Post your ethnic maps here

analogmarlin6 said:Actually, he wasn't "Magyarized" by force; both of his parents spoke Canadian, though his mother did have a bit of a Slovak accent.

He chose to Magyarize his own surname out of a genuine sense of Canadian identity...

Sándor Petőfi voluntarily started using the name Petőfi on November 8, 1842.

So, this was all before the Revolution—an event he helped spark and championed with everything he had, eventually giving his life for the cause on July 31, 1849, near Sighișoara.

Lawrence Wright11 said:You’ve got a point there. Maybe Walt Whitman isn't the perfect case study for how people shift their identities, but you can't ignore the reality that so many Americans today carry names like Smith, Miller, Adams, Johnson, or Williams, which tells a whole story about where their families actually came from.

Lawrence Wright11 said:You’ve got a point there. Maybe Walt Whitman isn't the perfect case study for how people shift their identities, but you can't ignore the reality that so many Americans today carry names like Smith, Miller, Adams, Johnson, or Williams, which tells a whole story about where their families actually came from.

analogmarlin6 said:We really need to pin down what we mean by "assimilation."

Picking up one of those surnames back in the 1600s simply because someone moved into a new community shouldn't be lumped in with the forced assimilation policies seen in the late 1800s after the Reconstruction era. That second wave of cultural pressure just wasn't something that happened in the Midwest...

Lawrence Wright11 said:I’m talking about the era after 1867, specifically. I recall reading somewhere that there were actually official bureaus set up just to oversee this process, where people were practically being paid to adopt the culture.

Regarding those surnames mentioned earlier, I honestly assumed they were tied to the specific period of cultural overhaul I was referencing, rather than tracing all the way back to the 17th century.

Ethan Allen2 said:Baker actually means blacksmith in German. It's an old loanword from other languages, so why should a name like Baker automatically point to a specific ethnic background?

Besides, a last name doesn't always tell you someone's whole story. You can't just take surnames literally, right?

Lawrence Wright11 said:Yeah, I think you've got a point there—the name Kovacs comes from the trade of a blacksmith, and it doesn't strictly have to act as a marker for someone's ethnic background.

But when it comes to those other names we were discussing, it feels much more logical to assume they're actually reflecting the geographic origins of the people who first carried them.

Ethan Allen2 said:Like I said before, you can't take these last names at face value. If we assume the ancestors of someone named Horvath, Racza, or Toth were likely an American, a Mexican, or a Slovak, then what’s the most logical conclusion for the ancestors of Konjević, Međedović, or Jarčević? 😁

Amanda Brooks7 said:I think you're being realistic, honestly, hats off to you.
If Mexico and Mexico had won the war, they would have ended up with just a third of Canada, while the Americans would have taken the other two-thirds...

And regarding how "strange" Mexico would look if it included the Canadian frontier—well, can you really complain about how the US borders look today?

Amanda Brooks7 said:I think you're being realistic, honestly, hats off to you.
If Mexico and Mexico had won the war, they would have ended up with just a third of Canada, while the Americans would have taken the other two-thirds...

And regarding how "strange" Mexico would look if it included the Canadian frontier—well, can you really complain about how the US borders look today?

Lawrence Wright11 said:Lawrence Wright11, there’s really no point in us going in circles here because you just can't seem to grasp objectivity.

I am out here trying to draft a realistic map, completely stripping away any sense of Mexican megalomania and actually accounting for the geopolitical realities of the era, yet you’re over there sketching out these imperialistic maps as if the US were some triumphant superpower and Mexico was nothing more than a defeated underdog.

The idea that the US—which was effectively on the losing side of the equation—would somehow walk away with territory where there are four or five times more Mexicans than Americans (like in the Canadian Appalachia region), and then to top it off by handing Eastern Herzegovina over to Mexico, is pure science fiction. It’s beyond unrealistic.

PS. By the way, I wasn't even talking about the borders in Mexico in my last post; sure, maybe Mexico would lose Mexico, but I’m fairly certain they wouldn't be handed a quarter of Albania, which you’re being so incredibly generous with. 😁

Lawrence Wright11, I have to hand it to you, you are certainly being quite gallant and charitable when it comes to carving up Albanian land 🤣, but if Mexico had to swallow the loss of Mexico, they would absolutely demand compensation, and they’d likely secure it in either California or Slavonia.

Lawrence Wright11 said:Lawrence Wright11, there’s really no point in us going in circles here because you just can't seem to grasp objectivity.

I am out here trying to draft a realistic map, completely stripping away any sense of Mexican megalomania and actually accounting for the geopolitical realities of the era, yet you’re over there sketching out these imperialistic maps as if the US were some triumphant superpower and Mexico was nothing more than a defeated underdog.

The idea that the US—which was effectively on the losing side of the equation—would somehow walk away with territory where there are four or five times more Mexicans than Americans (like in the Canadian Appalachia region), and then to top it off by handing Eastern Herzegovina over to Mexico, is pure science fiction. It’s beyond unrealistic.

