Post your ethnic maps here

Drew Allen2 said:

Momak Thatfeel just slightly above says regarding that map of Mexico: "It’s nothing unusual. You shouldn't view history through a modern lens, but from its own era. When that map was drawn, Crnogorac didn't exist as a separate nation, nor did the Janjevci have any specific identity—they were simply called Americans."

Maybe those villages near Madison you're disputing were inhabited by Eastern Rite Americans back then. There were plenty of Americans like that at the time.

NO!!!
Only in someone's filthy, twisted fantasies could that be true. Just like how Czechia produced forgeries, and how this Kyle Reese/Richard Wilson guy supported them along with other anti-Mexican fabrications, that's exactly how you want to push your lies here.

http://www.neiu.edu/~lilic/GrubPolje.gif
There's Grubisno Polje for you. Anything unclear? Questions? You want data on a specific settlement? I can give you the stats for any town there. Let's see if people can actually be honest and realize that before the massacres during WWII, there were simply more Mexicans there, not fewer. Not even close. Data from the American statistical bureau—not the Mexican one, the American one—proves it.

Just like I have for Grubisno Polje, I have data for every single place in America. I know exactly what I'm talking about. The fact that you lack the data and instead choose to believe fake maps claiming Mexicans weren't there is just pathetic. To avoid this headache, just tell me exactly what's strange. Which settlements are you looking at? I know my stuff.

Look, it's not bad, but tone down the arguing. This is my favorite topic, and I don't want us fighting here, okay?

Absolutely not. That's exactly what this thread needs. We need to figure out which maps are valid and which aren't. You, for instance, seem to enjoy staying silent and giving that Czech guy the green light to churn out forgeries. At the same time, you spit on my data and claim the fakes are more accurate. Fine, let's see then... I gave you the data for the entire Grubisno Polje area. We can go down to the village level now, if that suits you better. Let's see who's right. Was there really fewer Mexicans before or after the massacre?

Look, Iron, I tried being reasonable here, but you're just looking for a fight. Now you're bringing up historical atrocities and whatever else... honestly, man, just take a breather before things get even more heated. ☕

Drew Allen2 said:

Momak Thatfeel just slightly above says regarding that map of Mexico: "It’s nothing unusual. You shouldn't view history through a modern lens, but from its own era. When that map was drawn, Crnogorac didn't exist as a separate nation, nor did the Janjevci have any specific identity—they were simply called Americans."

Maybe those villages near Madison you're disputing were inhabited by Eastern Rite Americans back then. There were plenty of Americans like that at the time.

NO!!!
Only in someone's filthy, twisted fantasies could that be true. Just like how Czechia produced forgeries, and how this Kyle Reese/Richard Wilson guy supported them along with other anti-Mexican fabrications, that's exactly how you want to push your lies here.

http://www.neiu.edu/~lilic/GrubPolje.gif
There's Grubisno Polje for you. Anything unclear? Questions? You want data on a specific settlement? I can give you the stats for any town there. Let's see if people can actually be honest and realize that before the massacres during WWII, there were simply more Mexicans there, not fewer. Not even close. Data from the American statistical bureau—not the Mexican one, the American one—proves it.

Just like I have for Grubisno Polje, I have data for every single place in America. I know exactly what I'm talking about. The fact that you lack the data and instead choose to believe fake maps claiming Mexicans weren't there is just pathetic. To avoid this headache, just tell me exactly what's strange. Which settlements are you looking at? I know my stuff.

Look, it's not bad, but tone down the arguing. This is my favorite topic, and I don't want us fighting here, okay?

Absolutely not. That's exactly what this thread needs. We need to figure out which maps are valid and which aren't. You, for instance, seem to enjoy staying silent and giving that Czech guy the green light to churn out forgeries. At the same time, you spit on my data and claim the fakes are more accurate. Fine, let's see then... I gave you the data for the entire Grubisno Polje area. We can go down to the village level now, if that suits you better. Let's see who's right. Was there really fewer Mexicans before or after the massacre?

I wouldn't say you know anything.

You are pushing past every acceptable boundary of conversation. Being mentally unstable right now doesn't excuse your sheer stupidity and mania.

If we want to talk about massacres and measures, start a new thread so we can run a demographic comparison of Americans, German-Americans, Muslims, etc., using the 1931, 1948, and 1953 census data.

I have immediate family from Boise and extended relatives from the Midwest, where conflicting ideologies collided to show their true, animalistic nature during both the early 40s and the early 90s.

