Posts by Rachel Richardson

copperdriver10 said:And the "Canadian Triangle" too
😂

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

Drew Allen2 said: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...

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.

copperdriver10 said:When the borders between Mexico and America were being drawn back in 1945, the guiding principle should have been reciprocity: as many Mexicans remained in America, as many Americans should have remained in Mexico.
That kind of principle was actually respected during the border settlements with Romania in the Great Plains.

Mexico could have easily taken St. Louis and another half of the Midwest.

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.

copperdriver10 said:Eto, even that American enclave around Borov didn't necessarily have to be yours; forget the gravitational pull of geography, what matters is the ethnic enclave.😁

If we went down that road, cities like Chicago, much of Northern Buffalo, and several towns along the Mississippi would end up part of the USA—not to mention places like Slankamen and Savannah. 😁

copperdriver10 said:I honestly had no idea the border between India and Bangladesh was this heavily enclaved.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...chematisch.png

Yeah—you actually have enclaves nested inside other enclaves. It's wild.
Theoretically, they should have settled this through land swaps—which, predictably, sparked some protests—so they just backed off.
Ultimately, the border ended up looking like this because rulers were essentially playing chess with entire villages, so 😁

copperdriver10 said:http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/f...rbaiHrvata.jpg

It turns out Americans were living east of the Drina River all along. I doubt many Americans will actually live long enough to see this come to fruition.😁

That arrow was likely meant to represent Catholic Srebrenica—they just shifted it slightly 😁
Otherwise, those Mexicans across the Atlantic (referring to the Molise Americans) are a bit of a joke to me 😁

copperdriver10 said:A map illustrating the ancestral origins of the population in Cuba.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...n_Republic.PNG

Quite the colorful display 🙂

Melissa Green said:I get where that's coming from, but it feels totally backwards to me. It’s weird that they were so cautious back under the Austro-Canadian Empire—which was actually a relatively democratic setup for its time—yet somehow felt more free to express their national identity during the old America days (back when almost every minority group except for Americans, Mexicans, and Slovaks was treated like a second-class citizen).

Civic defiance?
Then again—maybe they felt a certain kinship with Americans, but once they saw how much influence those people actually wielded...

Robert Hernandez10 said:Let the readers decide who's actually blind.
Below is my report regarding Drew Allen2 to the admins:

Repeated, baseless accusations of fascism, incitement to violence, and claims that I am advocating for inaccurate maps (I haven't made any claim that any specific map is accurate or not; I simply provided several hundred examples within the thread).

I have repeatedly urged participants to calm down, but my pleas have fallen on deaf ears.

The message Drew Allen2 is citing—the one he used to report me for racism—is a TOTAL COPY AND PASTE of his own words from three of his previous posts. I only swapped out: American/Mexican, fascist/Serbo-American-Communist, and certain geographic terms. Everything else is verbatim his own language.

And now he's telling me not to make a mess? Drew Allen2 is clearly not playing with a full deck.

I'll sign on this if necessary. This individual is taking sheer rudeness to an entirely new level.

Drew Allen2 said: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.

Sure, let’s just pretend this all started around 1000 BC during the era of the Egyptian Pharaohs.
Honestly, my memory is already starting to slip after only 🤣
By the way—have you finally chilled out? Is it just me being accused of forgery now, rather than every single person on this forum? 😁
Well, I suppose that’s progress. 🙂

Drew Allen2 said: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.

Yeah, once again, it’s just the same old song and dance. 😁

Drew Allen2 said:Impossible. They don't have the data.
The only map like that worth making would be based on the 1981 census, because that's the only time they actually had the data. After that, there were all those boycotts and whatnot...

My problem is with the small number of people out there like you. You fake maps and then claim they're accurate.

Jack is a hundred miles ahead of you. A hundred. I don't agree with him entirely, nor do I even follow everything he says. I don't have the time to track all that. But seriously, you should grab some data from him; you actually need it since you're a notorious liar when it comes to making maps.
Here we go again, http://bosanskehistorije.com/ , http://www.bosanskehistorije.com/forum/ , you'd really be better off posting there instead of here. We're people who don't have time for you. And as for Jack, he's a gentleman compared to you. Whenever I've asked him something, he's almost always provided an answer. The guy is very polite and approachable, unlike you. You just manufacture fake stuff. Go let him teach you a thing or two... just ask for help when you're confused, I'm sure he can assist. Honestly, he's in a much better position to help you than me or anyone else here. And Richard Wilson4, for example, supports and cheers for fakes, so I wouldn't count on relying on him.