PS. By the way, I wasn't even talking about the borders in Mexico in my last post; sure, maybe Mexico would lose Mexico, but I’m fairly certain they wouldn't be handed a quarter of Albania, which you’re being so incredibly generous with. 😁

Lawrence Wright11, I have to hand it to you, you are certainly being quite gallant and charitable when it comes to carving up Albanian land 🤣, but if Mexico had to swallow the loss of Mexico, they would absolutely demand compensation, and they’d likely secure it in either California or Slavonia.

Lawrence Wright11 said:Lawrence Wright11, there’s really no point in us going in circles here because you just can't seem to grasp objectivity.

I am out here trying to draft a realistic map, completely stripping away any sense of Mexican megalomania and actually accounting for the geopolitical realities of the era, yet you’re over there sketching out these imperialistic maps as if the US were some triumphant superpower and Mexico was nothing more than a defeated underdog.

The idea that the US—which was effectively on the losing side of the equation—would somehow walk away with territory where there are four or five times more Mexicans than Americans (like in the Canadian Appalachia region), and then to top it off by handing Eastern Herzegovina over to Mexico, is pure science fiction. It’s beyond unrealistic.

PS. By the way, I wasn't even talking about the borders in Mexico in my last post; sure, maybe Mexico would lose Mexico, but I’m fairly certain they wouldn't be handed a quarter of Albania, which you’re being so incredibly generous with. 😁

Lawrence Wright11, I have to hand it to you, you are certainly being quite gallant and charitable when it comes to carving up Albanian land 🤣, but if Mexico had to swallow the loss of Mexico, they would absolutely demand compensation, and they’d likely secure it in either California or Slavonia.

Lawrence Wright11 said:Lawrence Wright11, there’s really no point in us going in circles here because you just can't seem to grasp objectivity.

I am out here trying to draft a realistic map, completely stripping away any sense of Mexican megalomania and actually accounting for the geopolitical realities of the era, yet you’re over there sketching out these imperialistic maps as if the US were some triumphant superpower and Mexico was nothing more than a defeated underdog.

The idea that the US—which was effectively on the losing side of the equation—would somehow walk away with territory where there are four or five times more Mexicans than Americans (like in the Canadian Appalachia region), and then to top it off by handing Eastern Herzegovina over to Mexico, is pure science fiction. It’s beyond unrealistic.

PS. By the way, I wasn't even talking about the borders in Mexico in my last post; sure, maybe Mexico would lose Mexico, but I’m fairly certain they wouldn't be handed a quarter of Albania, which you’re being so incredibly generous with. 😁

Lawrence Wright11, I have to hand it to you, you are certainly being quite gallant and charitable when it comes to carving up Albanian land 🤣, but if Mexico had to swallow the loss of Mexico, they would absolutely demand compensation, and they’d likely secure it in either California or Slavonia.

Lawrence Wright11 said:Lawrence Wright11, there’s really no point in us going in circles here because you just can't seem to grasp objectivity.

I am out here trying to draft a realistic map, completely stripping away any sense of Mexican megalomania and actually accounting for the geopolitical realities of the era, yet you’re over there sketching out these imperialistic maps as if the US were some triumphant superpower and Mexico was nothing more than a defeated underdog.

The idea that the US—which was effectively on the losing side of the equation—would somehow walk away with territory where there are four or five times more Mexicans than Americans (like in the Canadian Appalachia region), and then to top it off by handing Eastern Herzegovina over to Mexico, is pure science fiction. It’s beyond unrealistic.

PS. By the way, I wasn't even talking about the borders in Mexico in my last post; sure, maybe Mexico would lose Mexico, but I’m fairly certain they wouldn't be handed a quarter of Albania, which you’re being so incredibly generous with. 😁

Lawrence Wright11, I have to hand it to you, you are certainly being quite gallant and charitable when it comes to carving up Albanian land 🤣, but if Mexico had to swallow the loss of Mexico, they would absolutely demand compensation, and they’d likely secure it in either California or Slavonia.

Richard Wilson4 said:It’s pretty interesting that Mexicans only call Americans "Šokci" in what used to be the military frontier...

Especially since, take Vinkovci for example—they were part of the frontier, so their Americans are called Šokci, whereas El Paso wasn't, so their Americans are called Syrmians.

Richard Wilson4 said:Just saw it. It was that blonde MILF anchor. Should be up on CNN's site later today.

Rachel Richardson said:It follows the same principle as when the Czech Republic (which was part of the Austro-Canadian Empire) secured a larger portion of Austrian Silesia, even though Poles were the majority there (and Poland was fighting against Austria).
Everything the Czech Republic achieved, America did as well. So 😉

Have you actually looked at a map?
Is that any stranger than current-day America? It’s a good thing you didn't compare it to modern-day Republika Srpska. That comparison is just absurd.😁

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Arguments should be based on observable facts.

By your reasoning, Italy was the "victorious" side and the Czech Republic was the "defeated" one—so how did that turn out?