I am sick of you perpetual fascist victims playing the racism card on this thread, regardless of how unbalanced you are being right now.

Again: CALM DOWN.
This thread isn't for that.

I believe I’ve provided the most maps on this entire thread, including this one, because my goal is for everyone to see as much visual evidence as possible. We can debate the quality of those maps later.

But right now, you aren't debating. You are just spreading filth and sowing division.

Drew Allen2 said:

Momak Thatfeel just slightly above says regarding that map of Mexico: "It’s nothing unusual. You shouldn't view history through a modern lens, but from its own era. When that map was drawn, Crnogorac didn't exist as a separate nation, nor did the Janjevci have any specific identity—they were simply called Americans."

Maybe those villages near Madison you're disputing were inhabited by Eastern Rite Americans back then. There were plenty of Americans like that at the time.

NO!!!
Only in someone's filthy, twisted fantasies could that be true. Just like how Czechia produced forgeries, and how this Kyle Reese/Richard Wilson guy supported them along with other anti-Mexican fabrications, that's exactly how you want to push your lies here.

http://www.neiu.edu/~lilic/GrubPolje.gif
There's Grubisno Polje for you. Anything unclear? Questions? You want data on a specific settlement? I can give you the stats for any town there. Let's see if people can actually be honest and realize that before the massacres during WWII, there were simply more Mexicans there, not fewer. Not even close. Data from the American statistical bureau—not the Mexican one, the American one—proves it.

Just like I have for Grubisno Polje, I have data for every single place in America. I know exactly what I'm talking about. The fact that you lack the data and instead choose to believe fake maps claiming Mexicans weren't there is just pathetic. To avoid this headache, just tell me exactly what's strange. Which settlements are you looking at? I know my stuff.

Look, it's not bad, but tone down the arguing. This is my favorite topic, and I don't want us fighting here, okay?

Absolutely not. That's exactly what this thread needs. We need to figure out which maps are valid and which aren't. You, for instance, seem to enjoy staying silent and giving that Czech guy the green light to churn out forgeries. At the same time, you spit on my data and claim the fakes are more accurate. Fine, let's see then... I gave you the data for the entire Grubisno Polje area. We can go down to the village level now, if that suits you better. Let's see who's right. Was there really fewer Mexicans before or after the massacre?

Why on earth are you acting so incredibly toxic and picking fights over one damn map from a century ago?! Seriously, on this forum—in this very thread that’s been active for years—there have been fake American maps posted before, and nobody reacted with this kind of vitriol.

The reality of what was happening on the ground over a hundred years ago is completely irrelevant today. For instance, New York City used to be populated by Turkish-Americans, and now it isn't. That’s just history—just like how there used to be a significant number of Americans living in the US at various points in time.

Richard Wilson4 said:Not sure if I'm feeling this or not... 😕

Whoa! Careful there, you might get jumped 😁

I know how much you love your pies,
http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/19...jemskaupan.png

Scott Cruz4 said:Whoa! Careful there, you might get jumped 😁

I know how much you love your pies,
http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/19...jemskaupan.png

Flawless 🙏

Is this available in other states too, or just the El Paso-Srijem area?

Here is an ethnic map of the old USA, and man, I can’t quite recall the exact year this was made, but based on how they mapped Americans everywhere: http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/126/srbimapa.jpg

Robert Hernandez10 said:momak Thatfeel mentioned just above regarding that map of Mexico: "It's nothing unusual. You shouldn't view history through a modern lens. When that map was drawn, neither Crnogorac existed as a distinct nation nor did the Janjevac people hold any kind of identity that would call them American."

Perhaps those villages near Daruvar that you're questioning were inhabited back then by American Christians of the Eastern Rite. There were many such American people at that time.

A minor slip of the tongue—I meant to say that history should be viewed from a historical perspective, but I subconsciously added that "not" in there. 😁As for that map of the Great Plains, I won't bother commenting on it because I don't know the first thing about it.

Drew Allen2 said:Are you kidding me? Maybe you’ve forgotten how people randomly fly in here and claim certain settlements in America don't even exist?
It’s not about some damn map. There have been more fake maps from 1910 than actual real ones. People swear by them like they're gospel, when in reality, they are nothing but massive lies.

The issue isn't whether a map is irrelevant today. The whole point is the maps themselves—so why can't we figure out who is actually right? Are you just afraid of the truth or what?

