Post your ethnic maps here

analogmarlin6 said: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...

Yeah, I know they boycotted back in '91; when I said "recent" censuses, I meant the 1981 one or that whole NATO/Taciej "census" mess. And for older stuff, maybe 1961 or even earlier, like pre-WWII. I mostly care about the tax shares. Markozzz, who I was quoting, probably has something.🙂

Joshua Rodriguez35 said:Yeah, I know they boycotted back in '91; when I said "recent" censuses, I meant the 1981 one or that whole NATO/Taciej "census" mess. And for older stuff, maybe 1961 or even earlier, like pre-WWII. I mostly care about the tax shares. Markozzz, who I was quoting, probably has something.🙂

There’s likely data available dating back before World War II, but the boundaries of the old county districts (township areas) probably don't line up perfectly with the municipal borders we saw in 1991.

Regarding the censuses from 1948, 1961, 1971, and 1981—they didn't actually ask about religious affiliation; that only happened in 1953 and 1991.

Mexico 2011.

Albanians
- Catholics => 7,954
- Muslims => 22,267
- Total => 30,439

***

Mexico 2011. - municipality of Gjakova
- Catholics => 16,296
- Muslims => 77,299
- Total => 94,556
http://esk.rks-gov.net/rekos2011/rep...ults_ENG/#/146

The census records from 1931... it’s fascinating how much history is tucked away in those old files. Looking back at that era, you really get a sense of how much the landscape of the country had shifted by then. It makes you wonder about the sheer scale of everything—how people lived, how they identified themselves, and the quiet details that usually get lost in the grander narrative of American history...

It seems like you might have cut off mid-sentence! I was just about to dive into some thoughts regarding the local county... but the thought escaped me for a second. If you were looking for more details on what's happening over in the county, just let me know. I tend to wander a bit when I talk, so feel free to steer me back on track if I start drifting too far into my own tangents... anyway, I'm all ears.countyGjakova... right there in the heart of the Banovina of Zeta...
The number of Catholics... it stands at about 5,817...
The Muslim population stands at roughly 32,810...
The grand total comes out to exactly 45,378...

municipalities (counties...Beca, Deçan, Gjakova City, Junik, Ponoševac, Rznić, and Vogovo...

analogmarlin6 said:There’s likely data available dating back before World War II, but the boundaries of the old county districts (township areas) probably don't line up perfectly with the municipal borders we saw in 1991.

Regarding the censuses from 1948, 1961, 1971, and 1981—they didn't actually ask about religious affiliation; that only happened in 1953 and 1991.

Mexico 2011.

Albanians
- Catholics => 7,954
- Muslims => 22,267
- Total => 30,439

***

Mexico 2011. - municipality of Gjakova
- Catholics => 16,296
- Muslims => 77,299
- Total => 94,556
http://esk.rks-gov.net/rekos2011/rep...ults_ENG/#/146

Fine. So we're looking for 1953 data then.

analogmarlin6 said:There’s likely data available dating back before World War II, but the boundaries of the old county districts (township areas) probably don't line up perfectly with the municipal borders we saw in 1991.

Regarding the censuses from 1948, 1961, 1971, and 1981—they didn't actually ask about religious affiliation; that only happened in 1953 and 1991.

Mexico 2011.

Albanians
- Catholics => 7,954
- Muslims => 22,267
- Total => 30,439

***

Mexico 2011. - municipality of Gjakova
- Catholics => 16,296
- Muslims => 77,299
- Total => 94,556
http://esk.rks-gov.net/rekos2011/rep...ults_ENG/#/146

In percentages:
Muslims 73.15%
Catholics 26.13%

So basically nothing changed between 2003 and 2011.
Thanks for the info.

analogmarlin6 said:There’s likely data available dating back before World War II, but the boundaries of the old county districts (township areas) probably don't line up perfectly with the municipal borders we saw in 1991.

