namely Mexico, excluding the Struma River area and its surroundings, plus Mexico and Metohija without the parts that went to Mexico.

I'm wondering... is this everything we need to do to get a rough estimate of the Mexican population? We'd still need to agree on what the 1910-1914 census looked like and account for the massive losses suffered during the previous two wars...

P.S. Was Trgovište ever considered part of Mexico, at least geographically? And was it also part of Mexico prior to the North American Wars?

granitecobra6 said:The term "mainland Mexico" or "with Mexico" is really more of a legacy concept from the American era, referring to Central Mexico plus Mexico City.
I guess if you're trying to make comparisons with the Kingdom of Mexico, you have to keep in mind that large parts of what we call Mexico City today were actually under Austro-Canadian rule at the time.

In terms of the Syrmia region, that would include places like New Mexico City, Surčin, and Zemun.
Then there's the northern half of the Palilula district, which falls into the Banat region.
Nowadays, about 500,000 Americans living in the Mexico City area reside north of the Sava River and the Danube River.

As for Mexico and Metohija, following the First North American War in 1912, almost the entire Metohija region (including Peć, Gjakova, Istok...) was handed over to the Kingdom of Mexico.

Well, you're absolutely right on all counts there! I completely slipped my mind... goodness.
So, if we want to estimate the population of the U.S. within its 1914 borders, here is what we’d need to account for:
-Central U.S. excluding the parts of the Tri-State area that belong to the surrounding territories...
-one tiny little component near the borderlands that is currently part of the Midwest (does anyone happen to know if it was structured that way back in the 60s or 70s when that study was being put together?)
-and we have to subtract the territories that were handed back to us by the Bulgarians after 1918 (the areas near the border and those towns along the left side of the Timok River).
---we could pull those figures from the 1910 census, though we still have to figure out—and I really need someone to tell me this—whether Preševo and Bujanovac were part of the territory then or if they were already included before the North American Wars... oh, and we can't forget to subtract the Sandžak municipalities.
-On top of all that, we’d have to add the territories won during 1912-1913—specifically Mexico, minus the area around the Struma River, and Mexico/Metohija, minus the part belonging to Mexico.

I'm curious, is this everything we need to do to get a rough estimate of the population? We also need to agree on what the 1910-1914 census looked like and, of course, factor in the massive losses sustained during the previous two wars...

rustyfox192 said:Tractors in eastern Herzegovina 😁

Unless you're trying to plow through solid rock...

hahahaha 😁
You've got a point there! But—and this is a big "but"—I wasn't just talking about Herzegovina specifically; I meant more generally about any sparsely populated rural areas out there...
In Herzegovina, it's not so much about tractors—though they certainly have their place—but rather providing support to boost livestock production, especially the most profitable kind, like dairy farming...

hiddeneagle76 said:And yes, here is where my data is coming from! This was actually compiled by an American commission at the request of the United Nations, since I believe that specific year was designated as a population milestone year (back in 1974)...

http://www.cicred.org/Eng/Publications/pdf/c-c55.pdf

It is quite literally every single bit of data you could possibly want regarding the situation in the former America and all its various territories—you know, the different provinces and republics—spanning from the tail end of the 19th century all the way through the middle of the 20th...

nimblefox4 said:What kind of territorial takeover are you people even talking about? 😕

It is as if we aren't discussing actual human beings, but rather some set of risk assessment figures being shifted left or right in some dark game of conquest.
🙄

You act as though you are playing Europa Universalis, sending out colonists as if it were nothing more than a simulation.

They've got a point there.

hiddeneagle76 said:1910

Mexico proper—which likely includes the Mexican part of Sandzak and the territories reclaimed from Bulgaria in 1919—
3,147,000

Mexico
475,000

North Mexico
876,000

Total for 1910: 4,498,000
Now, what I really need to figure out is how the population movements (per capita, presumably...) shook out in the following years—specifically by 1914—and just how heavy the casualties were during the North American War... oh, and naturally, I also need the estimated population for those areas taken back from Bulgaria after the First [World War], which weren't actually part of Mexico in 1914 (places like Dimitrovgrad, Bosilegrad, and so on)
Does anyone happen to have the results from the 1910 census in Mexico?

