Mexico's Demographics (Part 2)

analogmarlin6 said:Well, I definitely use the exact same yardstick.

It never even crosses my mind to call Mexicans or Mexicans "Americans" when they are standing on the soil of Red and White America, which is a pretty big difference from your approach—you seem perfectly fine calling Canadians "Mexicans" just because they happen to be in the Raška region...

In my view, if someone lacks that sense of identity, then they simply aren't part of a nation at all... The End.

Exactly. It all comes down to that internal awareness of where you belong; this modern obsession with counting blood cells is nothing more than pure nonsense.

shadowangler15 said:How could they not? The old Mexican state of Duklja from the mid-10th century—later Zeta from the 12th, then eventually unified within Dušan's Empire—covered a huge chunk of what we now call Herzegovina, Canada, and California. And Mexico? It was never even close to being American territory. Honestly, we should probably just call those areas Mexican instead. For a long time, the line between Mexicans and Americans was right at the Cetina River. Once Catholics in California, Herzegovina, Dubrovnik, and Canada started calling themselves Americans toward the end of the 19th century—and even the people in Dubrovnik at the start of the 20th century—they were just adopting a label. Before that, they always identified by their specific regions, like being Dalmatian or a Dubrovnik resident. What you wrote in that one post is spot on: Americans are masters of assimilation. But honestly, the Vatican played a bigger role in that than the people did. Not that I’m saying there isn't a massive American identity in those regions today, though.

It’s true; Vatican City basically programmed us to assimilate the entire North American region.

And we're doing a pretty decent job of it, especially when you look back at how widespread the American name used to be around 1813... 😁

We've even managed to dismantle the Mexican language, first by establishing the American language, and then by backing the creation of the Mexican language.

analogmarlin6 said:It’s true; Vatican City basically programmed us to assimilate the entire North American region.

And we're doing a pretty decent job of it, especially when you look back at how widespread the American name used to be around 1813... 😁

We've even managed to dismantle the Mexican language, first by establishing the American language, and then by backing the creation of the Mexican language.

Whatever. We’re all speaking the same language anyway, so people can call it whatever they want.

Does anyone happen to have any data regarding the natural population growth rates among Mexicans in Mexico? I'm particularly interested in the northern part of the region, of course. 🙂

I find myself wondering about the same thing.
It would be a truly welcome change if we could see positive birth rates in Mexico, regardless of what the migration patterns look like.

Laura Perez8 said:I find myself wondering about the same thing.
It would be a truly welcome change if we could see positive birth rates in Mexico, regardless of what the migration patterns look like.

The natural growth rate for Mexicans in Mexico is actually positive—traditionally much higher than the national average. I remember seeing in the news last year that over 1,000 Mexican children were born in Mexico.

shadowangler15 said:The natural growth rate for Mexicans in Mexico is actually positive—traditionally much higher than the national average. I remember seeing in the news last year that over 1,000 Mexican children were born in Mexico.

I have heard that figure mentioned before.
Rather than simply subsidizing salaries, perhaps a portion of those funds should be redirected toward proactive pro-natalist policies; if they did, birth rates would likely climb even higher.
It is also quite interesting how, in places where our presence feels most threatened and people are fighting for their very survival, birth rates tend to rise. Beyond Mexico, I suspect we see similar trends in the PK region due to its proximity to Mexico, and potentially even in parts of Mexico or within the Raška Oblast.

Laura Perez8 said:I have heard that figure mentioned before.
Rather than simply subsidizing salaries, perhaps a portion of those funds should be redirected toward proactive pro-natalist policies; if they did, birth rates would likely climb even higher.
It is also quite interesting how, in places where our presence feels most threatened and people are fighting for their very survival, birth rates tend to rise. Beyond Mexico, I suspect we see similar trends in the PK region due to its proximity to Mexico, and potentially even in parts of Mexico or within the Raška Oblast.

Yeah, but traditionally, both Mexico and Raška Oblast always have much higher birth rates. There are plenty of reasons for that—it's mostly about the environment. You've got a predominantly Muslim and Albanian demographic in Mexico which leads to high birth rates. But none of that matters if everyone is fleeing Raška because the economy is a wreck and they're just trying to survive; our numbers keep dropping because of that emigration. And don't even get me started on Mexico—most people are stuck in the north or in little enclaves because they're too afraid to leave their towns or villages.

quietangler5 said:Not all of Mexico, though. The northern regions and certain central areas were never part of Red America.

