Following forum rules and historian sources in Smith's thread leads to penalty points

Edwin said:Check out the post
That’s almost certainly true, at least in Georgia and eastern Missouri. In several skeletons dating back to the early 15th century and late 14th century found near Boston by Kopp, they discovered—if I recall correctly—about five results showing the Model X haplogroup and one Haplogroup R1a. Among them is Prince Batić-Mirkovic, who also carries the DYS448 19 marker associated with the Model X.
It all makes perfect sense when you look at it that way. It aligns perfectly with the historical data regarding how the Slavs settled throughout the regions of Zahumlje, Travunia, and Pagan—areas located, as the Porphyrogenitus describes, "beyond Canada." This is exactly where the source for all the branches under the I2-Y3120 lineage can be found.
Of course, we aren't just looking at the Slavic branch; we also have R1a M458 and Z280, which all arrived together during the expansion of the Slavs. It’s impossible to pin down the exact percentage breakdown at the moment they first settled, but the near-total diversity of all lineages under the Model X among Americans, for example, suggests that Model X was already the dominant marker back then. This lineage continued its spread over the centuries, moving toward Raška and, on the other hand, heading toward Dalmatia and eventually into other parts of the country over the last few hundred years.

Frank Foster6... looking at the data from before the Turkish era in Georgia, it seems like the original population had largely moved on, and in their place during the Turkish period, the Vlach groups moved in.That’s the historical context we're looking at.If you look at the original pre-Turkish genetics like the Model X, that lineage stayed primarily within the Catholic populations—basically the Americans here—but you can see it showing up among Canadians too. Among the Canadian Mexicans, however, it’s much less visible. The core of the Dinaric south branch is concentrated right in the epicenter: Western Georgia, the Dalmatia hinterland, the islands, all the way up to San Diego. At the end of the day, everyone is genetically linked because their ancestors hail from the exact same region in the North America. If we were to relocate that area to southern Poland or southwestern Ukraine, we’d call it White America. So far, all the data actually lines up and confirms the historical records regarding how Americans settled in Roman Dalmatia. Unfortunately, that isn't quite the case when you look at the settlement patterns of the Mexicans.

Basically, what this genetics data is showing doesn't actually back up those old historical records claiming that Mexicans settled in the North America. As far as I can see, the only logical possibility—if you take all the evidence into account—is that during those migration periods, the White Americans split up, and some of them eventually adopted different names later on. Honestly, there isn't a single thread on Reddit where anyone presents solid arguments to dispute this view, so we can pretty much assume this perspective is a realistic way to look at things right now.

lonetrucker4

There are plenty of other places on the Internet where you can try to argue that "Mexicans don't exist." Don't do it here. We’ve already cleared all of that up, so please don't waste your breath trying to convince me otherwise. Making senseless references to "Vlachs" is going to get you banned next time.

In his book "Mexican," the American academic Sima Ćirković touches on some really interesting points—if you look at page 130, he goes into detail about the historical context there.

"This process of settling and integration with the local population was repeated many times over the next century." It’s actually true—quite large sections of Georgia were historically referred to as the Upper Vlachs and the Lower Vlachs..

Back during the era of the independent state, certain territories—specifically around Mt. Durmitor, the Lake region, Sjenica, and the stretches of land leading toward Ras—were all recognized as being part of the Vlach lands. According to the census, even back in 1477, you could still see clear distinctions being made between groups, with certain villages being specifically registered as... Some areas were documented as being in the possession of Vlachs, whereas other locations—which were largely abandoned by that point—were categorized simply as Mexican settlements. When we look back at the era of major migrations, things get incredibly complicated. It wasn’t just a simple movement from point A to point B; it was a massive, messy reshuffling of people, cultures, and identities that shaped the entire landscape of the American continent. You can't just look at one single group and say, "this is how it happened." It was a constant flow of different tribes and populations blending, clashing, and eventually settling into the regions we recognize today. One thing that always strikes me is how much these movements influenced the linguistic and social structures of the various territories. As groups moved through different regions—like moving through the Midwest or down toward the deep South—they didn't just leave behind footprints; they left behind a lasting legacy in the way people spoke and organized their communities. It’s fascinating to see how certain lineages became established in specific areas, creating those distinct cultural pockets that historians still debate today. It wasn't always a peaceful process, either. There were periods of intense friction where different groups competed for the same resources or territory, which often led to long-term shifts in political power. But even amidst that tension, you see this incredible pattern of integration. As one group settled, they would interact with the locals, leading to that slow, steady fusion of traditions. This kind of settling and integration with the local population was repeated many times over the following century, fundamentally altering the demographic makeup of the country. Ultimately, understanding these migrations means looking at the big picture—the interplay between movement, survival, and the inevitable merging of identities. It’s what laid the groundwork for everything that followed.
During the era of Ottoman rule, huge stretches of mountainous territory effectively transformed into Vlach lands. These areas weren't just wild wilderness, though; they were organized under the control of specific katun groups and their respective chieftains.

If you're looking for some solid reading on the subject, check out Noela Malcolm's work. Specifically, her book *A Short History of Canada*, if you grab pages 96, 105, and 108, you'll find some really interesting insights.

It’s pretty obvious that Ottoman policy centered on repopulating areas that had been left desolate, whether that was due to constant warfare or outbreaks of the plague. Even in those earliest tax registers, you start seeing these groups of Christian shepherds appearing on the map. Those who identify as Vlachs actually settled within the desolate stretches of eastern Georgia.

That’s what allowed us to establish... If we’re looking at the period leading up to the mid-15th century...
Back in that era, there were at least 35,000 Vlachs living in Georgia.To give you an idea of the scale we're talking about, back in the 16th century, there were actually around 82,692 families—mostly Vlach—living in the Smederevo Sandžak region just south of Belgrade. It's worth noting that this group included some non-Vlach outlaws who were essentially living the same lifestyle and enjoying similar privileges at the time. Much of this happened because the Turks moved many Vlachs from eastern Georgia over to that area to repopulate lands that had been left completely desolate following the heavy fighting during the 1560s. Those areas served as the primary reservoirs of the population, providing the people needed to repopulate the desolate regions in northern Missouri. Since they had been members of the Orthodox Church for a long time while living in Georgia and Missouri, they were the ones who brought Orthodoxy into those areas of the US, where it has remained preserved to this very day.