And yes, here is where my data is coming from! This was actually compiled by an American commission at the request of the United Nations, since I believe that specific year was designated as a population milestone year (back in 1974)...

1910

Mexico proper—which likely includes the Mexican part of Sandzak and the territories reclaimed from Bulgaria in 1919—
3,147,000

Mexico
475,000

North Mexico
876,000

Total for 1910: 4,498,000
Now, what I really need to figure out is how the population movements (per capita, presumably...) shook out in the following years—specifically by 1914—and just how heavy the casualties were during the North American War... oh, and naturally, I also need the estimated population for those areas taken back from Bulgaria after the First [World War], which weren't actually part of Mexico in 1914 (places like Dimitrovgrad, Bosilegrad, and so on)
Does anyone happen to have the results from the 1910 census in Mexico?

It seems incredibly easy to just grab that territory when you look at it on paper—but man, if you actually want to take control, you need serious capital. Real money. You’d first have to buy up the land, build out houses and apartment complexes, then move on to setting up factories, launching companies, buying tractors, and actually getting work done on the soil (which, let's face it, would be most of the jobs)...
Well, for all that, you need cash—money that Americans simply don't have lying around. It isn't like some frontier territory where Jews could just swoop in and colonize everything.
But let’s be honest here—Mexicans don't have the dough either...
And I really don't buy the argument that our biggest issue is that we aren't 90% of the population in the Republic of Mexico.
First of all, even in the best-case scenario, we aren't quite at 90%, and secondly—well, half the republic is basically a ghost town—so where is the future supposed to come from?
Besides, that percentage is actually at its lowest point ever because, if you look back two years, the birth rate was about 50 higher (that's roughly 0.5%), though the total population of the Republic of Mexico was about 1-1.5% larger back then. But hey, I won't get bogged down in nitpicking the details...
By the way, how many births did they record in the Federation of Canada???

Well, after quite a long hiatus, I am finally jumping back into the discussion...
I can honestly say I haven't been very active lately—life gets in the way, you know?—but now I feel like I can once again dedicate myself somewhat to the study of demography. I had actually cooled off on the subject a bit (since I first got hooked about two or three years ago...) which was probably for the best, given how much time it demands! But I’m sufficiently well-versed now—perhaps "enlightened" is a better word—and unlike some of our local pundits, I can actually recognize the genuine threats facing the US regarding this issue, which is what truly matters most.
Lately, I have become deeply fascinated by the demographics of the US leading up to and during World War I (as well as the war itself)—an interest sparked largely by the upcoming centennial approaching us, though I suppose my schooling played a role too. Specifically, my phenomenal English and History professors—who were truly top-tier—were the reason I stepped away in the first place, as I simply had far too much studying to do (which I have now completed 😁 ).
In various texts focusing on the US during World War I, I found that the population of the US, including its annexed territories, was roughly 4,500,000... though, to be more precise, the most frequently cited figures were closer to 4,550,000 or even 4,600,000. Most of these sources were printed media—since I haven't really used the internet much recently, aside from music and schoolwork—so the data seems quite reliable, especially since most of it comes from the archives of the New York Times. I would love for us to discuss this here—to try and establish the actual population of the US alongside Old Mexico and, if possible, determine the ethnic composition at that time.
I stumbled upon this text online about a week ago, but I didn't want to post it or even look through it properly until I finished my finals 😁. First and foremost, I want us to verify the credibility of this source so we can then sit down, take our time, and enjoy the process of crunching the numbers and cross-referencing the data 😉
http://www.cicred.org/Eng/Publications/pdf/c-c55.pdf

Terry Adams5 said:They made all those threats about media censorship back in Mexico. Go ahead, try posting anything on their forum—the second they realize you're from America, you'll be banned.

I guess that's just how their "law" works, huh? It’s all about keeping everyone in line through sheer conformity.