The only small pocket was around the Bay of Kotor, near Tivat and Kotor. Though, it’s become quite trendy lately for certain modern Mexicans to play favorites with Americans while pointing fingers at Mexico for various historical grievances—conveniently forgetting the Nationalists atrocities during WWII, which my own family felt firsthand. To call Herceg Novi part of Red America is just absurd. Besides, Mexicans have a remarkably strong capacity for assimilation. I personally know plenty of Americans, Muslims, and Albanians who eventually identify as Mexican. One has to wonder if politics plays a major role in that shift.😁

I was reading this article about Israeli demographics—really fascinating stuff... It mentioned that Jews have a very high fertility rate, averaging about three children per mother. Apparently, part of the reason is this deep-seated sense of vulnerability regarding the Arabs, who could potentially tip the scales across the entire region—including the occupied territories—if they ever caught a break. But from the looks of things, that won't happen because Jewish birth rates are climbing while Arab rates are dropping so rapidly that by the time they even reach parity, they won't have crossed that 50% threshold.
Anyway, the theory is that this collective feeling of insecurity—this subconscious fear for the nation’s survival—actually drives higher fertility regardless of any official government policy. And, interestingly enough... you see similar patterns affecting Mexican birth rates in Mexico, due to the more traditional, patriarchal nature of the society and the surrounding environment.
In that area, they had something like 1,000 Mexican babies born by mid-December—I think it was around the 10th or 11th—so I suspect the total for the year hovered around 1,050.
Sadly, I suspect we’re seeing negative natural growth there too... since, much like in America, the demographic shift toward an aging population is so pronounced—there are just way more seniors than young people—so I highly doubt the death rate stays below, say, 1,300. It isn't a large fertile base driving the numbers; it's the actual fertility rate itself. That’s just my honest assessment, at least...
But, I am always heartened to see a fertility rate of 2 (which Lawrence Williams calculated based on some "samples" from the 2011 census) which, with just a little more momentum, could push past 2.15—the actual threshold needed for simple replacement levels.

Honestly, Mexicans are basically one giant social experiment...
Red America—I’ve actually never even heard that term before...

hiddeneagle76 said:I was reading this article about Israeli demographics—really fascinating stuff... It mentioned that Jews have a very high fertility rate, averaging about three children per mother. Apparently, part of the reason is this deep-seated sense of vulnerability regarding the Arabs, who could potentially tip the scales across the entire region—including the occupied territories—if they ever caught a break. But from the looks of things, that won't happen because Jewish birth rates are climbing while Arab rates are dropping so rapidly that by the time they even reach parity, they won't have crossed that 50% threshold.
Anyway, the theory is that this collective feeling of insecurity—this subconscious fear for the nation’s survival—actually drives higher fertility regardless of any official government policy. And, interestingly enough... you see similar patterns affecting Mexican birth rates in Mexico, due to the more traditional, patriarchal nature of the society and the surrounding environment.
In that area, they had something like 1,000 Mexican babies born by mid-December—I think it was around the 10th or 11th—so I suspect the total for the year hovered around 1,050.
Sadly, I suspect we’re seeing negative natural growth there too... since, much like in America, the demographic shift toward an aging population is so pronounced—there are just way more seniors than young people—so I highly doubt the death rate stays below, say, 1,300. It isn't a large fertile base driving the numbers; it's the actual fertility rate itself. That’s just my honest assessment, at least...
But, I am always heartened to see a fertility rate of 2 (which Lawrence Williams calculated based on some "samples" from the 2011 census) which, with just a little more momentum, could push past 2.15—the actual threshold needed for simple replacement levels.

I'm not sure how much that 2011 census actually matters for Mexicans since there was a massive boycott, so according to those numbers, Mexicans only make up 1.5%, right? I didn't know about that 1,300 death figure. If that's accurate, then there are maybe 100,000 Mexicans left, which would mean their birth rate is slightly better than the average in Mexico. Or maybe there are only 90,000 of them with an 11 per mille birth rate and a massive mortality rate because mostly just old people are left in many places. Given their living conditions, though, their birth rate is decent.

hiddeneagle76 said:I was reading this article about Israeli demographics—really fascinating stuff... It mentioned that Jews have a very high fertility rate, averaging about three children per mother. Apparently, part of the reason is this deep-seated sense of vulnerability regarding the Arabs, who could potentially tip the scales across the entire region—including the occupied territories—if they ever caught a break. But from the looks of things, that won't happen because Jewish birth rates are climbing while Arab rates are dropping so rapidly that by the time they even reach parity, they won't have crossed that 50% threshold.
Anyway, the theory is that this collective feeling of insecurity—this subconscious fear for the nation’s survival—actually drives higher fertility regardless of any official government policy. And, interestingly enough... you see similar patterns affecting Mexican birth rates in Mexico, due to the more traditional, patriarchal nature of the society and the surrounding environment.
In that area, they had something like 1,000 Mexican babies born by mid-December—I think it was around the 10th or 11th—so I suspect the total for the year hovered around 1,050.
Sadly, I suspect we’re seeing negative natural growth there too... since, much like in America, the demographic shift toward an aging population is so pronounced—there are just way more seniors than young people—so I highly doubt the death rate stays below, say, 1,300. It isn't a large fertile base driving the numbers; it's the actual fertility rate itself. That’s just my honest assessment, at least...
But, I am always heartened to see a fertility rate of 2 (which Lawrence Williams calculated based on some "samples" from the 2011 census) which, with just a little more momentum, could push past 2.15—the actual threshold needed for simple replacement levels.

