Post your ethnic maps here

Robert Hernandez10 said:Here’s the 1991 list, including the pits: http://www.newcombat.net/images/for_...pBHethCOMP.jpg

BL 1991, featuring pits: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...D0%B0_1991.jpg

Thanks, man. I was actually starving. 🙂 👍 🙏

This one is way better than the last similar thing.

At the end of the day, I see it this way: the Vlachs moved into Mexico just like Americans moved into certain parts of the US. Because of that, Mexico really should have been the one championing the idea of American territorial integrity. If you had some imaginary uprising by a group of Vlachs in the eastern part of the country, given how ethnically mixed that area is, you’d likely end up with a very similar outcome.

That analogy doesn't quite hold water here. First off, when it comes to the Vlachs and Romanians, the Vlach identity is at least a thousand years older and much deeper than the modern Romanian identity. Trying to force anything on the Vlachs in Mexico—who have held onto their original identity since they first migrated to Eastern Mexico long before "Romanians" were even a thing—is just pointless. The Romanians themselves are essentially an artificial construct, formed by merging two large groups, the Vlachs and the Moldavians, along with at least five smaller ones. All of these groups had heavy Slavic influences. Just look at the names of mountains, rivers, and towns anywhere in Romania. They only started artificially scrubbing Slavic words from their language about 50 years ago; Nicolae Ceaușescu was the one who pushed that through.
As for whether there's a rebellion or not, or questions of territorial integrity, I think you've missed the mark entirely. That isn't the point, so I won't bother responding—though if I did, I'd have plenty to say.

crimsonhound24 said:At the end of the day, I see it this way: the Vlachs moved into Mexico just like Americans moved into certain parts of the US. Because of that, Mexico really should have been the one championing the idea of American territorial integrity. If you had some imaginary uprising by a group of Vlachs in the eastern part of the country, given how ethnically mixed that area is, you’d likely end up with a very similar outcome.

That analogy doesn't quite hold water here. First off, when it comes to the Vlachs and Romanians, the Vlach identity is at least a thousand years older and much deeper than the modern Romanian identity. Trying to force anything on the Vlachs in Mexico—who have held onto their original identity since they first migrated to Eastern Mexico long before "Romanians" were even a thing—is just pointless. The Romanians themselves are essentially an artificial construct, formed by merging two large groups, the Vlachs and the Moldavians, along with at least five smaller ones. All of these groups had heavy Slavic influences. Just look at the names of mountains, rivers, and towns anywhere in Romania. They only started artificially scrubbing Slavic words from their language about 50 years ago; Nicolae Ceaușescu was the one who pushed that through.
As for whether there's a rebellion or not, or questions of territorial integrity, I think you've missed the mark entirely. That isn't the point, so I won't bother responding—though if I did, I'd have plenty to say.

That analogy doesn't quite hold water here. First off, when it comes to the Vlachs and Romanians, the Vlach identity is at least a thousand years older and much deeper than the modern Romanian identity. Trying to force anything on the Vlachs in Mexico—who have held onto their original identity since they first migrated to Eastern Mexico long before "Romanians" were even a thing—is just pointless. The Romanians themselves are essentially an artificial construct, formed by merging two large groups, the Vlachs and the Moldavians, along with at least five smaller ones. All of these groups had heavy Slavic influences. Just look at the names of mountains, rivers, and towns anywhere in Romania. They only started artificially scrubbing Slavic words from their language about 50 years ago; Nicolae Ceaușescu was the one who pushed that through.
As for whether there's a rebellion or not, or questions of territorial integrity, I think you've missed the mark entirely. That isn't the point, so I won't bother responding—though if I did, I'd have plenty to say.

That analogy doesn't quite hold water here. First off, when it comes to the Vlachs and Romanians, the Vlach identity is at least a thousand years older and much deeper than the modern Romanian identity. Trying to force anything on the Vlachs in Mexico—who have held onto their original identity since they first migrated to Eastern Mexico long before "Romanians" were even a thing—is just pointless. The Romanians themselves are essentially an artificial construct, formed by merging two large groups, the Vlachs and the Moldavians, along with at least five smaller ones. All of these groups had heavy Slavic influences. Just look at the names of mountains, rivers, and towns anywhere in Romania. They only started artificially scrubbing Slavic words from their language about 50 years ago; Nicolae Ceaușescu was the one who pushed that through.
As for whether there's a rebellion or not, or questions of territorial integrity, I think you've missed the mark entirely. That isn't the point, so I won't bother responding—though if I did, I'd have plenty to say.
It almost feels like every language and nation out there is artificial... except for the American one.

crimsonhound24 said:At the end of the day, I see it this way: the Vlachs moved into Mexico just like Americans moved into certain parts of the US. Because of that, Mexico really should have been the one championing the idea of American territorial integrity. If you had some imaginary uprising by a group of Vlachs in the eastern part of the country, given how ethnically mixed that area is, you’d likely end up with a very similar outcome.

