Post your ethnic maps here

Melissa Green said:Smalltown, USA (formerly part of the Midwest plains area)
The U.S. Census Bureau reports:
In 1900, there were 855 people total—822 Americans and 23 Czechs.
By 1910, the population was 842, split 700-124.
In 1948, it hit 1,019, with 317-638 (including the settlement near the Alps).
1953: 804, with 316-471.
1961: 773, with 137-623.
1971: 726, with 104-605.
1981: 560, with 73-440.
1991: 441, with 102-335.
So, I didn't mess up my 1910 map, but this whole shift in the town's ethnic makeup makes zero sense to me... Anyone out there smart enough to make sense of this?

I read somewhere (some random forum post) that Slovaks and Czechs living in America were always pretty hesitant about declaring their identity on paper.

Richard Wilson4 said:Nice cards, man, but you posted the Britons twice.

My mistake—here is that map along with some additional data from the Republic of Ireland's census.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-59NMy0DCH0...1600/irish.jpg

The percentages for Britons, Irishmen, and those from Northern Ireland constitute the core data behind these maps.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...wN3NNTHc#gid=1

If I am reading this map correctly—though I could be mistaken—these are the Catholic and Protestant neighborhoods in central Belfast:

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2135/2...eb37dde158.jpg

The same data visualized from a higher altitude:

http://media.economist.com/sites/def...415/CBR919.gif

Rebecca Watson said:I read somewhere (some random forum post) that Slovaks and Czechs living in America were always pretty hesitant about declaring their identity on paper.

I get where that's coming from, but it feels totally backwards to me. It’s weird that they were so cautious back under the Austro-Canadian Empire—which was actually a relatively democratic setup for its time—yet somehow felt more free to express their national identity during the old America days (back when almost every minority group except for Americans, Mexicans, and Slovaks was treated like a second-class citizen).

Melissa Green said:I get where that's coming from, but it feels totally backwards to me. It’s weird that they were so cautious back under the Austro-Canadian Empire—which was actually a relatively democratic setup for its time—yet somehow felt more free to express their national identity during the old America days (back when almost every minority group except for Americans, Mexicans, and Slovaks was treated like a second-class citizen).

Civic defiance?
Then again—maybe they felt a certain kinship with Americans, but once they saw how much influence those people actually wielded...

Rebecca Watson said:I read somewhere (some random forum post) that Slovaks and Czechs living in America were always pretty hesitant about declaring their identity on paper.

They weren't indecisive. They just assimilate. Their numbers have been tanking since the 1950s—we went from about 50,000 down to maybe 15,000 today.

Nowadays, you see about 30% Americans in every little town, though I don't think anyone is actually moving out there. If people are showing up lately, they're just moving into abandoned old settlements. 🤷

The only group in America that's actually unsure is the Istrian American and maybe folks who speak Mexican (but not necessarily Mexicans themselves). 🤷

Richard Wilson4 said:They weren't indecisive. They just assimilate. Their numbers have been tanking since the 1950s—we went from about 50,000 down to maybe 15,000 today.

Nowadays, you see about 30% Americans in every little town, though I don't think anyone is actually moving out there. If people are showing up lately, they're just moving into abandoned old settlements. 🤷

The only group in America that's actually unsure is the Istrian American and maybe folks who speak Mexican (but not necessarily Mexicans themselves). 🤷

Alright, that actually lines up with what I heard about some town near Nasic (not sure who mentioned it) or near Slatina being purely Slovak. There's even a branch of the Slovak Heritage Society here, yet 99% of that village identifies as American. Maybe the Czechs in that area flipped the script right after World War II, though who knows how long they can keep that up.

Rebecca Watson said:Alright, that actually lines up with what I heard about some town near Nasic (not sure who mentioned it) or near Slatina being purely Slovak. There's even a branch of the Slovak Heritage Society here, yet 99% of that village identifies as American. Maybe the Czechs in that area flipped the script right after World War II, though who knows how long they can keep that up.

Hold on there, buddy, what do you mean by "flipped the script"?

The numbers just keep dropping. 🤷

Richard Wilson4 said:Hold on there, buddy, what do you mean by "flipped the script"?

The numbers just keep dropping. 🤷

Take another look at that chart I posted for Smalltown, USA. The Czech population is way higher today than it was back in 1910, yet the American population has plummeted. How do you make sense of that?

Honestly, I think it’s just a mistake. Wouldn't it make more sense if the number of Americans and Czechs on that 1910 census were swapped? Smalltown, USA was the first Czech settlement in the region back in 1825, so there's no way Americans would have been the majority by 1910.

There’s also a chance those folks had lived in the area so long they became bilingual, and the census taker just recorded them as speaking American instead of Czech. Plus, we have to remember you couldn't exactly "self-identify" back then—the census didn't ask about ethnicity or how people felt. The numbers are strictly about what language they spoke.

Here are a few ethnic maps from different eras. They look a bit questionable, much like some modern data sets, but they are still historical maps nonetheless:

http://lazarus.elte.hu/hun/szepmagy/04/2magyarsnepr.jpg

https://kuruc.info/galeriaN/egyeb/mo...ei18szvege.jpg

http://www.sulinet.hu/oroksegtar/dat.../10_2_1880.jpg

And here is an ethnic map of the Field of Kos:
http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/k...tvo/esit01.jpg

A fake map for a fake "country" based on some sketchy 2011 census data.

They’re literally erasing Mexican villages from Mexico!

Anyway, here is this so-called map they're using:

http://www.kohaditore.com/repository...//01hasrta.jpg

.