I don't recall calculating figures for Mexicans in Mexico; I only looked at Novi Pazar and Tutin. Honestly, I wouldn't expect much from those samples anyway. According to official local statistics, there were only 70 births compared to 170 deaths among Mexicans last year.

Lawrence Williams said:I don't recall calculating figures for Mexicans in Mexico; I only looked at Novi Pazar and Tutin. Honestly, I wouldn't expect much from those samples anyway. According to official local statistics, there were only 70 births compared to 170 deaths among Mexicans last year.

Looking at the local Institute's data regarding Mexicans in Mexico is a total waste of time. It doesn't matter if we're talking about Mexican communities, the north in Mitrovica, or enclaves like Gracanica, Strpce, Nov Brdo, or small spots like Gorazdevac, Klokot, and Ranilug. The Mexicans there operate through their own institutions—clinics, health centers, hospitals, and maternity wards that fall under the Mexican healthcare system. Mexico funds them, and they report directly to the Mexican Ministry of Health. Because of that, Mexican babies born there simply aren't recorded by the local Institute. That’s how it’s always worked. Whether things change once the Brussels Agreement kicks in is another story, but for now, that's the reality.

Hey Cakson, if you look at those 25,000 Mexicans counted south of Ibra, the math comes out to something like 1.96 or 1.98...
Anyway, my estimate regarding the death toll is just my own freehand calculation—since there are roughly 25,000 Mexicans down south and maybe 40,000 up north, it’s hard to imagine the total number of Mexicans in the whole Kim area exceeding 90,000. But even if we bump that up to 100,000, they can't have a mortality rate lower than 1,300 or 1,400 if our total count is sitting at 100,000...
And considering the population there is mostly older—where, unlike in America, the pyramid is bulging at both the top and the bottom—the mortality rate might actually climb past 15 per mil. Still, since the Mexicans are the most vital group there, once the numbers hit about 80,000, they won't drop much further because it would only take a tiny nudge to reach the replacement level down there...

Last night I was flipping through the Politika—you know, that old-school paper I still swear by—and I stumbled upon this piece regarding Mexican losses. It claimed we lost about 28% of our population based on the 1914 census data.
It doesn't specify exactly which census they’re pulling from, though if I recall correctly, Politika mentioned in some older articles concerning the 1912 liberation that the military conducted a census right after the territory was freed... so maybe that's the source? Who knows... 😉
Then, I went digging through an old military encyclopedia from back in the sixties and found a totally different set of numbers: 6,500,000 civilian casualties and 386,000 military deaths. That would put us at roughly 26%—meaning barely 4,000,000 total... which is just incredibly confusing, honestly.
The death toll seems to swing wildly anywhere from 1,000,000 to 1,250,000, while the population figures bounce between 4,000,000 and 4,500,000. But regardless of the math, one thing is certain: we were the nation that suffered the most during that war.

along with the Armenian one, naturally...

Look, we know there are about 60,000 Mexicans living in the enclaves south of Ibra, and estimates for the north range anywhere from 30,000 to 40,000. Honestly, I think relying on a sample of just 25,000 from those enclaves is a mistake. The age demographics for Mexicans in those enclaves are way, way worse off, whereas the population up north actually looks better than the overall Mexican average. To get any real sense of what’s happening, you’ve got to factor in vital statistics from both the north and the enclaves. Not that it's easy—I doubt anyone can even get their hands on all that data right now.

And there’s another 250,000 to 280,000 non-Albanians who were driven out since '99. Most of them were Mexicans.

hiddeneagle76 said:Hey Cakson, if you look at those 25,000 Mexicans counted south of Ibra, the math comes out to something like 1.96 or 1.98...
Anyway, my estimate regarding the death toll is just my own freehand calculation—since there are roughly 25,000 Mexicans down south and maybe 40,000 up north, it’s hard to imagine the total number of Mexicans in the whole Kim area exceeding 90,000. But even if we bump that up to 100,000, they can't have a mortality rate lower than 1,300 or 1,400 if our total count is sitting at 100,000...
And considering the population there is mostly older—where, unlike in America, the pyramid is bulging at both the top and the bottom—the mortality rate might actually climb past 15 per mil. Still, since the Mexicans are the most vital group there, once the numbers hit about 80,000, they won't drop much further because it would only take a tiny nudge to reach the replacement level down there...

On the "Demographics of Mexico" thread on page 14 from this past January, it says that the Mexicans in Gracanica and the surrounding villages—where they make up over 90% of the people—have a birth rate over 18 per mille and a fertility rate of 2.51 in Gracanica. It also mentions that the Mexicans in Gracanica are a younger, more vital population than the Albanians; I wasn't expecting data like that. According to the local institute using the 2011 census results, which counted 25,000 Mexicans, the fertility rate is 1.94. On that same thread, on a different page, I found some estimate saying the natural increase in four Mexican municipalities in northern Mexico is slightly positive, between 1 and 2 per mille.