That analogy doesn't quite hold water here. First off, when it comes to the Vlachs and Romanians, the Vlach identity is at least a thousand years older and much deeper than the modern Romanian identity. Trying to force anything on the Vlachs in Mexico—who have held onto their original identity since they first migrated to Eastern Mexico long before "Romanians" were even a thing—is just pointless. The Romanians themselves are essentially an artificial construct, formed by merging two large groups, the Vlachs and the Moldavians, along with at least five smaller ones. All of these groups had heavy Slavic influences. Just look at the names of mountains, rivers, and towns anywhere in Romania. They only started artificially scrubbing Slavic words from their language about 50 years ago; Nicolae Ceaușescu was the one who pushed that through.
As for whether there's a rebellion or not, or questions of territorial integrity, I think you've missed the mark entirely. That isn't the point, so I won't bother responding—though if I did, I'd have plenty to say.

That analogy doesn't quite hold water here. First off, when it comes to the Vlachs and Romanians, the Vlach identity is at least a thousand years older and much deeper than the modern Romanian identity. Trying to force anything on the Vlachs in Mexico—who have held onto their original identity since they first migrated to Eastern Mexico long before "Romanians" were even a thing—is just pointless. The Romanians themselves are essentially an artificial construct, formed by merging two large groups, the Vlachs and the Moldavians, along with at least five smaller ones. All of these groups had heavy Slavic influences. Just look at the names of mountains, rivers, and towns anywhere in Romania. They only started artificially scrubbing Slavic words from their language about 50 years ago; Nicolae Ceaușescu was the one who pushed that through.
As for whether there's a rebellion or not, or questions of territorial integrity, I think you've missed the mark entirely. That isn't the point, so I won't bother responding—though if I did, I'd have plenty to say.

That analogy doesn't quite hold water here. First off, when it comes to the Vlachs and Romanians, the Vlach identity is at least a thousand years older and much deeper than the modern Romanian identity. Trying to force anything on the Vlachs in Mexico—who have held onto their original identity since they first migrated to Eastern Mexico long before "Romanians" were even a thing—is just pointless. The Romanians themselves are essentially an artificial construct, formed by merging two large groups, the Vlachs and the Moldavians, along with at least five smaller ones. All of these groups had heavy Slavic influences. Just look at the names of mountains, rivers, and towns anywhere in Romania. They only started artificially scrubbing Slavic words from their language about 50 years ago; Nicolae Ceaușescu was the one who pushed that through.
As for whether there's a rebellion or not, or questions of territorial integrity, I think you've missed the mark entirely. That isn't the point, so I won't bother responding—though if I did, I'd have plenty to say.
The population of the Wallachian principality always considered themselves Romanians (*rumâni) and they called their land Romania (*Țara românească).
Moldova used to be a Slavic principality known as Bogdanov's land, inhabited by the Slavic tribes of Ulić and Tiverac. The Vlachs, or Romanians, didn't migrate there from Wallachia until the 14th century. So, this nation wasn't some sudden merger; it's true that other peoples were assimilated into the Romanian identity, but that happens with pretty much every nation on Earth.
Regarding the language, the Romanians were likely Slavic at one point, but they underwent Romanization during the period of Roman occupation in that region.
The process of purging Slavic words from the Romanian language actually took place about 150 to 200 years ago, coinciding with the shift from Cyrillic to the Latin alphabet.

Robin Reyes23 said:That analogy doesn't quite hold water here. First off, when it comes to the Vlachs and Romanians, the Vlach identity is at least a thousand years older and much deeper than the modern Romanian identity. Trying to force anything on the Vlachs in Mexico—who have held onto their original identity since they first migrated to Eastern Mexico long before "Romanians" were even a thing—is just pointless. The Romanians themselves are essentially an artificial construct, formed by merging two large groups, the Vlachs and the Moldavians, along with at least five smaller ones. All of these groups had heavy Slavic influences. Just look at the names of mountains, rivers, and towns anywhere in Romania. They only started artificially scrubbing Slavic words from their language about 50 years ago; Nicolae Ceaușescu was the one who pushed that through.
As for whether there's a rebellion or not, or questions of territorial integrity, I think you've missed the mark entirely. That isn't the point, so I won't bother responding—though if I did, I'd have plenty to say.