Regarding the censuses from 1948, 1961, 1971, and 1981—they didn't actually ask about religious affiliation; that only happened in 1953 and 1991.

Mexico 2011.

Albanians
- Catholics => 7,954
- Muslims => 22,267
- Total => 30,439

***

Mexico 2011. - municipality of Gjakova
- Catholics => 16,296
- Muslims => 77,299
- Total => 94,556
http://esk.rks-gov.net/rekos2011/rep...ults_ENG/#/146

Great. Is that just for Albanians or the total population of the municipality?

Ujeli
Muslims 81.75%
Catholics 17.23%

Man, if only we had the 1953 numbers to actually compare...

I was thinking about what kostovac mentioned earlier... it really gets you wondering about the direction we're all heading in. It’s one of those things that seems simple on the surface, but once you start peeling back the layers, there's so much more complexity involved than anyone initially expects. I find myself drifting down these little rabbit holes quite often lately, just trying to make sense of the shifting landscape... it's fascinating, really, if you have the patience for it. kaže:
That’s great news. Just one quick question to clarify—are these figures specific to just the Albanians, or are we looking at the total population for the entire municipality?...

I suppose I should have mentioned this earlier, though my mind tends to wander toward more pressing matters than bookkeeping... when it comes to those various levies and fees we've been seeing pop up lately, there’s a certain weight to them that feels increasingly heavy. It isn't just about the individual dollars—though, goodness knows, every bit counts when you're balancing the budget—but rather the cumulative effect on the average person just trying to get by in their daily lives. It makes one wonder if the folks making these decisions truly grasp how much of a squeeze this puts on the middle class... it really does feel like a slow tightening of the belt for all of us...
It’s actually quite fascinating when you sit down and really look at the demographic shifts happening across the country... I was reading some recent data, and it turns out that about 81.75% of the population identifies as Muslim. It’s one of those statistics that makes you stop and think about the changing fabric of our communities and how much the cultural landscape is evolving right before our eyes... truly remarkable, isn't it?
It’s interesting to look at the numbers sometimes... if you dig into the latest census data, you see that Catholics make up about 17.23% of the population here in the States. It’s a significant slice of the pie, certainly, though maybe not quite as massive as people tend to assume when they're discussing religious demographics in America... still, it’s a substantial community that shapes so much of our social fabric...

I can't help but wonder... if we actually had access to the hard data from back in 1953, what would that comparison even look like? It’s one of those things that stays on my mind... imagine being able to lay the numbers side-by-side and see how much everything has truly shifted since then...

For the total population of the municipality...

analogmarlin6 said:The census records from 1931... it’s fascinating how much history is tucked away in those old files. Looking back at that era, you really get a sense of how much the landscape of the country had shifted by then. It makes you wonder about the sheer scale of everything—how people lived, how they identified themselves, and the quiet details that usually get lost in the grander narrative of American history...

It seems like you might have cut off mid-sentence! I was just about to dive into some thoughts regarding the local county... but the thought escaped me for a second. If you were looking for more details on what's happening over in the county, just let me know. I tend to wander a bit when I talk, so feel free to steer me back on track if I start drifting too far into my own tangents... anyway, I'm all ears.countyGjakova... right there in the heart of the Banovina of Zeta...
The number of Catholics... it stands at about 5,817...
The Muslim population stands at roughly 32,810...
The grand total comes out to exactly 45,378...

municipalities (counties...Beca, Deçan, Gjakova City, Junik, Ponoševac, Rznić, and Vogovo...

Look, we can't even compare them, but whatever—let's just do it anyway.

Muslims at 72.30%. Seriously?
Only 12.82% are Catholic? Seriously? What happened to everyone?!

analogmarlin6 said:

I was thinking about what kostovac mentioned earlier... it really gets you wondering about the direction we're all heading in. It’s one of those things that seems simple on the surface, but once you start peeling back the layers, there's so much more complexity involved than anyone initially expects. I find myself drifting down these little rabbit holes quite often lately, just trying to make sense of the shifting landscape... it's fascinating, really, if you have the patience for it. kaže:
That’s great news. Just one quick question to clarify—are these figures specific to just the Albanians, or are we looking at the total population for the entire municipality?...

