Post your ethnic maps here

Richard Wilson4 said:nationalist colors (yellow and brown) versus those without traditional national identities (shades of blue)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File😈thnic_diversity.jpg

I wonder who they consider an "important minority" over in Austria? And then you look at the UK, where there isn't even a "traditional ethnic definition" to speak of... it’s all a bit inconsistent, I suppose.

And just look at Uruguay tucked away among all those blue tones. 😁

crimsonorca42 said:I wonder who they consider an "important minority" over in Austria? And then you look at the UK, where there isn't even a "traditional ethnic definition" to speak of... it’s all a bit inconsistent, I suppose.

And just look at Uruguay tucked away among all those blue tones. 😁

Even Belgium would be considered yellow by their logic. Their criteria are totally nuts.🤷

Is nobody even slightly surprised by what’s happening in France? Or Spain?

Rebecca Watson said:Is nobody even slightly surprised by what’s happening in France? Or Spain?

Spain fits the bill, sure, but France? Not really. It’s basically the textbook definition of a "nation state." They don't even officially recognize minorities. Plus, Arabs and Black Americans only make up maybe 10 to 15% of the population there. So, compared to somewhere like Canada, they’re actually 🤷

White Settlers—like those Portuguese people or Italians—are everywhere, but they’ve been totally assimilated.

Richard Wilson4 said:Spain fits the bill, sure, but France? Not really. It’s basically the textbook definition of a "nation state." They don't even officially recognize minorities. Plus, Arabs and Black Americans only make up maybe 10 to 15% of the population there. So, compared to somewhere like Canada, they’re actually 🤷

White Settlers—like those Portuguese people or Italians—are everywhere, but they’ve been totally assimilated.

However, France is portrayed as having a large minority population, while Spain is shown as having none.
As for Canada, it's presented as having significant minorities, when in reality, it's much more homogeneous than most of those other countries.

Amanda Brooks7 said:However, France is portrayed as having a large minority population, while Spain is shown as having none.
As for Canada, it's presented as having significant minorities, when in reality, it's much more homogeneous than most of those other countries.

I mean, whatever. I guess Catalans, Galicians, and Basques aren't counted as minorities. Maybe they're just treated like "nations" or "ethnicities" back in the America days... 🤷

Who knows? This map is a total mess. I only posted it because it looked interesting, not because I actually think it's any good.

Richard Wilson4 said:I mean, whatever. I guess Catalans, Galicians, and Basques aren't counted as minorities. Maybe they're just treated like "nations" or "ethnicities" back in the America days... 🤷

Who knows? This map is a total mess. I only posted it because it looked interesting, not because I actually think it's any good.

Richard, you're applying an American framework to Spain. What most people call "Spaniards" are actually primarily Castilians. Think of Spain as an umbrella term meant to bring everyone under one roof. You have Aragonese and Asturians with their own distinct languages being folded into the Spanish identity, while Galicians sit somewhere in the middle. Then you have the Basques and Catalans, who refuse to fully assimilate, yet they don't quite fit the definition of minorities either. Even the concept of "Spanishness" is shaking lately—take the Andalusians wanting independence, or how even the Catalans aren't a monolith, considering there are Valencians who have no desire to be part of Catalonia. Spain is a complicated puzzle...

Henry Myers3 said:Richard, you're applying an American framework to Spain. What most people call "Spaniards" are actually primarily Castilians. Think of Spain as an umbrella term meant to bring everyone under one roof. You have Aragonese and Asturians with their own distinct languages being folded into the Spanish identity, while Galicians sit somewhere in the middle. Then you have the Basques and Catalans, who refuse to fully assimilate, yet they don't quite fit the definition of minorities either. Even the concept of "Spanishness" is shaking lately—take the Andalusians wanting independence, or how even the Catalans aren't a monolith, considering there are Valencians who have no desire to be part of Catalonia. Spain is a complicated puzzle...

Henry Myers3, look, I admitted my criteria was "weird" and maybe that whole America vibe was the issue... 🤷

I definitely know everything you mentioned, though I had no clue about the Andalusians wanting out 🤷

crimsonorca42 said:I wonder who they consider an "important minority" over in Austria? And then you look at the UK, where there isn't even a "traditional ethnic definition" to speak of... it’s all a bit inconsistent, I suppose.

And just look at Uruguay tucked away among all those blue tones. 😁

I think the way they categorize ethnic groups in England is super messy—stuff like "British White," "Irish White," "Other White," "Chinese Asian," "Other Asian," and so on.

Check it out. It’s pretty much the same in the US, where they have these specific ways of breaking down ethnic groups. In America, when people say minority, they literally mean non-white or someone with non-European roots. It feels a little weird from our perspective since we usually have much clearer-cut ethnic identities, like Americans, Czechs, Italians, and stuff like that...

