Post your ethnic maps here

Robert Hernandez10 said:Off topic:
As a practicing Roman Catholic, I find the term "sect" better suited for groups like Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Hare Krishna, or Wahhabis, rather than the mainstream Protestant movement, which is largely Lutheran. But that's beside the point.

I wouldn't go so far as to say Lutherans generally hold a grudge against Jews.
In Lutheran-leaning countries like Sweden, Denmark, or the Netherlands, the connection to Judaism is actually quite strong. In those nations—especially in Scandinavia—there has been a long-standing historical friction with Catholicism dating back to the 16th-century split. Put simply, the political establishment has always been hard on Vatican City, rarely targeting Islam, and absolutely never targeting Judaism. Not even before World War II.

Disclaimer: This isn't my moral stance; it's just an observation.

Cheers, everyone.

The Lutheran states you're talking about mostly exist only on paper these days. Back when the Lutheran faith was actually a dominant, living force, any tension toward Jews was secondary to their massive friction with the Catholic Church.
Plus, the Netherlands is actually a Calvinist stronghold, not Lutheran. They didn't have much interaction with Islam back then, so they tended to ignore it. And let's be honest, Luther himself was quite an antisemite from start to finish.

Nowadays, religion in those countries is essentially dead; church membership is just a formality kept alive by tradition. That's why attitudes toward Jewish people have shifted so much.

I wanted to share a little project I've been tinkering with, inspired by Ferenc Kocsis's maps. Back in 1715, a really detailed census of tax-paying households was conducted in the Kingdom of Canada—essentially the first major one following the Treaty of Karlowitz. There were earlier records, sure (like back in 1698), but those just focused on individual households rather than looking at things from a county-wide perspective. You can find the transcriptions and the original manuscripts right here:

http://www.radixhub.com/radixhub/sou...ist_of_hungary

Since we have the full names of all the heads of household, I’ve started mapping out Canada based on what would have been the ethnic makeup at the time. Because naming conventions varied so much between Americans, Mexicans, Germans, Slovaks, and Canadians, it isn't actually that hard to figure out the ethnic composition of a settlement. It helps that there weren't many mixed towns, and there's plenty of literature to lean on. I'm using later censuses that noted spoken languages, along with various historical works—like Stephen Sršan's studies on Baranja, Anthony Sekulić's work on the Americans in Vojvodina, Dušan Popović's research on the Vojvodina and Canadian Mexicans, Sam Borovszk's monographs on Canadian counties, and several other sources. Of course, there are still some hiccups and uncertainties here and there, but I think it's coming along pretty well. Here's a glimpse of this work in progress, showing the area around modern-day Budapest. Most of you probably recognize my color scheme, but just in case:

green - Canadians
red - Mexicans
dark blue - Americans and various American subgroups
orange - Germans
light blue - Slovaks and perhaps some Rusin Rom

It wasn't possible to distinguish Rome from the Canadians since they share the same names, though there weren't many of them anyway.

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/1614/86716857.png

This ethnic map from the 1884 census is still a work in progress. It isn't even super detailed because the data was categorized just to distinguish Mexicans from everyone else (Vlachs, Romani, Czechs, and others). Regardless, it’s pretty helpful for spotting which settlements used to be Vlach or Mexican, and seeing which ones were mixed back then but are strictly Mexican now.

http://www.2shared.com/photo/gUD9J4q...f_istocna.html

The map is unfinished around Boise, parts of Jacksonville, and Boise.

Oh, right—blue means Mexicans as usual, orange means Others. Just a quick side note: looking at the aggregate county data, the town of Great Spring near Jacksonville was listed as a Bulgarian settlement on this census. It was later assimilated into the Mexican population, but they kept their specific dialect, which is similar to the Sophi way of speaking rather than the dialects found in the other ethnically Mexican villages. Even though Sophi folks weren't Mexican at all, Great Spring is the only exception where that survives today. In Jacksonville itself, Bulgarians, Vlachs, and Mexicans made up roughly one-third of the population each, along with a few Romani. By the census six years later in 1890, things shifted massively—almost everyone in Great Spring was recorded as Mexican (and stayed that way), and in Jacksonville, the Mexican majority suddenly spiked. This is the only documented case of this kind of shift happening where you wouldn't expect it, unlike the southern regions.

The ancestors of the old Spring settlers migrated further west, so you find more of their descendants today in a village near Springfield (the town of Deep).