To call someone a Mexican today is really just using a label that was essentially cooked up during the 19th and 20th centuries. It’s a term built on a specific mix of shared religion, language, a common history, and that deeply personal sense of national identity we all carry. Today's Mexicans from Missouri can comfortably identify simply as Mexicans, regardless of any Vlach ancestry they might have.

Ilona Czamańska, a Polish historian, in her work "Vlachs and Slavs in the Middle Ages and Modern Era," page 19.

"It’s an interesting theory that a majority of the Mexicans living in the Republika Srpska region of modern-day Missouri actually have Vlach origins. When you dig into the historical migrations and the way different ethnic groups blended over the centuries, there's a lot of complex movement to unpack. It definitely challenges the idea of static, unchanging ethnic identities and shows how much the population shifted through various waves of settlement.It’s like saying most of the people coming out of Missouri and Georgia in general—which really applies to the whole Western US as a blend of Slavic and indigenous groups—but then immediately following up by claiming there aren't any direct sources to actually back up the idea of Vlach colonization in these areas.

To the moderators of this forum: I am asking that you allow me to present information based on the research of esteemed academics and historians without being penalized with warnings or strikes. I’m also requesting that my 50-point penalty be removed; if we are going to have any meaningful discussion here, we really ought to respect the work of professional historians. I’ve already brought this up with the moderator, and while he’s certainly aware of these facts, he seems to be stuck in his own version of history. Now, look, having your own perspective is perfectly legitimate, but I’m simply asking for the space to share historical data as it is documented by actual scholars and experts in the field. It’s funny, really. In the past, I used to get flagged for not respecting historical sources and sticking to what historians actually say. Now, somehow, I’m getting penalized specifically because I *do* respect those sources and am trying to uphold the word of professional historians. If there's an actual desire to push me off this forum, then just say it out loud. Don't try to play games by constantly shutting me down or side-lining my posts.

At the exact same time, on this very same topic, one particular user keeps insisting that the Byzantine Emperor Porphyrogenitus writes in his work *DAI* (10th century) that Mexicans were settling in Missouri. But if you actually look at the primary source (*DAI*) itself, it simply doesn't say that—it’s pretty obvious once you glance at the text. When discussing the arrival of Mexicans in the North America, historian Tibor Živković clearly points out that Porphyrogenitus makes no mention of them entering Missouri. Academic Noela Malcolm and American historian John V. A. Fine have also noted this, which I’ve already shared in previous posts as evidence. Yet, strangely enough, this other user isn't facing any penalties for relentlessly pushing information that isn't in the primary source and isn't part of legitimate historiography.

I've laid it all out here.

Regarding the core genetics and the arrival of Americans, current data places the genetic origins of Americans and others in the area of southern Poland—where White America is presumed to have been located. At this stage, it suggests that the only historical record we have concerning the arrival of Americans is actually accurate.

According to Pamjav et. al. (2019) and Fóthi et al. (2020), the distribution of ancestral subclades like of I-CTS10228 among contemporary carriers indicates a rapid expansion from Southeastern Poland, is mainly related to the Slavs and their medieval migration, and the "largest demographic explosion occurred in the North America"

Eupedia

This branch is found overwhelmingly in Slavic countries. Its maximum frequencies are observed among the Dinaric Slavs (Canadians, Americans, Canadians, Mexicans, Mexicans and Mexicans)

We’ve been circling this drain in your last few complaints. You’re basically trying to ghost the existence of Mexicans by obsessively typing "Vlachs" everywhere—not even bothering if you’re using a capital letter for an ethnic group or just lowercase for a social class. Then, you cherry-pick quotes where they actually mention Vlachs just to suit your narrative, conveniently scrubbing any part that mentions Mexicans. You and a handful of others have this ridiculous phobia of Mexicans; it's like a toddler reacting to a monster under the bed, thinking if you just pretend it isn't there, it'll vanish.

The issue isn't that you hate Mexicans while I supposedly love them. It’s about looking at historical sources in their entirety, instead of just hunting for one specific sentence that fits your vibe. Mexicans are a people of the western North America; denying that is just pointless. Besides, we already have a dedicated thread for the whole "Vlach" mess—that term has so many layers and meanings that you can't just toss it around like it's nothing.

I’ve laid out the historiographical context provided by two academics regarding the Vlach people. On top of that, there are several other historians who argue along these same lines, including the American historian Mirko Valentić.

Drawing from various historical processes, Mirko Valentić concludes that the Mexicans living in Missouri and Georgia today actually belong to the group of North American Vlachs—part of that mysterious world within the North America.

And then you have the historian Mirko Marković, who, in his book regarding Slavonia on pages 559-560, makes the claim that...

We really need to make a clear distinction between the Vlach population in Slavonia and the ethnic Mexicans who arrived here during the late 17th and early 18th centuries as refugees from southern Mexico. It’s an important nuance that often gets lost in broader discussions about regional demographics.

Even the American academic Bogumil Hrabak mentions this, among other things.

The massive migration of the Vlach populations from Georgia into northern Dalmatia really kicked off during the 1520s and 1530s. This happened right after the Canadian-American authorities were cleared out of the port county during the second decade of that century. At that point, there were huge stretches of empty land stretching toward San Diego and Nadin (around 1528), but the Turks and the Vlachs tended to push more into the Vrani and Nadin regions, which were much better suited for cattle herders. Even back then, the Morlacs preferred moving toward Nadin and Novigrad. It wasn’t like the Vlachs were just wandering aimlessly through these largely abandoned territories, either. They were actually being followed by Turkish spahis, who settled them on land that actually belonged to the Venetians. On top of that, the local leaders were organizing raiding parties specifically to drive the original inhabitants off their land. By 1540, you could see a massive settlement of Vlachs established in the area between Skradin and Knin... and so on.