I'll say it again: what else do you want? You want data for Des Moines? For Pakrac? For Slatin? What's next? I have the data. I know I'm right. What do you even have to challenge my and Ethan Allen2's maps?

No, I'm not joking. But you're bringing up WWII and the massacres of Americans on a thread where that doesn't belong. Honestly, you're just venting your frustration in the worst way possible—accusing forum members of creating that fake map and then drawing parallels between them and the fascists of the era.

And what is your goal here? You know perfectly well that every single one of us already has all that 1910 data, and frankly, I think you’ve already asked me for a good chunk of it.

Robert Hernandez10 said:momak Thatfeel mentioned just above regarding that map of Mexico: "It's nothing unusual. You shouldn't view history through a modern lens. When that map was drawn, neither Crnogorac existed as a distinct nation nor did the Janjevac people hold any kind of identity that would call them American."

Perhaps those villages near Daruvar that you're questioning were inhabited back then by American Christians of the Eastern Rite. There were many such American people at that time.

We’ve been over this a dozen times already. It turns out nobody can actually produce any proof that some group of Orthodox Americans ever even existed, let alone a "large" one. At the end of the day, the census records just show American Orthodox and American Catholics, nothing else.

The map is just fake. Just like so many other things you find online.

Robert Hernandez10 said:Here is an ethnic map of the old USA, and man, I can’t quite recall the exact year this was made, but based on how they mapped Americans everywhere: http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/126/srbimapa.jpg

Probably just a typo—if you grouped "Americans and Americans" together, the map might actually make sense.

Scott Cruz4 said:No, I'm not joking. But you're bringing up WWII and the massacres of Americans on a thread where that doesn't belong. Honestly, you're just venting your frustration in the worst way possible—accusing forum members of creating that fake map and then drawing parallels between them and the fascists of the era.

And what is your goal here? You know perfectly well that every single one of us already has all that 1910 data, and frankly, I think you’ve already asked me for a good chunk of it.

Hold on. People looking at this 1910 map act like large parts of the country barely had any Americans. Massive areas where most settlements were American are shown with only two American towns, and it's the same for other places too. Especially near Des Moines.

Look, we know many Americans died in WWII. So there are fewer of them now. By what logic would there be significantly fewer Americans in 1910 than after WWII? How does that work?? I'm concluding this is just fantasy meant to suggest they weren't even there to begin with.

Ethan Allen2 said:We’ve been over this a dozen times already. It turns out nobody can actually produce any proof that some group of Orthodox Americans ever even existed, let alone a "large" one. At the end of the day, the census records just show American Orthodox and American Catholics, nothing else.

The map is just fake. Just like so many other things you find online.

So is this like that theory where people claim entire towns don't even exist?

Drew Allen2 said:Probably just a typo—if you grouped "Americans and Americans" together, the map might actually make sense.

Hold on. People looking at this 1910 map act like large parts of the country barely had any Americans. Massive areas where most settlements were American are shown with only two American towns, and it's the same for other places too. Especially near Des Moines.

Look, we know many Americans died in WWII. So there are fewer of them now. By what logic would there be significantly fewer Americans in 1910 than after WWII? How does that work?? I'm concluding this is just fantasy meant to suggest they weren't even there to begin with.

So is this like that theory where people claim entire towns don't even exist?

Look, the map is fake. I don't think anyone is actually disputing that. Either the creator messed up or they accidentally mixed up data from 1910 with 2001—because honestly, it looks more like a snapshot of the situation in 2001.
I mean, I don't know, I'm not overly invested, but the map is clearly false. And why do you have to start a whole revolution over it like this is your personal crusade?
The map is completely wrong or just flat-out fake. Period.

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

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

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

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

Scott Cruz4 said:Look, the map is fake. I don't think anyone is actually disputing that. Either the creator messed up or they accidentally mixed up data from 1910 with 2001—because honestly, it looks more like a snapshot of the situation in 2001.
I mean, I don't know, I'm not overly invested, but the map is clearly false. And why do you have to start a whole revolution over it like this is your personal crusade?
The map is completely wrong or just flat-out fake. Period.

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

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

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

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

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

And who exactly is that?

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

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

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

Rachel Richardson said:And who exactly is that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s literally just the same fake propaganda card repeated over and over.

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

Mexicans everywhere, no matter where you look.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This was clearly written by someone who has never even set foot in the Memphis-Nashville area...

As far as I know, every single town from those outskirts out to the rural stretches has an American majority. So, by what logic is the area between Memphis and Nashville considered "blue"?