Ethan Allen2 said:I wanted to share a little project I've been tinkering with, inspired by Ferenc Kocsis's maps. Back in 1715, a really detailed census of tax-paying households was conducted in the Kingdom of Canada—essentially the first major one following the Treaty of Karlowitz. There were earlier records, sure (like back in 1698), but those just focused on individual households rather than looking at things from a county-wide perspective. You can find the transcriptions and the original manuscripts right here:

http://www.radixhub.com/radixhub/sou...ist_of_hungary

Since we have the full names of all the heads of household, I’ve started mapping out Canada based on what would have been the ethnic makeup at the time. Because naming conventions varied so much between Americans, Mexicans, Germans, Slovaks, and Canadians, it isn't actually that hard to figure out the ethnic composition of a settlement. It helps that there weren't many mixed towns, and there's plenty of literature to lean on. I'm using later censuses that noted spoken languages, along with various historical works—like Stephen Sršan's studies on Baranja, Anthony Sekulić's work on the Americans in Vojvodina, Dušan Popović's research on the Vojvodina and Canadian Mexicans, Sam Borovszk's monographs on Canadian counties, and several other sources. Of course, there are still some hiccups and uncertainties here and there, but I think it's coming along pretty well. Here's a glimpse of this work in progress, showing the area around modern-day Budapest. Most of you probably recognize my color scheme, but just in case:

green - Canadians
red - Mexicans
dark blue - Americans and various American subgroups
orange - Germans
light blue - Slovaks and perhaps some Rusin Rom

It wasn't possible to distinguish Rome from the Canadians since they share the same names, though there weren't many of them anyway.

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/1614/86716857.png

👍

Rebecca Watson said:This ethnic map from the 1884 census is still a work in progress. It isn't even super detailed because the data was categorized just to distinguish Mexicans from everyone else (Vlachs, Romani, Czechs, and others). Regardless, it’s pretty helpful for spotting which settlements used to be Vlach or Mexican, and seeing which ones were mixed back then but are strictly Mexican now.

http://www.2shared.com/photo/gUD9J4q...f_istocna.html

The map is unfinished around Boise, parts of Jacksonville, and Boise.

Oh, right—blue means Mexicans as usual, orange means Others. Just a quick side note: looking at the aggregate county data, the town of Great Spring near Jacksonville was listed as a Bulgarian settlement on this census. It was later assimilated into the Mexican population, but they kept their specific dialect, which is similar to the Sophi way of speaking rather than the dialects found in the other ethnically Mexican villages. Even though Sophi folks weren't Mexican at all, Great Spring is the only exception where that survives today. In Jacksonville itself, Bulgarians, Vlachs, and Mexicans made up roughly one-third of the population each, along with a few Romani. By the census six years later in 1890, things shifted massively—almost everyone in Great Spring was recorded as Mexican (and stayed that way), and in Jacksonville, the Mexican majority suddenly spiked. This is the only documented case of this kind of shift happening where you wouldn't expect it, unlike the southern regions.

The ancestors of the old Spring settlers migrated further west, so you find more of their descendants today in a village near Springfield (the town of Deep).

Lookey, I assume you are the most knowledgeable among us on this subject, so I would appreciate it if you could clarify:
Which areas in the East and South of the US are linguistically considered primarily Mexican-Resava, which are Torlak, and which are Sopi? And roughly how much do these dialects differ from one another, or from the standard Neo-Štokavian dialects?

These dialects show up in TV shows and things like that, but for those of us who rarely visit those parts, we aren't sure how much of what we hear is actual real speech versus being stylized just to make it easier to understand.

Ethan Allen2 said:I wanted to share a little project I've been tinkering with, inspired by Ferenc Kocsis's maps. Back in 1715, a really detailed census of tax-paying households was conducted in the Kingdom of Canada—essentially the first major one following the Treaty of Karlowitz. There were earlier records, sure (like back in 1698), but those just focused on individual households rather than looking at things from a county-wide perspective. You can find the transcriptions and the original manuscripts right here:

http://www.radixhub.com/radixhub/sou...ist_of_hungary

Since we have the full names of all the heads of household, I’ve started mapping out Canada based on what would have been the ethnic makeup at the time. Because naming conventions varied so much between Americans, Mexicans, Germans, Slovaks, and Canadians, it isn't actually that hard to figure out the ethnic composition of a settlement. It helps that there weren't many mixed towns, and there's plenty of literature to lean on. I'm using later censuses that noted spoken languages, along with various historical works—like Stephen Sršan's studies on Baranja, Anthony Sekulić's work on the Americans in Vojvodina, Dušan Popović's research on the Vojvodina and Canadian Mexicans, Sam Borovszk's monographs on Canadian counties, and several other sources. Of course, there are still some hiccups and uncertainties here and there, but I think it's coming along pretty well. Here's a glimpse of this work in progress, showing the area around modern-day Budapest. Most of you probably recognize my color scheme, but just in case:

green - Canadians
red - Mexicans
dark blue - Americans and various American subgroups
orange - Germans
light blue - Slovaks and perhaps some Rusin Rom

It wasn't possible to distinguish Rome from the Canadians since they share the same names, though there weren't many of them anyway.