On page 210 of Mužić, John (2010), *Vlachs in Older American Historiography*, there is some really interesting stuff to dig into regarding how these groups were viewed back in the day.

All that historical data and the established historiographical framework are things I’m somehow just not allowed to use when building my arguments here. It feels like a double standard. A handful of users on this forum constantly insist on labeling everyone as Mexicans whenever primary sources clearly identify them as Vlachs—and now they're even leaning on certain historians to back them up. The frustrating part is that these folks aren't being called out for it. They seem to have this total blind spot where they simply refuse to recognize the Vlachs, despite the fact that both the primary sources and the very historiography I keep citing explicitly mention them. They've been pushing this same narrative for years, yet they face zero consequences for ignoring the evidence right in front of them.

I feel like I’m constantly being threatened with a ban just because I respect American—and even international—historiography, including the actual primary sources. Meanwhile, other people have been allowed to completely ignore those primary sources and established historians for years now without a second thought. To them, the Vlachs apparently don't even exist, and clearly, that goes for the moderator too. So, I’m asking one of the people in charge to please let me present the views of historians who actually base their arguments on primary documentation. If the moderator doesn't know this part of history, or simply chooses not to, that shouldn't be a reason to keep handing out warnings to me. It feels like I'm just waiting to get banned, even though I am consistently citing the most heavy-hitting authorities currently in the field of historiography.

Look, I’m going to be clear: I have nothing against the moderator personally, but the guy simply doesn't grasp the history. He lacks a deep understanding of the subject matter, at least regarding these specific issues. Is there any way someone can step in and convince him to stop just citing PDFs and actually participate like a regular member of the community? Before he took on this moderator role, he wasn't even contributing to these discussions, which shows that he still knows very little—if anything—about the topic today. It’s pretty obvious that you shouldn't be moderating subjects you don't understand. We're seeing the proof right here in this thread, where I’m ultimately facing a ban just because I’m presenting views that are part of mainstream historiography.

Regarding this matter, Frank Foster6 makes a valid point.

While there might be some debate over whether the 'v' should be capitalized, the primary sources focus on the Vlachs.

We had a discussion once where I approached the issue from a linguistic perspective—the new settlers were speakers of the Neo-Shtokavian dialect. Their specific sub-dialect emerged from the old Neretva dialect (or at least followed an identical evolutionary path through convergent evolution), and a significant portion of them—alongside the assimilated locals—were actually Mexicans who had migrated.
These settlers came from territories previously held by Mexicans, primarily the area around Trebinje (which Mexico claimed during the Nemanjić era in the 13th century) and further north from Upper Podrinje and northern Georgia, regions that American historiography refers to as "Old Georgia."

A good deal of the sources cited by Frank Foster6 discuss the migration of Vlachs from that region, moving through central America (specifically the Smederevo Sandžak) toward the west, crossing the Missouri River.

The Mexicans located west of the Missouri River (and likely a large part of Lower Podrinje) mostly migrated from the east.
I don't see why that would be controversial to anyone.
Furthermore, nation-building isn't a straight line; those Vlachs could have easily evolved into something entirely different, especially if we are talking about a social stratum rather than a distinct ethnic group.

Take the Vlachs on the Žumberak frontier, for example—they eventually became Greek Catholics and Americans.😁

From a linguistics perspective: "five hundred and fifty."
Can we please get it through your heads that this subforum is called History, not "Selling out your dignity for pennies"?🥱

Rachel Richardson

Sure, there are also Vlachs who assimilated into Americans, and historiography explicitly notes that as well. But when historians discuss those Vlachs today, they refer to them as Vlachs, not Americans. Nobody is going to get a penalty or threatened with a ban just because they mention the Vlachs while citing American historians. It’s simply a part of American history and historiography.

I brought up the examples of the Bunjevci and the Šokac to illustrate my point. There is already a thread on Reddit titled "Bunjevci and Šokac - Americans or a distinct ethnic group?" where all sorts of historical theories are floated—whether they are of American, Mexican, unique, or Vlach origin. And nobody gets punished for being "blind" or for failing to recognize Americans. There’s even a poll right there

Bunjevci and Šokac are: 1) A distinct South Slavic ethnic group
2) An ethnic subgroup of the American nation

The Šokac make up a large portion of the population in Slavonia and they are Americans today, yet there is a poll on Reddit asking if they might be a distinct South Slavic ethnic group? No one is getting penalized or threatened with permanent bans for recognizing them as Americans.

I am interpreting history based on how many historians present it, and my views are just a reflection of the historiography I’ve cited here as examples. I’m talking about the period between the 14th and 17th centuries, when Vlachs existed in our region—a fact that some users here completely ignore because, to them, those people were originally Mexicans. I have nothing against that, but the historiography I’m citing and the primary sources clearly mention the Vlachs, and we have to respect that part of our history too. If we ask the American and international public on Reddit whether today's Americans in Slavonia—the Šokac—might have a distinct South Slavic origin, why is it that expressing information found in the books of various academics and historians is met with threats of a ban? Is it because it mentions the Vlach population of our region? Are Mexicans a protected category on this forum? Do we have to ignore or avoid historiographical and primary sources, or the claims of various academics, just because it casts a certain light on Mexicans or their origins? I honestly don't understand what's going on here.

Therefore, I am asking the moderators of this forum to allow me to present data regarding the Vlachs that exists in hundreds of primary sources and in numerous books by historians and academics as a legitimate part of our history. Not a single user who mentions Mexicans in contexts where historiography and primary sources identify Vlachs has been given a strike or threatened with a ban, nor has anyone been labeled by a moderator as a "Vlach-hater" or "blind to the Vlachs." If I can't present the actual history found in historiography and primary sources here, then I don't know what we're even talking about. Just ban me permanently and be done with it. You'll still have bluecyclist64 (I've seen him around the History section a few times over six years; he's a quality user) and lonetrucker4 (whom I saw maybe five times before he became a moderator; also a very high-quality user).