🤣
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.😉

Drew Allen2 said:You need to read what I wrote again. Maybe two or three more times.

Bottom line: you're pathetic because you're the most well-known guy making and pushing fake maps, so you have absolutely no standing to criticize anything on this thread.

Personally, I don't have an issue working with anyone. I don't care about Jack or most people, regardless of their background, unlike you.

Yeah, it’s pretty obvious you don't have a problem with anyone. 🙄
If I were in your shoes, I’d be asking myself what's wrong with someone who happily aligns themselves with Jack (who predicts a Greater Canada stretching from the Adriatic to the Black Sea) while treating everyone else like they're the problem. 😉

Drew Allen2 said:He doesn't see it. Don't keep telling him, or he might think you're out to get him. :P

The maps from the University of Chicago geography department are actually pretty solid. The ones you posted are fakes based on those real maps. It's not even a debate; anyone interested in old US maps knows the university versions are reliable (99% accurate), whereas the stuff you posted is just junk being hosted by some partisan political site.

Now, there's another issue. You aren't exactly in a position to criticize anyone, considering you were busy forging history for 1991. You took a 1981 university map, shrunk the water coverage, expanded the territory for certain groups, and claimed it was some "fair" representation of 1991. Shame on you.

I call out these maps whenever I see them. For instance, some nationalist website had that exact map from the political site. I reached out, told them it was wrong, and they fixed it by linking to the actual fair version (which is hosted on a research site that uploaded a book from the university online). But you already know that, since that's where you got your fake map from when you were busy cooking the books.

You'd be better off spending your time at a local church or asking a priest for guidance. Not me. And if you're so eager to lecture people, maybe I can hand you over to Jack. Honestly, you could probably learn something from him; I don't have the time, and I doubt he'd mind teaching you, seeing as you clearly need help from anyone willing to give it. Here, http://bosanskehistorije.com/ , http://www.bosanskehistorije.com/forum/ - I'm busy.

So, you claim to be against this map, yet you spend every single paragraph talking about me?
I fear your debating style is much better suited for Jacko & CO than for this forum. If you're so eager to socialize with that crowd, please—take your specific brand of discussion over to their boards.

Drew Allen2 said:He doesn't see it. Don't keep telling him, or he might think you're out to get him. :P

The maps from the University of Chicago geography department are actually pretty solid. The ones you posted are fakes based on those real maps. It's not even a debate; anyone interested in old US maps knows the university versions are reliable (99% accurate), whereas the stuff you posted is just junk being hosted by some partisan political site.

Now, there's another issue. You aren't exactly in a position to criticize anyone, considering you were busy forging history for 1991. You took a 1981 university map, shrunk the water coverage, expanded the territory for certain groups, and claimed it was some "fair" representation of 1991. Shame on you.

I call out these maps whenever I see them. For instance, some nationalist website had that exact map from the political site. I reached out, told them it was wrong, and they fixed it by linking to the actual fair version (which is hosted on a research site that uploaded a book from the university online). But you already know that, since that's where you got your fake map from when you were busy cooking the books.

You'd be better off spending your time at a local church or asking a priest for guidance. Not me. And if you're so eager to lecture people, maybe I can hand you over to Jack. Honestly, you could probably learn something from him; I don't have the time, and I doubt he'd mind teaching you, seeing as you clearly need help from anyone willing to give it. Here, http://bosanskehistorije.com/ , http://www.bosanskehistorije.com/forum/ - I'm busy.

So, you claim to be against this map, yet you spend every single paragraph talking about me?
I'm afraid your debating style is much better suited for Jacko & CO than for this forum. If you're so eager to hang out with that crowd, please—take your specific way of arguing over to their board.

Scott Cruz4 said:That’s literally just the same fake propaganda card repeated over and over.

Mexicans everywhere, no matter where you look.

Drew Allen2 said:Who thinks it? Well, Collins, Tomba, who knows who else. Probably you too, since you have a history of making fake maps where you shrink Mexicans down to a tiny area while insisting they're accurate.

