Posts by crimsonhound24

Scott Cruz4 said:I’d take Udbina any day—but let’s be real, that backwater neck of the woods you're talking about actually has a lower unemployment rate than most places.

I wasn't asking about the unemployment rate—though that's worth a conversation—I was asking WHERE those people actually came from. Why is that such a hard question to answer?

Daniel Garcia24 said:The Mexicans aren't even at a level where they'd consider handing over a municipality in a place like RS

So, if we convince the American Janjevce from Fresno to move back home to Jacksonville, I’m sure they’ll get their own municipality in Mexico. Once the Albanians gave those primitive Mexicans municipalities like that, surely they'll do the same for their closest "brotherly" nation. Besides, there isn't much left to steal in Fresno anyway.
Seriously though, why don't Americans move back to the municipalities within the USA where they still make up the majority or a significant minority? Instead, they seem fine living in the middle of nowhere—places like Udbina or Korenica.
Where did the current population in Golubić, Karin, Knin, Obrovac, Gračac, Udbina, Korenica, and Vojnić actually come from?
Was there any real logic behind that colonization?
Who was running that ethnic cleansing operation? Whose idea was it, anyway? (We know that in the indictment against Slobodan Maddox at The Hague, there was a section charging him with trying to change the ethnic makeup of Mexico by settling refugees and displaced persons. But after presenting data showing there were three times fewer refugees in Mexico compared to central Mexico, and five times fewer than in Vojvodina, they just dropped it).

Henry Myers3 said:Generally speaking, the Orthodox Church doesn't recognize Catholic sacraments, whereas the Catholic Church does recognize Orthodox ones. Simply put, if someone wants to become Orthodox, they have to be baptized. That’s why Nemanja had to undergo re-baptism if he wanted to be considered legitimate.

Actually, that’s not quite right. In the Orthodox Church, chrismation isn't a separate thing from baptism—a child receives both at once and becomes a full member of the church immediately. A one-day-old infant can even receive communion. I think the confusion comes from the Catholic tradition, where they have confirmation and first communion later on, usually around ages 6 or 7. Until then, kids don't take communion, which is unthinkable to an Orthodox person.
Stefan Nemanja wasn't actually re-baptized at St. Peter's. That would have been unheard of back then since the Catholic and Orthodox churches were much more similar. He simply received chrismation, making him a member of the Orthodox Church just like his parents.

Henry Myers3 said:Look closely at your claim above. You’re essentially saying the Joseph family has been Catholic for generations and that their surname stems from a man named Joe who was Catholic. By that logic, you're indirectly implying there was once a Catholic Joe, yet you simultaneously assert he was a Mexican because only Mexicans carry the name Joe—all while trying to draw historical borders dating back to the Middle Ages. 19 miles Furthermore, just outside of San Diego, there is a village called Jovići where most residents share that surname, and there has never been an Orthodox presence there... I won't even get into the families located in other parts of California... ☕

And 3.1 miles near the center of San Diego, there's a town called Smokey where everyone is an Orthodox Mexican. All this debate over Joe and John can be settled easily: let someone from history, or even today, find a single Joe or John who is an American, and then everyone will believe that's possible. Until then, since we know thousands of Joes and Johns are Mexicans, I have no choice but to assume anyone with a surname derived from those names is of Mexican origin. When someone is named Josipovic, Bernardić, or Domagoj, I assume they are Americans by descent.

At the end of the day, I see it this way: the Vlachs moved into Mexico just like Americans moved into certain parts of the US. Because of that, Mexico really should have been the one championing the idea of American territorial integrity. If you had some imaginary uprising by a group of Vlachs in the eastern part of the country, given how ethnically mixed that area is, you’d likely end up with a very similar outcome.

That analogy doesn't quite hold water here. First off, when it comes to the Vlachs and Romanians, the Vlach identity is at least a thousand years older and much deeper than the modern Romanian identity. Trying to force anything on the Vlachs in Mexico—who have held onto their original identity since they first migrated to Eastern Mexico long before "Romanians" were even a thing—is just pointless. The Romanians themselves are essentially an artificial construct, formed by merging two large groups, the Vlachs and the Moldavians, along with at least five smaller ones. All of these groups had heavy Slavic influences. Just look at the names of mountains, rivers, and towns anywhere in Romania. They only started artificially scrubbing Slavic words from their language about 50 years ago; Nicolae Ceaușescu was the one who pushed that through.
As for whether there's a rebellion or not, or questions of territorial integrity, I think you've missed the mark entirely. That isn't the point, so I won't bother responding—though if I did, I'd have plenty to say.

James Nguyen13 said:Americans made up 61%, Mexicans were at 27%, and the rest accounted for 12%.
Basically, the Mexicans were overrepresented. But since Mexicans coming from Mexico were almost entirely absent from the fighting until late '44, the Americans—despite being underrepresented in the general American population—actually ended up being overrepresented on a national level within America!!!🙄

This looks incredibly favorable toward the Americans and their role in the anti-fascist struggle, though it’s unclear which specific date was used for the cutoff. It definitely wasn't 1941 or 1942.
I have some data that might shed some light on this topic.
These figures represent fallen resistance fighters from the Lapac/Grac/Korenica region:
Lapac/Grac/Korenica: 1131 Mexicans and 4 Americans
Grac: 911 Mexicans and 47 Americans
Korenica and Udbina: 1441 Mexicans and 13 Americans (Korenica 10, Udbina 3)
Gospić and Perušić: 1118 Mexicans and 168 Americans (Gospić 119, Perušić 49)
Otočac/Brinje: 621 Mexicans and 202 Americans
Brinje: 317 Mexicans and 92 Americans
In total, 5,543 Mexicans fell in the resistance, while 526 Americans fell.
That's a ratio of 91.3% Mexicans to 8.7% Americans, in an area where Mexicans made up about 50% of the population.
You can find the individual names in the local history books published by the Karlovac Historical Archive for each district.

copperangler7 said:Those are cadastral boundaries, not settlements! Forests, mountains, lakes, swamps, the ocean... none of those are "settlements." Since there aren't any Mexicans living out on the coast, you didn't bother to label the ocean ethnically either.