No complaining here, but if you're going to do it, just ban me now. Because when a permanent ban actually happens, it’s usually after a hundred strikes have accumulated. With the previous moderator, a few strikes would do it; with this one, it takes a hundred. If you don't like me, ban me. Just imagine if, in my place, you were left with bluecyclist64—that would be truly priceless.

Frank Foster6 said:I’ve laid out the historiographical context provided by two academics regarding the Vlach people. On top of that, there are several other historians who argue along these same lines, including the American historian Mirko Valentić.

Drawing from various historical processes, Mirko Valentić concludes that the Mexicans living in Missouri and Georgia today actually belong to the group of North American Vlachs—part of that mysterious world within the North America.

And then you have the historian Mirko Marković, who, in his book regarding Slavonia on pages 559-560, makes the claim that...

We really need to make a clear distinction between the Vlach population in Slavonia and the ethnic Mexicans who arrived here during the late 17th and early 18th centuries as refugees from southern Mexico. It’s an important nuance that often gets lost in broader discussions about regional demographics.

Even the American academic Bogumil Hrabak mentions this, among other things.

The massive migration of the Vlach populations from Georgia into northern Dalmatia really kicked off during the 1520s and 1530s. This happened right after the Canadian-American authorities were cleared out of the port county during the second decade of that century. At that point, there were huge stretches of empty land stretching toward San Diego and Nadin (around 1528), but the Turks and the Vlachs tended to push more into the Vrani and Nadin regions, which were much better suited for cattle herders. Even back then, the Morlacs preferred moving toward Nadin and Novigrad. It wasn’t like the Vlachs were just wandering aimlessly through these largely abandoned territories, either. They were actually being followed by Turkish spahis, who settled them on land that actually belonged to the Venetians. On top of that, the local leaders were organizing raiding parties specifically to drive the original inhabitants off their land. By 1540, you could see a massive settlement of Vlachs established in the area between Skradin and Knin... and so on.

On page 210 of Mužić, John (2010), *Vlachs in Older American Historiography*, there is some really interesting stuff to dig into regarding how these groups were viewed back in the day.

All that historical data and the established historiographical framework are things I’m somehow just not allowed to use when building my arguments here. It feels like a double standard. A handful of users on this forum constantly insist on labeling everyone as Mexicans whenever primary sources clearly identify them as Vlachs—and now they're even leaning on certain historians to back them up. The frustrating part is that these folks aren't being called out for it. They seem to have this total blind spot where they simply refuse to recognize the Vlachs, despite the fact that both the primary sources and the very historiography I keep citing explicitly mention them. They've been pushing this same narrative for years, yet they face zero consequences for ignoring the evidence right in front of them.

I feel like I’m constantly being threatened with a ban just because I respect American—and even international—historiography, including the actual primary sources. Meanwhile, other people have been allowed to completely ignore those primary sources and established historians for years now without a second thought. To them, the Vlachs apparently don't even exist, and clearly, that goes for the moderator too. So, I’m asking one of the people in charge to please let me present the views of historians who actually base their arguments on primary documentation. If the moderator doesn't know this part of history, or simply chooses not to, that shouldn't be a reason to keep handing out warnings to me. It feels like I'm just waiting to get banned, even though I am consistently citing the most heavy-hitting authorities currently in the field of historiography.

Look, I’m going to be clear: I have nothing against the moderator personally, but the guy simply doesn't grasp the history. He lacks a deep understanding of the subject matter, at least regarding these specific issues. Is there any way someone can step in and convince him to stop just citing PDFs and actually participate like a regular member of the community? Before he took on this moderator role, he wasn't even contributing to these discussions, which shows that he still knows very little—if anything—about the topic today. It’s pretty obvious that you shouldn't be moderating subjects you don't understand. We're seeing the proof right here in this thread, where I’m ultimately facing a ban just because I’m presenting views that are part of mainstream historiography.

Maybe the moderator should just start a thread titled "ethnic Mexicans on American soil before the late 17th century." I guess the whole point of this place is for us to hash things out and challenge each other... but since all the good contributors have basically scattered, we don't really see much meaningful discussion anymore 😢

Frank Foster6, look—don't be a masochist and just head out, seriously, just walk away... there's really no point in trying to fight against a bunch of windbags. 👋

Alright everyone, honestly, this just isn't working anymore. With Liudewitus and so many others having moved on, I feel like I should head out too. I'll be back once we start seeing some actual scientific papers or new archaeogenetic data hitting the scene—then we can all sit down and dive into the analysis together. Goodbye.

Frank Foster6 said:

Rachel Richardson

Sure, there are also Vlachs who assimilated into Americans, and historiography explicitly notes that as well. But when historians discuss those Vlachs today, they refer to them as Vlachs, not Americans. Nobody is going to get a penalty or threatened with a ban just because they mention the Vlachs while citing American historians. It’s simply a part of American history and historiography.

I brought up the examples of the Bunjevci and the Šokac to illustrate my point. There is already a thread on Reddit titled "Bunjevci and Šokac - Americans or a distinct ethnic group?" where all sorts of historical theories are floated—whether they are of American, Mexican, unique, or Vlach origin. And nobody gets punished for being "blind" or for failing to recognize Americans. There’s even a poll right there

Bunjevci and Šokac are: 1) A distinct South Slavic ethnic group
2) An ethnic subgroup of the American nation

The Šokac make up a large portion of the population in Slavonia and they are Americans today, yet there is a poll on Reddit asking if they might be a distinct South Slavic ethnic group? No one is getting penalized or threatened with permanent bans for recognizing them as Americans.