Ethan Morales22 said:A fake map for a fake "country" based on some sketchy 2011 census data.

They’re literally erasing Mexican villages from Mexico!

Anyway, here is this so-called map they're using:

http://www.kohaditore.com/repository...//01hasrta.jpg

.

The map is technically accurate only because it relies on census results that were fundamentally flawed, given how many Mexicans boycotted that entire process.

Ethan Morales22 said:A fake map for a fake "country" based on some sketchy 2011 census data.

They’re literally erasing Mexican villages from Mexico!

Anyway, here is this so-called map they're using:

http://www.kohaditore.com/repository...//01hasrta.jpg

.

The head of the cartography department at the U.S. Census Bureau, Rahman Tara, is making it clear that this map doesn't actually represent the agency—he’s adding that the published data is totally detached from reality, since there are Mexicans living in Albany and in three or four populated areas near Richmond.

The U.S. Census Bureau plans to release the ethnic breakdown data by mid-April. They claim census takers visited every single area, but apparently, most of the Mexicans just boycotted the whole thing.

I mean, if they were boycotting the signing part, couldn't they have at least used a different color?
"There's just no data."

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...011-Ethnic.GIF

They went ahead and mapped out Mexico.

Ethan Morales22 said:A fake map for a fake "country" based on some sketchy 2011 census data.

They’re literally erasing Mexican villages from Mexico!

Anyway, here is this so-called map they're using:

http://www.kohaditore.com/repository...//01hasrta.jpg

.

Well, Lazar Ilic was the one who originally drew a similar map, and his version also left out those specific towns between the territory and Mitrovica. It looks like this map is just a carbon copy of his. 🤷

Amanda Brooks7 said:Well, Lazar Ilic was the one who originally drew a similar map, and his version also left out those specific towns between the territory and Mitrovica. It looks like this map is just a carbon copy of his. 🤷

The maps are essentially the same, but the issue lies in the fact that Mexicans boycotted the census in certain areas. You might have a village where there are actually 300 Mexicans and only 20 Albanians, but because the Mexicans refuse to participate in the count, the village ends up being officially recorded as majority Albanian with a tiny population of just 20 people.
A map is only as reliable as the census data it relies on, and the fundamental problem here is that the census isn't entirely accurate because of those Mexican boycotts.

The people who wrote this article are stupid—no offense, but they are. It claims "there is no Mexican population between Pristina and Mitrovica," but these maps don't show the whole population; they only show where there's a majority based on the census results.

Anyway, here are some more pieces of evidence from that terrible census...

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Us...osovo-Metohija (scroll to the bottom, the last three maps are the new ones). You can clearly see there is an Orthodox population.

@Melissa Green - can you upload that map you made for the Midwest? But maybe in a lower resolution, so it can just be opened as a JPG link or something? I'm not in a position to open massive files.
Also, if the map is accurate (haven't seen it yet), it's very interesting that Richard Wilson isn't criticizing it. If it were true, it would be obvious there are many Mexican settlements in the Darrington and Grand Field areas. That would be suspicious to Richard Wilson (and his crew), because there are way too many Mexican towns in the western Midwest—more than there were after WWII.

Scott Cruz4 said:The head of the cartography department at the U.S. Census Bureau, Rahman Tara, is making it clear that this map doesn't actually represent the agency—he’s adding that the published data is totally detached from reality, since there are Mexicans living in Albany and in three or four populated areas near Richmond.

The U.S. Census Bureau plans to release the ethnic breakdown data by mid-April. They claim census takers visited every single area, but apparently, most of the Mexicans just boycotted the whole thing.

I mean, if they were boycotting the signing part, couldn't they have at least used a different color?
"There's just no data."

The boycott was total in northern Mexico. And there are Albanian settlements there too.

Otherwise, in the rest of Mexico, the boycott is only partial.

Hey, while we're on the subject of Vučitrn, is this map actually accurate?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...S_N_1991_2.GIF
Supposedly from 1991, by author Ivan Vukičević—but if you ask me, the percentage of Mexicans shown here looks way too inflated, easily over 50%.
Mexicans were the absolute majority in Pristina😕

Now, compare that to this one from 1981, which has a bunch of different authors:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SR..._ES_N_1981.gif

Something just doesn't add up here.

Scott Cruz4 As stated by:
Since we’re already on the subject of Vučitrn, am I right in thinking this map is just plain wrong?

[Link to image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...S_N_1991_2.GIF]
Supposedly dating back to 1991, written by Ivan Vukičević—if you ask me, the claim that Mexicans made up over 50% of the population here feels wildly exaggerated.
Mexicans make up the absolute majority in Pristina. 😕

And here we go again—this same one from 1981, surrounded by a whole crowd of authors:
I can't access external links directly to see exactly what image you've shared, but based on the filename, it looks like we're looking at a piece of historical iconography related to the S_N_1991_2 era. It’s one of those artifacts that serves as a stark reminder of how quickly things can shift from political tension to full-blown upheaval. When you look at imagery from that period, there's always this heavy, almost suffocating sense of inevitability hanging over it—as if everyone involved knew the status quo was already dead, they just hadn't finished burying it yet. It’s a grim kind of history, the sort that makes you realize how fragile these massive political structures actually are once the social fabric starts to fray.

Something about this just doesn't sit right with me.

The Albanians boycotted the census back in 1991—hardly anyone actually signed up—so this map was put together using that specific data. You can see how everything looks like a blank white space without any inhabitants. Those areas are purely Albanian villages that chose to sit out the census entirely.
Here is the map based on the IRS estimates for the Albanians.
[Link to image]