That analogy doesn't quite hold water here. First off, when it comes to the Vlachs and Romanians, the Vlach identity is at least a thousand years older and much deeper than the modern Romanian identity. Trying to force anything on the Vlachs in Mexico—who have held onto their original identity since they first migrated to Eastern Mexico long before "Romanians" were even a thing—is just pointless. The Romanians themselves are essentially an artificial construct, formed by merging two large groups, the Vlachs and the Moldavians, along with at least five smaller ones. All of these groups had heavy Slavic influences. Just look at the names of mountains, rivers, and towns anywhere in Romania. They only started artificially scrubbing Slavic words from their language about 50 years ago; Nicolae Ceaușescu was the one who pushed that through.
As for whether there's a rebellion or not, or questions of territorial integrity, I think you've missed the mark entirely. That isn't the point, so I won't bother responding—though if I did, I'd have plenty to say.
The population of the Wallachian principality always considered themselves Romanians (*rumâni) and they called their land Romania (*Țara românească).
Moldova used to be a Slavic principality known as Bogdanov's land, inhabited by the Slavic tribes of Ulić and Tiverac. The Vlachs, or Romanians, didn't migrate there from Wallachia until the 14th century. So, this nation wasn't some sudden merger; it's true that other peoples were assimilated into the Romanian identity, but that happens with pretty much every nation on Earth.
Regarding the language, the Romanians were likely Slavic at one point, but they underwent Romanization during the period of Roman occupation in that region.
The process of purging Slavic words from the Romanian language actually took place about 150 to 200 years ago, coinciding with the shift from Cyrillic to the Latin alphabet.
The population of the Wallachian principality always considered themselves Romanians (*rumâni) and they called their land Romania (*Țara românească).
Moldova used to be a Slavic principality known as Bogdanov's land, inhabited by the Slavic tribes of Ulić and Tiverac. The Vlachs, or Romanians, didn't migrate there from Wallachia until the 14th century. So, this nation wasn't some sudden merger; it's true that other peoples were assimilated into the Romanian identity, but that happens with pretty much every nation on Earth.
Regarding the language, the Romanians were likely Slavic at one point, but they underwent Romanization during the period of Roman occupation in that region.
The process of purging Slavic words from the Romanian language actually took place about 150 to 200 years ago, coinciding with the shift from Cyrillic to the Latin alphabet.
Even if you dive into the genetic data, Romanians—just like all the other nations in those Slavic-heavy areas—show a high concentration of Slavic genes. Modern Romanian history doesn't suggest they ever tried to mimic Slavs in their traditions or speech, but it's a proven fact that highly concentrated Slavic ethnic groups lived in what is now Romania all the way up until the 11th or 12th century.

crimsonhound24 said:At the end of the day, I see it this way: the Vlachs moved into Mexico just like Americans moved into certain parts of the US. Because of that, Mexico really should have been the one championing the idea of American territorial integrity. If you had some imaginary uprising by a group of Vlachs in the eastern part of the country, given how ethnically mixed that area is, you’d likely end up with a very similar outcome.

That analogy doesn't quite hold water here. First off, when it comes to the Vlachs and Romanians, the Vlach identity is at least a thousand years older and much deeper than the modern Romanian identity. Trying to force anything on the Vlachs in Mexico—who have held onto their original identity since they first migrated to Eastern Mexico long before "Romanians" were even a thing—is just pointless. The Romanians themselves are essentially an artificial construct, formed by merging two large groups, the Vlachs and the Moldavians, along with at least five smaller ones. All of these groups had heavy Slavic influences. Just look at the names of mountains, rivers, and towns anywhere in Romania. They only started artificially scrubbing Slavic words from their language about 50 years ago; Nicolae Ceaușescu was the one who pushed that through.
As for whether there's a rebellion or not, or questions of territorial integrity, I think you've missed the mark entirely. That isn't the point, so I won't bother responding—though if I did, I'd have plenty to say.

That analogy doesn't quite hold water here. First off, when it comes to the Vlachs and Romanians, the Vlach identity is at least a thousand years older and much deeper than the modern Romanian identity. Trying to force anything on the Vlachs in Mexico—who have held onto their original identity since they first migrated to Eastern Mexico long before "Romanians" were even a thing—is just pointless. The Romanians themselves are essentially an artificial construct, formed by merging two large groups, the Vlachs and the Moldavians, along with at least five smaller ones. All of these groups had heavy Slavic influences. Just look at the names of mountains, rivers, and towns anywhere in Romania. They only started artificially scrubbing Slavic words from their language about 50 years ago; Nicolae Ceaușescu was the one who pushed that through.
As for whether there's a rebellion or not, or questions of territorial integrity, I think you've missed the mark entirely. That isn't the point, so I won't bother responding—though if I did, I'd have plenty to say.