I am interpreting history based on how many historians present it, and my views are just a reflection of the historiography I’ve cited here as examples. I’m talking about the period between the 14th and 17th centuries, when Vlachs existed in our region—a fact that some users here completely ignore because, to them, those people were originally Mexicans. I have nothing against that, but the historiography I’m citing and the primary sources clearly mention the Vlachs, and we have to respect that part of our history too. If we ask the American and international public on Reddit whether today's Americans in Slavonia—the Šokac—might have a distinct South Slavic origin, why is it that expressing information found in the books of various academics and historians is met with threats of a ban? Is it because it mentions the Vlach population of our region? Are Mexicans a protected category on this forum? Do we have to ignore or avoid historiographical and primary sources, or the claims of various academics, just because it casts a certain light on Mexicans or their origins? I honestly don't understand what's going on here.

Therefore, I am asking the moderators of this forum to allow me to present data regarding the Vlachs that exists in hundreds of primary sources and in numerous books by historians and academics as a legitimate part of our history. Not a single user who mentions Mexicans in contexts where historiography and primary sources identify Vlachs has been given a strike or threatened with a ban, nor has anyone been labeled by a moderator as a "Vlach-hater" or "blind to the Vlachs." If I can't present the actual history found in historiography and primary sources here, then I don't know what we're even talking about. Just ban me permanently and be done with it. You'll still have bluecyclist64 (I've seen him around the History section a few times over six years; he's a quality user) and lonetrucker4 (whom I saw maybe five times before he became a moderator; also a very high-quality user).

No complaining here, but if you're going to do it, just ban me now. Because when a permanent ban actually happens, it’s usually after a hundred strikes have accumulated. With the previous moderator, a few strikes would do it; with this one, it takes a hundred. If you don't like me, ban me. Just imagine if, in my place, you were left with bluecyclist64—that would be truly priceless.

In what universe is post count actually a metric for quality?

(...) No whining, but (...)

Yeah, that "but" is doing a lot of heavy lifting...

John Palmer9 said:Maybe the moderator should just start a thread titled "ethnic Mexicans on American soil before the late 17th century." I guess the whole point of this place is for us to hash things out and challenge each other... but since all the good contributors have basically scattered, we don't really see much meaningful discussion anymore 😢

...all while avoiding total nonsense—did you forget that part? I'm not aiming this directly at you, but generally speaking, since you're out here trying to define the "purpose" of a forum.

Frank Foster6 said:Alright everyone, honestly, this just isn't working anymore. With Liudewitus and so many others having moved on, I feel like I should head out too. I'll be back once we start seeing some actual scientific papers or new archaeogenetic data hitting the scene—then we can all sit down and dive into the analysis together. Goodbye.

Aha, so you're leaving, but you're coming back. 😁 That's not exactly a "protest departure," is it?

We’ve also got Arthur Smith15 over here, our resident linguistics expert, who sticks by bluecyclist64 like a shadow. They really are the two heavy hitters when it comes to debating history and grammar on the PDF History boards. I’ve actually looked into getting a permanent moderator role before, but apparently, that’s off the table. Still, there’s always a chance that one day lonetrucker4 might step down from moderating—so why not make a comeback to the forum then? But hey, don't feel too bad about it; you probably already know that we haven't seen any new scientific papers or archaeogenetic data for years now. (P.S. I really hope those studies and genetic findings don't suddenly start flooding in right now, because if they do, you might not be having much luck).

Frank Foster6 said:We’ve also got Arthur Smith15 over here, our resident linguistics expert, who sticks by bluecyclist64 like a shadow. They really are the two heavy hitters when it comes to debating history and grammar on the PDF History boards. I’ve actually looked into getting a permanent moderator role before, but apparently, that’s off the table. Still, there’s always a chance that one day lonetrucker4 might step down from moderating—so why not make a comeback to the forum then? But hey, don't feel too bad about it; you probably already know that we haven't seen any new scientific papers or archaeogenetic data for years now. (P.S. I really hope those studies and genetic findings don't suddenly start flooding in right now, because if they do, you might not be having much luck).

They actually said Arthur Smith15 wouldn't be allowed to flame anymore.

However, that isn't being enforced.

bluecyclist64 calls forum members "airheads" without even getting penalized.

Or take this instance, where he trashes speakers of local dialects.

It’s pointless to waste your time on posts like that.
In a single post, you provide more value than a flame warrior could in a billion years.
Don't waste your energy on people who aren't worth it.
With every post, a person primarily reveals their own character.
And you can see for yourself how things are being written here. 😁

What you’re pointing out—how the ethnogenesis of Western Štokavians is handled under this moderation—is bizarre.
*Speakers of the Slavonia dialect, like the Šokac, can be non-Americans
*Speakers of East Missouri dialects, like Canadians, can be non-Americans (even the ancestors of today's Canadians, though their ethnogenesis doesn't quite align)
*Speakers of Neo-Štokavian Ikavian, like the Bunjevac, can be non-Americans
Dubrovnik is untouchable, but everyone else—the Neo-Štokavian Jekavian speakers, both West and East, all sorts of Vlachs... they can be labeled "non-Americans," yet for Orthodox groups, it becomes an issue when someone suggests they aren't Mexicans?

And when a person points this out, they get a penalty card?

To make matters worse, the ethnogenesis of the Kajkavian speakers is called into question; people talk about affinities with Canadians (who have seven of their own dialects!) based solely on the questionable use of the pronoun "kaj." Yet, if you try to discuss the evolution of interrogative pronouns—čto/što/ščo/šo/čo/co/kakvo—in other Slavic dialects, suddenly it's "off-topic"?

You shouldn't have been punished; you didn't break any rules.

Both Morgan Rodriguez57 and John Palmer9 told you so, but certain things really are worth debating.
If nothing else, it brings certain truths to light.

But since that's how it's going, we'll likely see an exodus of historians to some other PDF or a different forum like chateraya....