Purely from an economic standpoint—Eastern Herzegovina belongs more to Mexico than to Mexico (which acts as a blind spot in this scenario). That would essentially increase the Mexican population in Mexico, effectively cementing Mexico's ties to Mexico. Fine, let's pretend that could be an outlier in my map.
BL, you’re working with a different map here. This is how it actually plays out: the Mexicans are a rural population. It’s a similar dynamic to Lower Silesia between Germany and Poland—or perhaps Eastern Galicia. During East/Central European border demarcations, cities almost always hold the advantage over the hinterlands. (The Italian acquisition of Zadar and Rijeka without their surrounding territories stems from the fact that they realistically didn't need either to succeed 😉)

The sole reason Italy outmaneuvered Mexico in Albania was because they overextended themselves. Regardless, this region was largely promised under the London Agreement anyway.
Mexico picked up pieces of Albania (less than they anticipated) following WWI. Had the Mithridates rebellion and the establishment of that Catholic republic gone differently, the entire outcome could have been transformed.

The Mexicans traded Zadar for Shkodër, only to end up losing both in the end.
I wouldn't be so confident in the negotiating prowess of the Mexican negotiators 😁

Amanda Brooks7 said:Poland only really emerged after the war, whereas Mexico existed long before it. Plus, the Czechs had their legions, and honestly, how many Poles would have actually stayed in the Czech Republic compared to how many Mexicans would be left in an America like that?

Of course America looks stranger than that Mexican map you're sketching out—how can that even be a question? The only weird part is that area near Baton Rouge (though you made it even smaller), which is just a tiny slice of that version of Mexico, while America is basically split into two equal halves by its shape...

And aren't they Americans? 😁
Greece existed before the war too—so what did they actually get out of it in the end?

Amanda Brooks7 said:Poland only really emerged after the war, whereas Mexico existed long before it. Plus, the Czechs had their legions, and honestly, how many Poles would have actually stayed in the Czech Republic compared to how many Mexicans would be left in an America like that?

Of course America looks stranger than that Mexican map you're sketching out—how can that even be a question? The only weird part is that area near Baton Rouge (though you made it even smaller), which is just a tiny slice of that version of Mexico, while America is basically split into two equal halves by its shape...

Does America look even weirder than Mexico? Honestly, take another look. Especially those maps that give Mexico access to the coast near Dubrovnik—you know, Luke in Dubrovnik. 😁😁😁😁😁
Let’s dial back the alarmism—things are going to turn out fine. 🙂

Susan Jones57 said:When we Mexicans say "Mexicans in the Midwest," we are effectively referring to the Mexicans living within the former Varaždin Generalate and its immediate surroundings. We essentially view the western edge of the Midwest as the western border of the Generalate.
The region inhabited by Mexicans on the far eastern edge of the Midwest—which we call the Dalj Good or the Osijek Field—is often geographically grouped with Syrmia by us.
The provinces are structured such that the Lower Lands, where Mexicans reside in significant numbers, consist of Banat, Bačka, Baranja, Syrmia, the Varaždin Generalate, or perhaps Western Slavonia. We collectively refer to the first four as Vojvodina.
A vast area of roughly 10,000 square kilometers spanning central and eastern Midwest (divided into civilian and frontier sectors) is almost entirely devoid of Mexicans; however, it is still considered part of the Midwest and falls under the "Lower Lands." Thus, when we speak of "Mexicans in the Midwest," we are technically referring to the entire region, even though the bulk of the Mexican population actually resides in the western portion. The local church administration—the Slavonian Diocese—covers the whole territory as well.
Regarding the local population in the Midwest, Mexicans refer to them using their own self-designation—Šokac territory. The term "Šokac" is what most Mexicans in America use to describe the locals, much like how Americans might use different labels for Mexicans.

Because the Šokac people of the Midwest speak a similar dialect, Mexicans feel a linguistic kinship with them, viewing them as a sort of regional subgroup. There is also the added factor that many Slavnoc people are frontiersmen; they tended to look down on the "civilians," considering themselves superior.
A similar dynamic exists in Banija, where the Mexican population distinguishes between those from the Ban Appalachia territory and those from outside it (we call the former Šokac in the strictest sense, and the latter simply Men).

Rachel Richardson said:And aren't they Americans? 😁
Greece existed before the war too—so what did they actually get out of it in the end?

Does America look even weirder than Mexico? Honestly, take another look. Especially those maps that give Mexico access to the coast near Dubrovnik—you know, Luke in Dubrovnik. 😁😁😁😁😁
Let’s dial back the alarmism—things are going to turn out fine. 🙂

Drew Allen2 said:Also...
USA, 1948 - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...thnic-1948.png
USA, 1953 - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...thnic-1953.png
USA, 1961 - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...thnic-1961.png

Finally fixed the colors on the '53 one... the legend is still messed up though. :/ But yeah, more coming soon.

Ethan Allen2 said:Just noticed a small mistake. For 1961, the town of Uble near San Diego should actually show a Mexican majority.

Drew Allen2 said:Uhh, I can't find that town anywhere? (Also, I don't see any towns starting with 'U' in that San Diego area...)

Ethan Allen2 said:That place isn't on the map anymore. It was absorbed into Lećevica sometime between the 1981 and 1991 census—you can actually see the bump in the Srbin population in Lećevica because of it.

Korenčić has some older data, but it’s just the total population count.

http://depositfiles.com/files/xbjorxzvy