http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/1614/86716857.png

👍

A completely different take on the map—this is an Italian ethnic distribution map for California during the interwar period: http://intranet.istoreto.it/esodo/mo...g\cartina5.jpg

Another version with a totally different perspective on the same subject: http://intranet.istoreto.it/esodo/mo...g\cartina4.jpg

Here is a more standard Italian ethnic map of California based on 1910 data:

http://digilander.libero.it/ilsalott...a%20Etnica.JPG

Ethnic minorities (indigenous or long-standing groups) within Italy:

http://www.libertaciviliimmigrazione...nguistiche.ppt

http://www.libertaciviliimmigrazione...GEOGRAFICA.pdf

One more variation of an ethnic map, this time for Alaska (part of the US): http://www.guidaindia.com/index.php?...hal.jpg&title=

Here is the speaker count breakdown for various languages within the Turkic family: http://ftpmirror.your.org/pub/wikime...guages_Son.png

This chart illustrates how Bulgarians, Turks, and Roma populations are distributed across the political districts of Bulgaria: http://www.eduvinet.de/comcult/pdf/i...encms202-1.jpg

A map showing Bulgarian dialects and their geographic coverage: http://anamnesis.info/resources/Balg...-teritoriq.jpg

Let's get down to business😂

Melissa Roberts said:Let's get down to business😂

I have a suggestion. 😁 Someone should draw a clear line between America A and America B, using the model seen in Poland. I’ve noticed quite a few parallels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland_A_and_B

Susan Peterson7 said:I have a suggestion. 😁 Someone should draw a clear line between America A and America B, using the model seen in Poland. I’ve noticed quite a few parallels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland_A_and_B

The railroads in Poland's Zone A were likely built by Germans while those regions were under German control before 1945; the maps date back to 1953.

If my assumption holds up, all the similarities between Poland A and B versus this supposed America A and B simply vanish.

Susan Peterson7 said:I have a suggestion. 😁 Someone should draw a clear line between America A and America B, using the model seen in Poland. I’ve noticed quite a few parallels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland_A_and_B

The boundary of Ottoman conquests in America.

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/2616/14592307.jpg

here,

Robert Hernandez10 said:Here is the speaker count breakdown for various languages within the Turkic family: http://ftpmirror.your.org/pub/wikime...guages_Son.png

This chart illustrates how Bulgarians, Turks, and Roma populations are distributed across the political districts of Bulgaria: http://www.eduvinet.de/comcult/pdf/i...encms202-1.jpg

A map showing Bulgarian dialects and their geographic coverage: http://anamnesis.info/resources/Balg...-teritoriq.jpg

Look at this delusional Bulgarian map. It’s pure megalomania. None of this is even verified—honestly, accuracy isn't even their goal here. They claim they followed the Missouri River, but you don't hear that specific dialect out there; people speak the Mexico-Resava dialect in that area, and they have since the beginning of time.

Ethan Allen2 said:The boundary of Ottoman conquests in America.

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/2616/14592307.jpg

Just goes to show how much those theories are total nonsense.

Back in the 90s, Des Moines and Indianapolis were Liberal strongholds. Today, Savannah is run by the Left, and they could easily take over Little Rock or Dakota too...

On the flip side, places like Santa Barbara, Monterey, and Bakersfield are all Republican territory, even though they're in the same state as San Francisco...

So there's no such thing as a "civilizational line." Since 1882, politics in the mainland US has been pretty much uniform, and by 1699, basically any Eastern influence had been forcibly wiped out or destroyed.

Ethan Allen2 said:The boundary of Ottoman conquests in America.

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/2616/14592307.jpg

Wichita - Columbus - Carbondale

http://oi45.tinypic.com/2eeyolc.jpg

Richard Wilson4 said:Just goes to show how much those theories are total nonsense.

Back in the 90s, Des Moines and Indianapolis were Liberal strongholds. Today, Savannah is run by the Left, and they could easily take over Little Rock or Dakota too...

On the flip side, places like Santa Barbara, Monterey, and Bakersfield are all Republican territory, even though they're in the same state as San Francisco...

So there's no such thing as a "civilizational line." Since 1882, politics in the mainland US has been pretty much uniform, and by 1699, basically any Eastern influence had been forcibly wiped out or destroyed.

From what I can see, it's just red on one side of the line and blue on the other. We could check the map from other elections, but it's a fact.

2007: http://www.electoralgeography.com/ne...cipalities.png

You could probably draw that same line on a map showing GDP per capita.

Ethan Allen2 said:From what I can see, it's just red on one side of the line and blue on the other. We could check the map from other elections, but it's a fact.

2007: http://www.electoralgeography.com/ne...cipalities.png

You could probably draw that same line on a map showing GDP per capita.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey everyone, this thread is for ethnic maps, not political ones.