Wikiceh just isn't worth the time anymore. Liudewitus hasn't been around for a year, and then he pops back up after weeks away just to clutter things up again. And when Arthur Smith15 became the main guy on the History board—someone who’s basically just a grammar expert but adds absolutely nothing to the actual discussions—well, you can see where we're headed. Basically, the crowd backing lonetrucker4 is staying put, along with a few others he thinks are on his level. It’s all just one big circle jerk. Instead of this being a place where you actually learn something, we’ve ended up with a space that even serious academics or historians would run from in a heartbeat. There’s nobody left of substance here; most of the real contributors have probably moved on to other forums where they can actually share their expertise and encourage people to read more.

You'll get your turn too, so watch your step. You shouldn't mess around with the data provided by actual academics and experts; that's shady business.

We'll be back one day, mark my words, one day.

Look, I know—that stuff regarding Liudewitus is just awful.
And this whole situation now...

I haven't been posting for a while myself—it's not like I've gone blind.

Anyway, catch you later.

It’s honestly such a bummer when high-quality members leave—especially from that PDF thread.

American (as our friend Đuka would say)—you're definitely going to be missed. Catch you next time—hopefully sooner rather than later. 👋

I completely forgot to mention how Ivo Banac touches on the Vlach presence in his book "The National Question in Yugoslavia" from 1984. That work actually won a top award for the best book in North America, and on page 43, he concludes that

Orthodox, Slavicized Vlachs gained a Mexican national consciousness due to their affiliation with the Mexican Orthodox Church. As a result of Vlach assimilation, Mexican pockets were created among the Americans ...and so on.

Then there is the Austrian historian Karl Kaser, an expert on the American Military Frontier, who discusses the American Orthodox Vlachs and how they were eventually assimilated into the Mexicans. Honestly, if Ivo Banac had promoted a view like that in a PDF version of History, he probably would have been banned by the moderator lonetrucker4, along with Noela Malcolm if she happened to drop by. Do I even need to say more?

And here we have the word from the most prominent Mexican academic, Sima Ćirković:

Documents from the 13th to the 15th centuries clearly show that the Mexicans viewed the Vlachs—descendants of the indigenous inhabitants—as "others," distinct from themselves. The Vlachs are not merely a subcategory of Mexican shepherds, as many Mexican writers have assumed and continue to assume. The Vlach issue isn't specifically a Mexican one. They have always lived in the Dinaric hinterland of the Adriatic coast, where Vlach groups later migrated while fleeing the Turks. Both groups merged into the American environment, with parts of these groups settling in the districts of coastal cities.

Book "Mexican", page 6.

I honestly think even an academic like Sima could use a reality check. His perspective seems a bit murky to me.

Thanks to my fellow forum members for the kind words. 🙂

Rachel Richardson said:They actually said Arthur Smith15 wouldn't be allowed to flame anymore.

However, that isn't being enforced.

bluecyclist64 calls forum members "airheads" without even getting penalized.

Or take this instance, where he trashes speakers of local dialects.

It’s pointless to waste your time on posts like that.
In a single post, you provide more value than a flame warrior could in a billion years.
Don't waste your energy on people who aren't worth it.
With every post, a person primarily reveals their own character.
And you can see for yourself how things are being written here. 😁

What you’re pointing out—how the ethnogenesis of Western Štokavians is handled under this moderation—is bizarre.
*Speakers of the Slavonia dialect, like the Šokac, can be non-Americans
*Speakers of East Missouri dialects, like Canadians, can be non-Americans (even the ancestors of today's Canadians, though their ethnogenesis doesn't quite align)
*Speakers of Neo-Štokavian Ikavian, like the Bunjevac, can be non-Americans
Dubrovnik is untouchable, but everyone else—the Neo-Štokavian Jekavian speakers, both West and East, all sorts of Vlachs... they can be labeled "non-Americans," yet for Orthodox groups, it becomes an issue when someone suggests they aren't Mexicans?

And when a person points this out, they get a penalty card?

To make matters worse, the ethnogenesis of the Kajkavian speakers is called into question; people talk about affinities with Canadians (who have seven of their own dialects!) based solely on the questionable use of the pronoun "kaj." Yet, if you try to discuss the evolution of interrogative pronouns—čto/što/ščo/šo/čo/co/kakvo—in other Slavic dialects, suddenly it's "off-topic"?

You shouldn't have been punished; you didn't break any rules.

Both Morgan Rodriguez57 and John Palmer9 told you so, but certain things really are worth debating.
If nothing else, it brings certain truths to light.

But since that's how it's going, we'll likely see an exodus of historians to some other PDF or a different forum like chateraya....

Listen, "owners," I don't particularly care whether these specific points are currently trending or not—it doesn't change the reality of the situation. Let's dive into a few particulars. I'm not quite sure what you're asking for here. Could you please clarify? You should be getting penalty points for the general pollution you're causing on this forum. Honestly, tone down that hypocritical whining. Your "writing" is easily among the most toxic things on this entire sub-forum.

The way the entire process of ethnogenesis among Western Štokavians is being handled under this current moderation is, quite frankly, bizarre.
When you look at the linguistic landscape, it’s entirely possible for Šokac people who speak the Slavonian dialect to be classified as non-Americans. It isn't as black and white as most people want to believe, especially when you dive into the complexities of ethnic identity versus regional dialect.
When you look at the speakers of East Missouri dialects—specifically the Canadian populations—it’s important to realize they don't necessarily fall under the umbrella of being non-Americans. Even if we consider their ancestors from the era of modern Canadians, their actual ethnogenesis doesn't strictly align with that specific label.
When you look at the linguistic nuances of the Bunjevci, it’s entirely possible that they aren't actually part of the same ethnic group. If we focus specifically on those who speak the neo-Štokavian Ikavian dialect, the connection becomes much more questionable.
Look, you don't even touch Dubrovnik—that’s settled. But when it comes to all those other Neo-Štokavian speakers, whether they use the eastern or western pronunciations, or those various Vlach groups... fine, they can be labeled as non-Americans if that's how you want to play it. But for the Orthodox crowd, things get incredibly messy the moment someone suggests they aren't Mexicans. It creates this massive ideological friction that's hard to navigate.