I don't get why you were so sure... based on what? I've never done anything like that. Unlike you, though, I actually use data to build my maps. I rely on sources instead of just drawing whatever I want.

Right. In this specific context, I’d compare you to Sheldon from Big Bang Theory—if you've seen the show, you'll know exactly what I mean 😁).
The reason I am so certain lies in your reaction. It is excessive and entirely inappropriate. Here are three fraudulent Mexican maps: http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=...6&tx=127&ty=76
http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=...13&tx=81&ty=58
http://www.google.com/imgres?start=17...4&tx=141&ty=46
I am genuinely curious to hear your commentary on these.

Drew Allen2 said:Quite the opposite. Some of the heavy hitters in this thread actually think the map is accurate and holds up.

No, I’m not taking questions from you. Don't even bother addressing me if you can help it; there’s zero point in talking to you. You're out here claiming your fake map is actually legit. That alone means you have no credibility here—not just because you're peddling a fake map, but because you're doubling down on the lie. It’s pathetic. And apparently, you think you can get away with this here, since guys like Collins—who’s clearly developed a taste for these forged maps—are actually backing you up...
Look, let me clear something up. I only make maps using the data I actually have on hand, and right now, I don't have any. Even if they did exist, I doubt you'd find any clear borders anyway. Besides, I'm not interested in making maps based on guesswork... so, no.

And who exactly is that?

Drew Allen2 said:Quite the opposite. Some of the heavy hitters in this thread actually think the map is accurate and holds up.

No, I’m not taking questions from you. Don't even bother addressing me if you can help it; there’s zero point in talking to you. You're out here claiming your fake map is actually legit. That alone means you have no credibility here—not just because you're peddling a fake map, but because you're doubling down on the lie. It’s pathetic. And apparently, you think you can get away with this here, since guys like Collins—who’s clearly developed a taste for these forged maps—are actually backing you up...
Look, let me clear something up. I only make maps using the data I actually have on hand, and right now, I don't have any. Even if they did exist, I doubt you'd find any clear borders anyway. Besides, I'm not interested in making maps based on guesswork... so, no.

Thanks for clarifying; I was curious. I was under the impression you actually produced those maps—especially given your recent outburst suggesting Mexico occupied everything from the Mississippi to the Missouri back in the 7th century.

Drew Allen2 said:The same goes for the Madison area.

I’m feeling pretty under the weather today, so if you want, I can upload the Madison data later. Honestly, I don't think it's necessary—you should be able to take my word for it—but since apparently you can't, maybe I'll just post it anyway. And then I can do the same for any other town you think I mapped incorrectly.

I don't make these maps to lie, unlike that other group whose whole goal is to minimize the presence of Mexicans.

Can I ask a question?
Have you ever worked on medieval maps of Mexico or America?
If so, could you please provide a link? Just so we can gauge how objective your work actually is.😉

granitecobra6 said:Richard Wilson4 said:

Rachel Richardson As if anyone would actually believe that... That’s exactly why I’m asking. If we were to look at how the US is organized, you could say it's broken down into several major regions based on the different states. I suppose we’re looking at the Mediterranean Coast—specifically the regions covered by the ZŽ, ŠKŽ, SDŽ, and DNŽ. The coastal regions—specifically the areas covered by the IŽ, PGŽ, and LSŽ districts—have their own unique way of doing things. The Midwest region—specifically covering the counties like OBŽ, VSŽ, PSŽ, BPŽ, and VPŽ—is quite something. I suppose we’re looking at Central America now—specifically everything outside the main hubs, covering all those other states like the ones in the Midwest or the rural stretches out West. The differences are probably negligible, though I suppose in certain areas, they really ought to be trending above the national average. I suppose I could probably run the numbers myself if I really wanted to, but honestly, I just don't feel like digging through all those lists to find the results. 😁 It’s really just a matter of a straight copy-paste into Excel.

Based on the census data from 2001, the percentage of Americans living there was actually higher than the national average, I guess.