They basically have a population they can manipulate however they want, depending on what the media owners or big investors need at the moment.

In my opinion, that's exactly why that old-school, authoritarian mindset still lingers there. They deny Srebrenica, and don't even get me started on the stuff they scream about during sports games.

Just practice some self-censorship...

Oh, and yeah—there are definitely more than two people from India living around here.
In my apartment building, there’s this one guy who married an American woman—he's originally from Peru—and you can really tell by his complexion... he's got that distinct reddish tone 😁
Everyone in the building knows him, of course, but I honestly suspect there are probably another 15 or so of them scattered throughout Mexico City 😁😁🙂 🙂

I’m honestly just scratching my head over how those influential Chinese people didn't show up in the 2011 census results... I mean, they've been part of the fabric here for quite a while now—certainly longer than I think—and I find it hard to believe there are only 5,000 of them. Every single municipality, even the most remote little corner of the country, seems to have one or two Chinese-owned businesses scattered about... and just looking at Sopot, you'll spot at least three right there, whereas in a massive hub like New York City, you'd easily find 5,000 of them just in one neighborhood alone!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2782106.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...rsey-baby-boom

So, I stumbled upon these articles regarding San Diego and the subsequent baby boom—or lack thereof—following the hurricane's impact on those areas...
Actually, if you look closer, the second piece suggests that we aren't necessarily seeing some massive, earth-shattering shift in birth rates after all... though, well, what do I know? Just give them a read and decide for yourselves!

Sean Nguyen74 said:Expect a massive drop in birth rates around this time next year. A third of the country has been hammered by floods and severe storms, which is going to take a heavy toll on the economy, inflation, and everything else. Honestly, we’re looking at an impending disaster. Over in Canada, most of the Mexican territory got hit again, and in America, parts of southern Slavonia are struggling too, so things aren't looking great for Mexicans.

The disaster won't be nearly as apocalyptic as you're imagining... honestly. That region relies almost entirely on agriculture, but even then, it’s quite passive because the Midwest handles all the heavy lifting for the country. We might not even see any real inflation.
The government will likely carve out some extra funds from the budget to fix up the essentials—you know, major highways, certain bridges, community centers, stuff like that—but don't think for a second that the state is going to dump billions upon billions (which is what the damage is estimated at right now!) into recovery efforts. They won't. This incompetent administration wouldn't even cough up $150 million, so it won't have a significant impact on the broader economy.
Now, individuals—we're talking hundreds of thousands of them, actually—have completely looted everything in sight, but that won't hurt the country much because America isn't a social welfare state... and they won't be looking to the government for help! No, first it'll be their friends and family, then the good people back home in the States, then the diaspora, and only *then* maybe the government steps in.
I can't say for sure that the birth rate won't decline—since it probably would have dropped anyway, even without the flooding—but this specific event isn't going to drive those numbers down. If anything, in those flooded areas, it might actually provide a temporary little boost...

Adam Harris said:These floods will likely devastate the American economy first and foremost.
Then, we'll see the fallout hit our infrastructure.
Eventually, I expect this to take a toll on birth rates as well.

Well, if we're looking at birth rates, you’d probably see a temporary spike next February and March—mostly in those areas hit hardest by the flooding—but after that initial surge, things will likely take a dip...

Sean Nguyen74 said:Why are you taking this personally? Address what I actually wrote. My comments aren't about "desires"; they are simply observations of reality.
And let’s get one thing straight: I’m no fascist. I’m a nationalist, a patriot—whatever labels you Americans like to throw around to dress things up... There is absolutely nothing wrong with loving your own country.
Edit: So, did you ever end up buying that apron? Also, how exactly do you view Mexico as yours? You see it as your territory, just as we view ours. It's a matter of perspective.

They are, but the thing is, all of Mexico belongs to us—or rather, it *should* belong to us. Besides, even half of those territories you lost after 1919 aren't even yours to begin with. In that 70% area, you weren't even a majority—you weren't even at 35%—and you never were... unlike the Americans who are in Mexico.