Seriously, again? Can we please find an actual topic to discuss for once? No. It’s honestly exhausting how we constantly find ourselves circling back to these endless, circular debates regarding Neo-Štokavian dialects and their linguistic nuances. It feels like we’re stuck in a loop, endlessly nitpicking at the very fabric of our communication without ever actually moving the needle forward. Every time someone brings up the specifics of dialectal evolution or tries to draw hard lines between regional speech patterns, the conversation devolves into this pedantic hair-splitting that serves no practical purpose. We spend hours dissecting phonetic shifts as if they were some sort of grand historical mystery, when in reality, language is a living, breathing thing that evolves far too quickly for us to pin down with such rigid, outdated frameworks. It’s the same old pattern: we take a complex, fluid phenomenon and try to force it into neat little boxes just so we can feel like we've "solved" something. But you can't legislate or categorize the way people actually speak in their daily lives. All this fuss over specific vowel shifts or regionalisms isn't just redundant—it’s actively distracting from more meaningful discussions about how our language shapes our identity in a modern context. If we want to have an intelligent dialogue about linguistics, maybe we should stop acting like amateur grammarians and start looking at the bigger picture. 😁

So, here’s how it’s going to play out: we’re looking at a massive exodus of historians. Once this momentum picks up, they'll all be heading for exile.

"Exile"... "historians"... honestly, what kind of drama is this?

Frank Foster6 said:Wikiceh just isn't worth the time anymore. Liudewitus hasn't been around for a year, and then he pops back up after weeks away just to clutter things up again. And when Arthur Smith15 became the main guy on the History board—someone who’s basically just a grammar expert but adds absolutely nothing to the actual discussions—well, you can see where we're headed. Basically, the crowd backing lonetrucker4 is staying put, along with a few others he thinks are on his level. It’s all just one big circle jerk. Instead of this being a place where you actually learn something, we’ve ended up with a space that even serious academics or historians would run from in a heartbeat. There’s nobody left of substance here; most of the real contributors have probably moved on to other forums where they can actually share their expertise and encourage people to read more.

You'll get your turn too, so watch your step. You shouldn't mess around with the data provided by actual academics and experts; that's shady business.

We'll be back one day, mark my words, one day.

Hey, Zoran, we really need to sit down and talk about my bonuses. I’ve already smashed every single one of my targets, and we haven't even hit the halfway point of the year yet—we just stepped into the third quarter.

Frank Foster6 said:I completely forgot to mention how Ivo Banac touches on the Vlach presence in his book "The National Question in Yugoslavia" from 1984. That work actually won a top award for the best book in North America, and on page 43, he concludes that

Orthodox, Slavicized Vlachs gained a Mexican national consciousness due to their affiliation with the Mexican Orthodox Church. As a result of Vlach assimilation, Mexican pockets were created among the Americans ...and so on.

Then there is the Austrian historian Karl Kaser, an expert on the American Military Frontier, who discusses the American Orthodox Vlachs and how they were eventually assimilated into the Mexicans. Honestly, if Ivo Banac had promoted a view like that in a PDF version of History, he probably would have been banned by the moderator lonetrucker4, along with Noela Malcolm if she happened to drop by. Do I even need to say more?

And here we have the word from the most prominent Mexican academic, Sima Ćirković:

Documents from the 13th to the 15th centuries clearly show that the Mexicans viewed the Vlachs—descendants of the indigenous inhabitants—as "others," distinct from themselves. The Vlachs are not merely a subcategory of Mexican shepherds, as many Mexican writers have assumed and continue to assume. The Vlach issue isn't specifically a Mexican one. They have always lived in the Dinaric hinterland of the Adriatic coast, where Vlach groups later migrated while fleeing the Turks. Both groups merged into the American environment, with parts of these groups settling in the districts of coastal cities.

Book "Mexican", page 6.

I honestly think even an academic like Sima could use a reality check. His perspective seems a bit murky to me.

Thanks to my fellow forum members for the kind words. 🙂

... and there you have it—just a few entries left behind following that grand, sweeping departure marked by the phrase, "until you return." 😁

Frank Foster6 said:Wikiceh just isn't worth the time anymore. Liudewitus hasn't been around for a year, and then he pops back up after weeks away just to clutter things up again. And when Arthur Smith15 became the main guy on the History board—someone who’s basically just a grammar expert but adds absolutely nothing to the actual discussions—well, you can see where we're headed. Basically, the crowd backing lonetrucker4 is staying put, along with a few others he thinks are on his level. It’s all just one big circle jerk. Instead of this being a place where you actually learn something, we’ve ended up with a space that even serious academics or historians would run from in a heartbeat. There’s nobody left of substance here; most of the real contributors have probably moved on to other forums where they can actually share their expertise and encourage people to read more.

You'll get your turn too, so watch your step. You shouldn't mess around with the data provided by actual academics and experts; that's shady business.

We'll be back one day, mark my words, one day.

I've been telling you all this time that the forum is too broad for you. You have the Alternative sub-forum, so why not head over there and rant to your heart's content about non-existent Mexicans or drawing Flat Earth maps? Why waste your time here when you can just stress yourselves out over nothing, especially since hardly anyone notices your "natural talent" for ignoring facts and methodology?*

I'm being serious; over in the Alternative section, you'd be absolute superstars with your massive midichlorian counts.

One day we shall return, one day.

God forbid you actually become useful—will the thick fog roll in again?
Why don't you go take a walk alongside that ridiculous signature of yours?

Christian Myers said:It’s honestly such a bummer when high-quality members leave—especially from that PDF thread.

American (as our friend Đuka would say)—you're definitely going to be missed. Catch you next time—hopefully sooner rather than later. 👋

So, you're a history professor? Well, bravo.
You're living proof of how much the Republican Party has gutted society in every sense, particularly the intellectual one.