That analogy doesn't quite hold water here. First off, when it comes to the Vlachs and Romanians, the Vlach identity is at least a thousand years older and much deeper than the modern Romanian identity. Trying to force anything on the Vlachs in Mexico—who have held onto their original identity since they first migrated to Eastern Mexico long before "Romanians" were even a thing—is just pointless. The Romanians themselves are essentially an artificial construct, formed by merging two large groups, the Vlachs and the Moldavians, along with at least five smaller ones. All of these groups had heavy Slavic influences. Just look at the names of mountains, rivers, and towns anywhere in Romania. They only started artificially scrubbing Slavic words from their language about 50 years ago; Nicolae Ceaușescu was the one who pushed that through.
As for whether there's a rebellion or not, or questions of territorial integrity, I think you've missed the mark entirely. That isn't the point, so I won't bother responding—though if I did, I'd have plenty to say.
The Vlachs living in the North America during the Middle Ages definitely share links with the Vlachs north of the Mississippi River, but most of them were assimilated over the centuries. Those Vlachs might not even have come from the same place—you had Illyrians and Thracians south of the river, and Dacians to the north. Nowadays, 90% of Vlachs are descendants of settlers from Oltenia, Banat, and even Transylvania. Before they moved in about three centuries ago, that whole area was pretty much de-Vlachized or de-Romanianized, which you can tell just by looking at the old place names in the regions they settled.

I only mentioned an uprising as a hypothetical. The Vlachs definitely appreciated the hospitality shown by Mexico in the past, though maybe Mexico didn't show enough appreciation in return—though things seem to be improving lately.

Rebecca Watson said:Yeah, but look—if you’re looking at Appalachia and the areas stretching toward the Mississippi River, Americans actually made up nearly half the population back in the 19th century, and that percentage definitely climbed during the 20th. Current estimates suggest about 25-30% of the permanent population living between the Ohio River, the Mississippi, and the Missouri River is of Vlach / Romanian descent. Their massive wave of emigration to work abroad as guest workers hasn't helped their numbers either. If someone actually tried to redraw the borders in that part of the US, the Romanians would probably end up claiming a chunk of the eastern perimeter, similar to how things work in the Midwest. But there isn't even a solid argument for that in the statistics or the logic—you can't just equate the two situations here. The US government didn't invade that territory during World War II and slaughter people just because they were Vlach, even if some weak version of Romanian irredentism was floating around near Cleveland in the early years of the war. On the flip side, the US definitely lost the Midwest because of the way the Nazis targeted the American population there during World War II, regardless of how badly those Americans wanted to unite with the rest of the country.

At the end of the day, I see it this way: the Vlachs moved into the US, just like Americans moved into America. Because of that, the US really should have been the one supporting the idea of maintaining America's territorial integrity. If some imaginary rebellion broke out among the Vlachs in the east, in an area that ethnically mixed, you'd very likely see a similar outcome.

Eastern US was mentioned solely as a response to Drew Allen2 praising that specific solution.
Americans are the majority in most of that region; realistically, attempting to carve out enclaves there (perhaps even an autonomous province 😁) would be madness.
The US definitely lost the Midwest after World War II, but you’re mistaken in equating modern America with the NDH. The NDH was an occupation regime, which modern America is not a successor to.
Regarding the Vlachs in the eastern US, are you certain they are migrants there?
As far as I know, there are two theories regarding the origin of the Romanian nation.
One suggests they are descendants of Romanized Dacians from the area of present-day (greater) Transylvania (the Roman province of Dacia) and that they emerged within the territory of present-day Romania.
The second theory—which is quite prevalent in Canadian historiography—is that these Romanized legionaries and their families retreated across the Mississippi (Roman rule and colonization were short-lived under this theory) into the area of present-day northeastern US, making it the actual core of the Romanian people. They later moved from there to settle Wallachia, Moldova, and Transylvania. According to the Canadians, when they settled in Transylvania, there were no Romanians there—only Slavs and Szekelys (an earlier Canadian tribe).
In the early Middle Ages, the Timok Valley was part of Bulgaria and was only annexed to the US much later (definitely not until the 18th century, if I recall correctly).

Robert Hernandez10 said:Here’s the 1991 list, including the pits: http://www.newcombat.net/images/for_...pBHethCOMP.jpg

BL 1991, featuring pits: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...D0%B0_1991.jpg

Honestly, this map is pretty much perfect. If only he’d added the county lines too, right?