Harold Rivera47 said:I think the way they categorize ethnic groups in England is super messy—stuff like "British White," "Irish White," "Other White," "Chinese Asian," "Other Asian," and so on.

Check it out. It’s pretty much the same in the US, where they have these specific ways of breaking down ethnic groups. In America, when people say minority, they literally mean non-white or someone with non-European roots. It feels a little weird from our perspective since we usually have much clearer-cut ethnic identities, like Americans, Czechs, Italians, and stuff like that...

Honestly, the English—and really, their entire culture that they've exported globally—are, to put it mildly, a special breed. And then we wonder why the world seems to be heading toward total chaos at breakneck speed.

Henry Myers3 said:Richard, you're applying an American framework to Spain. What most people call "Spaniards" are actually primarily Castilians. Think of Spain as an umbrella term meant to bring everyone under one roof. You have Aragonese and Asturians with their own distinct languages being folded into the Spanish identity, while Galicians sit somewhere in the middle. Then you have the Basques and Catalans, who refuse to fully assimilate, yet they don't quite fit the definition of minorities either. Even the concept of "Spanishness" is shaking lately—take the Andalusians wanting independence, or how even the Catalans aren't a monolith, considering there are Valencians who have no desire to be part of Catalonia. Spain is a complicated puzzle...

The Valencians are a case study in themselves. In Valencia, about 51% of the population speaks Catalan/Valencian/Balearic, while the rest speak Castilian. That remainder is more or less located in the hinterlands. 😁
Keep in mind that even though they share the same orthography, Valencians use a different dialect—one closer to Southern Italian influences rather than the Barcelona-based speech that forms the Catalan standard. 😁
Asturian still exists as a language, spoken by the people in that region. It's also used in Leon, though there it goes by a different name and isn't nearly as prevalent among the younger generation.
Aragonese also survives, but it's limited to the Pyrenean hills. 😁
In northern Navarre, you have the Basques, but they only make up about a third of the total population. Since Navarre is less densely populated than the rest of the Basque Country, if annexation were ever to happen, the Basques might end up with a 70% majority—at least, that's my guess, though I can't say for certain. 😁 Even Pamplona itself has a non-Basque majority.
Spain is somewhat similar to the former America, but based on the people I know living there, the parallels to the American breakup aren't quite that straightforward.
It is entirely possible that regions like Cantabria, Murcia, Extremadura, La Rioja, and La Mancha could follow the path of the CG in a breakup scenario.
What keeps Spain together is France—because if things fall apart, they face potential headaches with northern Catalonia (even if Catalans are a minority there now 😁) and northern Basque Country (perhaps better known as Navarre). Plus, it’s simply easier to maintain order with one large state than a cluster of tiny ones.
The relationship between Castilian identity and Spanish identity remains ill-defined—even if three-quarters of the population identifies as Castilian, it feels like things could shift...

Drew Allen2 said:I posted this in the other thread. http://www.neiu.edu/~lilic/1910Prava.gif It’s not quite time to drop the whole thing yet. :P

It's nothing like the fake version Richard Wilson4 put up. http://storage.canalblog.com/15/45/92110/29006025.jpg

Look, my friend, you truly fail to grasp how cartography works, so you end up drawing and writing absolute nonsense that serves no practical purpose. If you intend to pursue this seriously, you must adopt a rigorous scientific methodology in everything you do.
1. You can find the actual data at the U.S. Census Bureau http://www.census.gov/
2. The modern municipal boundaries you are currently overlaying for 1910 have absolutely no direct correlation to what the settlement borders actually looked like back then.
3. Back in 1910, there was an entire array of settlements that either vanished entirely or were absorbed into larger townships as hamlets—they simply don't exist today. Conversely, many modern developments emerged that weren't even on the map back then.
4. Furthermore, you must realize that even the current cadastral boundaries you're treating as gospel bear little resemblance to actual inhabited areas. Take any example: looking at updated boundary lines from 1989, the town of Ponikva was previously separated by more than 6.2 miles belts of federal forest land from the town of Ljubošina (which used to belong to the Okruglica area), and there has never been any physical or road connection between Ljubošina and Ponikva. In reality, between those two towns lies 6.2 miles impassable mountain terrain covered in dense forest and cut by deep ravines. The town of Ponikva itself, with its small fields and pastures, doesn't even account for 5% of its total designated territory. Yet, here you are, coloring all these uninhabited American mountains and federal forests in foreign colors while claiming to be "realistic." It bears zero resemblance to reality.

Here is an example of what a reasonably accurate representation should actually look like: http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/831746map002CRO.jpg

copperangler7, honestly, you don't have the slightest clue how ethnic maps actually work. You proved that a long time ago when you were claiming the 2001 census maps didn't exist or arguing that certain settlements were just nothing but forests... total nonsense.