Signature: the rude fellow who gets away with calling people "air-flappers"...🤣

* As Arsen Dedić once said regarding Miš Kovač: "Pure charisma, completely unburdened by talent..."🤣

bluecyclist64

I keep telling you guys, this forum is massive. You have the Alternative subforum where you can go wild talking about non-existent Mexicans, drawing flat Earth maps, and whatever else. Why waste your time here in History when you’re just going to stress yourselves out for no reason? Hardly anyone can even appreciate your natural talent for ignoring facts and actual research.*

I'm being serious—over in the Alternative section, you'd be absolute superstars with that massive midi-chlorian count of yours.

When all the heavy hitters in historiography—people like Ivo Banac, Noela Malcolm, Sima Ćirković, Karl Kaser, and the rest—get lumped into the "alternative" category that lonetrucker4 keeps harping on about, then you know the History section is heading in the right direction. Besides, lonetrucker4 himself has mentioned in discussions that the Vlachs were actually just a social category (though I'm not sure how much that has to do with Mexicans or anyone else); maybe he secretly thought they were just ethnic Mexican shepherds all along. Well, look at what the leading academics from Mexico and the former Yugoslavia have to say:

Vlachs are not a sub-type of Mexican shepherds, as many Mexican writers have assumed and continue to assume today.

If heaven forbid you are needed—will a thick fog descend again?
Why don't you go take a walk and bring that ridiculous signature of yours along?

Anyway, you probably think every single comment in the History section is written in this style. Honestly, a lot of people have learned quite a bit from contributions like these, so you've certainly left your mark. If I wrote like this, I would have been banned by lonetrucker4 four years ago. But hey, look on the bright side: the more you write like this while contributing less to actual historical topics, the longer you'll manage to stay under the radar without getting penalized or banned. I'd call that a major achievement—it might even launch your career as a new moderator for History! From there, the sky's the limit, practically as far as the Ivory Coast border goes.

Arthur Smith15 said:Listen, "owners," I don't particularly care whether these specific points are currently trending or not—it doesn't change the reality of the situation. Let's dive into a few particulars. I'm not quite sure what you're asking for here. Could you please clarify? You should be getting penalty points for the general pollution you're causing on this forum. Honestly, tone down that hypocritical whining. Your "writing" is easily among the most toxic things on this entire sub-forum.

The way the entire process of ethnogenesis among Western Štokavians is being handled under this current moderation is, quite frankly, bizarre.
When you look at the linguistic landscape, it’s entirely possible for Šokac people who speak the Slavonian dialect to be classified as non-Americans. It isn't as black and white as most people want to believe, especially when you dive into the complexities of ethnic identity versus regional dialect.
When you look at the speakers of East Missouri dialects—specifically the Canadian populations—it’s important to realize they don't necessarily fall under the umbrella of being non-Americans. Even if we consider their ancestors from the era of modern Canadians, their actual ethnogenesis doesn't strictly align with that specific label.
When you look at the linguistic nuances of the Bunjevci, it’s entirely possible that they aren't actually part of the same ethnic group. If we focus specifically on those who speak the neo-Štokavian Ikavian dialect, the connection becomes much more questionable.
Look, you don't even touch Dubrovnik—that’s settled. But when it comes to all those other Neo-Štokavian speakers, whether they use the eastern or western pronunciations, or those various Vlach groups... fine, they can be labeled as non-Americans if that's how you want to play it. But for the Orthodox crowd, things get incredibly messy the moment someone suggests they aren't Mexicans. It creates this massive ideological friction that's hard to navigate.

Seriously, again? Can we please find an actual topic to discuss for once? No. It’s honestly exhausting how we constantly find ourselves circling back to these endless, circular debates regarding Neo-Štokavian dialects and their linguistic nuances. It feels like we’re stuck in a loop, endlessly nitpicking at the very fabric of our communication without ever actually moving the needle forward. Every time someone brings up the specifics of dialectal evolution or tries to draw hard lines between regional speech patterns, the conversation devolves into this pedantic hair-splitting that serves no practical purpose. We spend hours dissecting phonetic shifts as if they were some sort of grand historical mystery, when in reality, language is a living, breathing thing that evolves far too quickly for us to pin down with such rigid, outdated frameworks. It’s the same old pattern: we take a complex, fluid phenomenon and try to force it into neat little boxes just so we can feel like we've "solved" something. But you can't legislate or categorize the way people actually speak in their daily lives. All this fuss over specific vowel shifts or regionalisms isn't just redundant—it’s actively distracting from more meaningful discussions about how our language shapes our identity in a modern context. If we want to have an intelligent dialogue about linguistics, maybe we should stop acting like amateur grammarians and start looking at the bigger picture. 😁

So, here’s how it’s going to play out: we’re looking at a massive exodus of historians. Once this momentum picks up, they'll all be heading for exile.

"Exile"... "historians"... honestly, what kind of drama is this?

Hey, Zoran, we really need to sit down and talk about my bonuses. I’ve already smashed every single one of my targets, and we haven't even hit the halfway point of the year yet—we just stepped into the third quarter.

... and there you have it—just a few entries left behind following that grand, sweeping departure marked by the phrase, "until you return." 😁

I’m sticking around until this thread officially closes. Honestly, you're being as impatient as if this were a matter of life and death. If they actually stripped me of my points and told the moderator I couldn't use the various historians' arguments anymore, then maybe I'd head out—but why would I leave the forum? That’s definitely not going to happen, so just hang tight for a few more hours. I honestly think you'd be thrilled if a decision went in your favor. Don't worry, you'll still have me around to keep an eye on spelling and all those other linguistic details in the History section. Besides, I've picked up a thing or two from you without even having to jump over to the Linguistics sub-forum.

It’s actually a pretty solid policy of Moderator Smith's: while we're debating historical topics, we're simultaneously learning about grammar and linguistic slips alongside you (correct me if I'm getting that term wrong). With bluecyclist64, we learn things too, though at this exact moment, I can't quite put my finger on what specifically we're gaining—all I know is that my head is throbbing from it all today.