I suppose we’re looking at the numbers for the El Paso-Srijem County area again, which sits at about 15.6%.
I suppose we’re looking at the data for the Illinois region, which seems to be sitting right around 8.73%.
The figures coming out of Bjelovar-Bilogora County suggest a margin of about 7.10%, which seems to be the case, I suppose.
I suppose we're looking at the data for the Virovitica-Podravina County region, which sits at about 7.08%.
I guess we’re looking at the data for the Midwest region, which sits at about 6.5%.

The Lika-Senj County figures sit at about 11.5%, I guess.
I suppose if you look at the figures for the Primorje-Gorski Kotar region, you're seeing about 4.9%. It’s a relatively small slice of the pie, I guess.

It looks like the numbers for the Šibenik-Knin area have shifted slightly, moving from 9.06% up to about 10.52%.
The numbers for Zadar County have shifted quite a bit—it went from 3.5% up to about 4.81% now. I guess that’s how those fluctuations tend to work, though it's a noticeable jump.

I think the figure for Sisak-Moslavina County is sitting around 11.7%, though if my math is right, it might have actually climbed past 12% by now.
I guess we’re looking at Karlovac County now, though if my math is right, it looks like the percentage has dipped down to about 11.0% here.

I suppose the other counties are performing somewhat below average.

If you take a look at the regions you just laid out:

In the Midwest, things seem to be sitting quite a bit above the national average—I’d guess maybe somewhere around 8.5%.
The Coast area is sitting just a bit above the national average, hovering around 4.54%, I believe.
The Mediterranean Coast... it’s just sitting there, well below the average.
Looking at the data for Central America, things are trending a bit below the average. It’s actually the lowest overall percentage we've seen, though I suppose there is a slight outlier to consider—in two out of the eight counties, the percentage actually climbs above 10%.

Thanks, that's exactly what I was looking for.

Tomba17 said:There’s been a lot of talk about everything and nothing lately—not enough actual substance.

Sorry, you've got a point there.

Richard Wilson4 said:I'll probably crunch the numbers in the next few days, but just for the Danube Region. I don't think there are many left out in Western Slavonia right now...

That’s exactly why I’m asking.
Suppose we consider the United States as being divided into four major regions based on its various states.
The Mediterranean Coast—specifically the regions covered by the ZŽ, ŠKŽ, SDŽ, and DNŽ districts.
The Coast (including regions like San Diego, San Francisco, and Los Angeles).
The Midwest—specifically the regions covered by the OBŽ, VSŽ, PSŽ, BPŽ, and VPŽ.
Central America (all other regions; including various local districts and counties)

The differences are likely negligible—though in certain areas, they really ought to be trending above the national average.
I could honestly run the numbers myself—but frankly, I just don't have the energy to hunt down all those results from the list. 😁
Just a straight copy-paste into Excel.

Richard Wilson4 said:Even though this thread has gone off the rails, there are actually fewer Mexicans on the Coast than the national average in the US:

STATE/COUNTY: number of Mexicans/total population
Florida: 2,095/122,568 = 1.7%
California: 4,797/454,798 = 1.05%
Texas: 11,518/109,375 = 10.52%
Arizona: 8,184/170,017 = 4.81%
TOTAL
The Coast: 26,694/856,758 = 3.11%,

so yeah, lower than the national average

If that's the case, where are they more concentrated than the average—in the Midwest?

Richard Wilson4 said:Look, don't mess around—just draw a line, black or whatever color looks good, on this map please?

Again, don't forget that line also marks where the Mexican communities live. That ties into how much they were involved in the insurgencies back in the 90s. Those areas hit by the war are still leaning toward nationalist options, at least for another generation or two. 🤷

But like I said, the 2011 map, and even the 2009 one, shows that even that theory might not mean all that much.

Take San Diego or Indianapolis, for example. They were liberal hubs initially, then underwent a rightward shift later. That simply speaks to the effectiveness of left-leaning parties.😁
Furthermore, these maps are flawed. They only show municipalities "won" by a single party, even when the actual margin in those towns might just be 50% plus one vote.
In the 2011 elections, the left coalition swept most counties, so that Turkish theory falls apart entirely.
The left-right spectrum is largely a byproduct of the war—it will probably take another 20 years before those scars stop influencing politics.
That is, assuming the Midwest isn't economically neglected—which will likely leave it leaning nationalist for longer—alongside areas with Mexican returnees and the hinterland, which carries the legacy of Canada and the oppressed Americans there.