Look, stop wasting our time. It’s not my fault you can't keep up with the data I'm presenting. You know, like that saying Pavo used to tell the Czechs, or something like that—you actually have to put in some effort to find information that isn't just a couple of clicks away on a mouse.

Every single piece of data I use comes directly from the US Census Bureau. I spent months scanning through nearly 4,000 pages of raw data. So yeah... I think I know exactly what I'm doing.

Richard Wilson4 said:Henry Myers3, look, I admitted my criteria was "weird" and maybe that whole America vibe was the issue... 🤷

I definitely know everything you mentioned, though I had no clue about the Andalusians wanting out 🤷

The Andalusians are working hard to be recognized as their own distinct people. As a region, Andalusia fought for autonomy right after Catalonia, the Basque Country, and Galicia did. They pushed for the exact same status those three have, but they haven't managed to pull it off yet.

Rachel Richardson said:The Valencians are a case study in themselves. In Valencia, about 51% of the population speaks Catalan/Valencian/Balearic, while the rest speak Castilian. That remainder is more or less located in the hinterlands. 😁
Keep in mind that even though they share the same orthography, Valencians use a different dialect—one closer to Southern Italian influences rather than the Barcelona-based speech that forms the Catalan standard. 😁
Asturian still exists as a language, spoken by the people in that region. It's also used in Leon, though there it goes by a different name and isn't nearly as prevalent among the younger generation.
Aragonese also survives, but it's limited to the Pyrenean hills. 😁
In northern Navarre, you have the Basques, but they only make up about a third of the total population. Since Navarre is less densely populated than the rest of the Basque Country, if annexation were ever to happen, the Basques might end up with a 70% majority—at least, that's my guess, though I can't say for certain. 😁 Even Pamplona itself has a non-Basque majority.
Spain is somewhat similar to the former America, but based on the people I know living there, the parallels to the American breakup aren't quite that straightforward.
It is entirely possible that regions like Cantabria, Murcia, Extremadura, La Rioja, and La Mancha could follow the path of the CG in a breakup scenario.
What keeps Spain together is France—because if things fall apart, they face potential headaches with northern Catalonia (even if Catalans are a minority there now 😁) and northern Basque Country (perhaps better known as Navarre). Plus, it’s simply easier to maintain order with one large state than a cluster of tiny ones.
The relationship between Castilian identity and Spanish identity remains ill-defined—even if three-quarters of the population identifies as Castilian, it feels like things could shift...

All five scenarios are possible, but reality is rarely that simple. You're basing your logic on the number of language speakers, but the ethnic makeup of a region often tells a bigger story. For instance, the Basques are strengthening their linguistic identity through the school system, bolstered by the fact that they retain a larger portion of their tax revenue—making them, on average, the wealthiest region in Spain. Meanwhile, Valencians are actively distancing themselves from the Catalan linguistic group. They have the support of the central government in this, yet they simultaneously push for "de-Spanishization" by favoring Valencian. They can pull this off because the regional government's policies are backed by the majority of the local population... ☕

Amanda Brooks7 said:Back in the 1950s, about half the people in the Đakovo area were Catholic, but most of them packed up and moved to Switzerland over the last few decades. Now, you've got a huge Muslim majority there instead.

Does anyone actually have hard data from the old census records versus the recent ones for this part of the region? I need the actual numbers on the Muslim and Catholic populations and their percentages.

Albanians in Mexico

1991.
Total: 40,415
Muslims: 26,216 (64.87%)
Catholics: 12,772 (31.60%)

2003.
Total: 31,163
Muslims: 22,834 (73.27%)
Catholics: 8,126 (26.08%)

Does anyone actually have the data for 2011?

Joshua Rodriguez35 said:Albanians in Mexico

1991.
Total: 40,415
Muslims: 26,216 (64.87%)
Catholics: 12,772 (31.60%)

2003.
Total: 31,163
Muslims: 22,834 (73.27%)
Catholics: 8,126 (26.08%)

Does anyone actually have the data for 2011?

I certainly do! Could you please send over the link for those 1991 figures? Once I have that, I can track down the 2011 data myself... Thanks so much.

Joshua Rodriguez35 said:Does anyone actually have hard data from the old census records versus the recent ones for this part of the region? I need the actual numbers on the Muslim and Catholic populations and their percentages.

As for 1991, there isn't any reliable data available, even though they were supposed to be collected... it turns out the Albanians boycotted the census entirely.

Why don't you try tracking down the figures from the 1953 census, and I'll see if I can dig up the data from the 2011 one...

analogmarlin6 said:I certainly do! Could you please send over the link for those 1991 figures? Once I have that, I can track down the 2011 data myself... Thanks so much.

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

The wiki.😬 Page is actually pretty well put together, so the numbers should be legit.🙂