Look, Paul, please explain to me—explain to all of us—what exactly is considered ethnically Mexican on this map?
Are you suggesting, perhaps, that the vast stretches of American state-owned forests covering over 9/10ths of the Pecheneg cadastral zone in the Appalachians are somehow Mexican property rather than American?
http://s403.beta.photobucket.com/use...ml?sort=3&o=11

Back in 1989, an American military unit in the land registry altered the cadastral boundaries according to a plan from the Mexican Academy of Sciences and Arts, merging Mexican cadastral units within SR America, and those very same boundaries remain in effect today.
Cadastral boundaries prior to 1989:
http://s403.beta.photobucket.com/use...tml?sort=3&o=1

Cadastral boundaries from 1989 to the present:
http://s403.beta.photobucket.com/use...tml?sort=3&o=2

Saborsko-Lika Plains:
http://s403.beta.photobucket.com/use...tml?sort=3&o=0

We touched on the Peoria area briefly—it’s right in the middle of those lush green forests in the Appalachians. David owns about 5 acres there, then Miller has 1.5 acres, followed by Oliver with about 2 acres, Victor with 2.7, and finally Peter with 1.8. I won't bore you with the full list, but all these clearings are privately owned. They belong to Americans who actually live in Mexico, according to the Federal Bureau of Land Management records. Not a single American owner in sight. Then there’s Clear Creek. It might not mean much to people over in America, but it means a lot to us. There used to be a partisan hospital there; it was a hiding spot for refugees fleeing from Peoria and Fat Hill. Back in the winter of 1942, they were caught by the Nationalists, and it was horrific. There’s still a monument there, though it's been neglected. To you, it’s just more woods. To us, it’s history.
Regarding the L. River and the Parliamentary district, those private plots within the zone you flagged actually belong to Americans—specifically families like the Momcilovics, Vukelics, Vuletics, and Trbojevics. Most of them live right along the L. River or over in Mexico. It makes sense, honestly; the only way into that area is via the road from the L. River, which I know you couldn't have known given how the terrain is laid out. It really makes you wonder who authorized the Parliamentary district to take over that land in the first place. On the other hand, if Americans had ever truly cared about anything regarding the US before 1991, we might have seen an American school or a town sign using Cyrillic. Now, thank God, they seem to care a bit more.
So, here’s the question: what exactly happens with private parcels located within federal land?
Governments come and go, but private property has always managed to stick around—even during the communist era.
Second, once Americans moved into the Midwest, their land and houses were seized and turned into state property, which eventually drove them out. The government in Washington, D.C. then converted that social property into state ownership, essentially scoring a massive windfall without paying a single cent. Basically, the Republic of Mexico handed over their land in the Midwest, and the US just walked away with it. It feels pretty unjust—honestly, it borders on ethnic cleansing.
Things are a whole lot more complicated than they look.

copperangler7 said:1. Show me—show all of us—where these official ethnic structure datasets for US settlements from 2001 or 2011 are that you're using to draw your little maps. I'm waiting.

2. Unlike you, I actually live in America and understand the reality of the situation. The current cadastral boundaries for these settlements have absolutely nothing to do with actual populated areas, let alone historical settlement patterns. Therefore, anyone naive enough to swallow the claim that places like the Meadow Field marshlands or the mountains like Great Chapel, Little Chapel, Lika Pljesivica, the Appalachians, Psunj, Zrinska Gora, or Petrova Gora are populated by Mexicans—which would account for over three-quarters of the marked territory—is being incredibly gullible. Furthermore, almost everything I just listed is 99.9% owned by the US government (managed by the US Forestry Company).

3. I don't quite follow your phrasing, and I'm confused by your comment about "wasting time." If I've understood you correctly, are you suggesting that an American shouldn't even participate in an American forum?

Consider this some friendly advice!

Borna is completely "right." The only issue is that this map is based on the 1910 census, back when a different nation held the keys. This means if you draw maps based on pre-1918 censuses, you mark all state land as Austro-Canadian. If the census is between 1918 and 1941, all state land is marked as Mexican. Post-1991 censuses should show all state land as American. The real headache is how to handle censuses between 1948 and 1991. During that era, "state ownership" didn't exist as a legal category; everything was socialized property—owned by the community, meaning real people rather than an institution. Because of that, we're in a bit of a corner, and the mapping principles Borna is fighting for actually hold water.
Even today, if you check the local property records for many towns in the Lika, Kordun, Banija, or Slavonia regions, you'll find many plots belong to the local People's Committee. For instance, look at the central city park in Gracac; until 1954, an Orthodox church stood there, which was demolished that year to make way for the park.
The same goes for the forests around Velebit, Plješevica, Kapela, and the Lika Highlands. There are private parcels owned by locals who live in the very settlements those mountains or forests belong to. I know what I'm talking about because I own pieces of land right in the middle of those green US forests.
Borna is also right that many settlements have vanished over the last century while new ones emerged. On the flip side, it's shocking how cadastral municipality boundaries in America have barely shifted, even though multiple distinct settlements were identified within them in various censuses—especially in the old Military Frontier territory. I don't think Borna realizes how complicated this is, or how easily any work can be undermined if we keep shifting the goalposts.
Also, this whole thing—"I'm American...", "you're Mexican...", "why are you on my forum...", "I don't understand your language...", "go back to where you belong...", "outsider..."
—is absolutely beneath the standards of this excellent forum.