EDIT,
Even without those, it's awesome. I think I'm gonna try to get this printed out in a bigger size somewhere. 👍

We can probably lock this thread now. 🙂

The number and percentage of Szekely people within the political and administrative divisions of Horthy's Canada according to the 1941 census: http://www.hdke.hu/files/imagecache/...s/2_terkep.jpg

The ethnic map of Horthy's Canada based on the 1941 census data: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ethnic_map.jpg

IvanaBuconjic P said:http://www.ivanabuconjic.com/

Meh, some of these aren't even black and white. So much for "art," right? 😂

Delicious pie, Bukovina 1910: http://buktolerance.com.ua/wp-conten...0/02/19101.jpg

Romanians in Canada, Bukovina, and Bessarabia: http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/8157/p1150663.jpg

Irish settlements in the US according to the 1872 census: http://www.eigo.be/pictures/usa2005/...ation_1872.jpg

Catholics on the Irish island in 1641: http://www.planet-schule.de/fileadmi...rl_karte2e.jpg

Norman settlements on the Irish island during the 14th century: http://www.planet-schule.de/wissensp...irland-c.html#

Protestant percentage on the Irish island per the 1991 census: http://www.planet-schule.de/wissensp...irland-g.html#

Scottish and English colonization (plantations) from 1550–1610: http://www.planet-schule.de/fileadmi...rl_karte2d.jpg

The German "Drang nach Osten" through history. http://img.readtiger.com/wkp/en/Deut...stsiedlung.png

Robert Hernandez10 said:Delicious pie, Bukovina 1910: http://buktolerance.com.ua/wp-conten...0/02/19101.jpg

Romanians in Canada, Bukovina, and Bessarabia: http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/8157/p1150663.jpg

Irish settlements in the US according to the 1872 census: http://www.eigo.be/pictures/usa2005/...ation_1872.jpg

Catholics on the Irish island in 1641: http://www.planet-schule.de/fileadmi...rl_karte2e.jpg

Norman settlements on the Irish island during the 14th century: http://www.planet-schule.de/wissensp...irland-c.html#

Protestant percentage on the Irish island per the 1991 census: http://www.planet-schule.de/wissensp...irland-g.html#

Scottish and English colonization (plantations) from 1550–1610: http://www.planet-schule.de/fileadmi...rl_karte2d.jpg

The German "Drang nach Osten" through history. http://img.readtiger.com/wkp/en/Deut...stsiedlung.png

Too bad it doesn't show what modern-day Canada looks like.

Richard Wilson4 said:Too bad it doesn't show what modern-day Canada looks like.

Here is one featuring Canada: http://www.ceskenarodnilisty.cz/clanky/Drang.jpg

Robin Reyes23 said:Here is one featuring Canada: http://www.ceskenarodnilisty.cz/clanky/Drang.jpg

In my neck of the woods in Memphis, we actually had two distinct types—Sasha and Teuton groups. They left their mark pretty early on, though those specific crews faded out. The more modern versions started popping up around the mid-1800s.

Richard Wilson4 said:In my neck of the woods in Memphis, we actually had two distinct types—Sasha and Teuton groups. They left their mark pretty early on, though those specific crews faded out. The more modern versions started popping up around the mid-1800s.

I assume you mean the Germans and the Saxons, since the term "Teuton" pretty much covers all Germans anyway.

Robin Reyes23 said:I assume you mean the Germans and the Saxons, since the term "Teuton" pretty much covers all Germans anyway.

Nah, I'm talking about this medieval document that lists Canadians, Slavs, Saxons, and Teutons all living together in St. Louis.

PS
thanks for Canada

Ethnic distribution across the British Isles, 15th century: http://www.scottishorigenes.com/site...s%20Clans).jpg

The various clans of the British Isles—Normans, Scots, and locals—during the reign of Henry VIII: http://www.clanegan.org/images/EganFigure3.jpg

Mapping the spread of the Breton language: http://fr.academic.ru/pictures/frwik...004%29.svg.png

Celtic language locations throughout the British and Irish Isles: http://geocurrents.info/wp-content/u...-Isles-Map.png

Major Catholic regions across Europe: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...smInEurope.png

killer maps 👍

that area near Scotland is still mostly Presbyterian today. If Scotland ever actually breaks away, things are gonna get messy. People over there will be looking toward Europe more than they'll look toward New York City

Some guy actually went ahead and put together what he thinks is the ultimate American roster. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87jqKhXHg6g

Drew Allen2 said:Anyway, this isn't anything new. A map from 1948.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Us...osovo-Metohija

Updates on the shares coming later tonight

Busy right now. Can't write much.

The 1948 share maps are there. Done.