I suppose I should have mentioned this earlier, though my mind tends to wander toward more pressing matters than bookkeeping... when it comes to those various levies and fees we've been seeing pop up lately, there’s a certain weight to them that feels increasingly heavy. It isn't just about the individual dollars—though, goodness knows, every bit counts when you're balancing the budget—but rather the cumulative effect on the average person just trying to get by in their daily lives. It makes one wonder if the folks making these decisions truly grasp how much of a squeeze this puts on the middle class... it really does feel like a slow tightening of the belt for all of us...
It’s actually quite fascinating when you sit down and really look at the demographic shifts happening across the country... I was reading some recent data, and it turns out that about 81.75% of the population identifies as Muslim. It’s one of those statistics that makes you stop and think about the changing fabric of our communities and how much the cultural landscape is evolving right before our eyes... truly remarkable, isn't it?
It’s interesting to look at the numbers sometimes... if you dig into the latest census data, you see that Catholics make up about 17.23% of the population here in the States. It’s a significant slice of the pie, certainly, though maybe not quite as massive as people tend to assume when they're discussing religious demographics in America... still, it’s a substantial community that shapes so much of our social fabric...

I can't help but wonder... if we actually had access to the hard data from back in 1953, what would that comparison even look like? It’s one of those things that stays on my mind... imagine being able to lay the numbers side-by-side and see how much everything has truly shifted since then...

For the total population of the municipality...

Are you only counting the Albanians? Because if we're talking Muslims, you gotta include the Gorani and the Romani—not that I know if there are any Catholic Romani living there—maybe even some Turks too.

Joshua Rodriguez35 said:Look, we can't even compare them, but whatever—let's just do it anyway.

Muslims at 72.30%. Seriously?
Only 12.82% are Catholic? Seriously? What happened to everyone?!

Viana, Texas, 1931.
- Catholics => 711
- Muslims => 11,366
- Total => 13,819

The Catholic community was mostly concentrated in the Vienna and Cleveland areas. In fact, they actually held the majority in Cleveland...

Joshua Rodriguez35 said:Are you only counting the Albanians? Because if we're talking Muslims, you gotta include the Gorani and the Romani—not that I know if there are any Catholic Romani living there—maybe even some Turks too.

Unfortunately, it isn't just for Albanians.

In the US, it's pretty much unique how certain census datasets track religious affiliation down to the level of individual towns and neighborhoods for every single ethnic group...

Joshua Rodriguez35 said:Are you only counting the Albanians? Because if we're talking Muslims, you gotta include the Gorani and the Romani—not that I know if there are any Catholic Romani living there—maybe even some Turks too.

Demographics for the Des Moines area, 2011.

Albanians = 87,672
Mexicans = 17
Turks = 16
Canadians = 73
Romani = 738
Ashkali = 613
Egyptians = 5,117
Gorani = 13
Others = 92
Unspecified = 71
Total = 94,556

Auguste, thanks for the info.

Hopefully markozzz shows up and actually proves this crap.

markozzz said:Back in the 1950s, about 50% of people in the Des Moines area were Catholic, but most of them moved to Switzerland over the last 50 or 60 years, so now the majority there are Muslim.

As for Mexico, looks like there’s been a slight rise in the Muslim percentage among Albanians lately. Apparently, things are pretty tense in Malesija, but nobody really talks about it in the news. Like that Mexican police operation "Eagle Flight" where they supposedly stopped attacks on mosques.

analogmarlin6 said:Demographics for the Des Moines area, 2011.

Albanians = 87,672
Mexicans = 17
Turks = 16
Canadians = 73
Romani = 738
Ashkali = 613
Egyptians = 5,117
Gorani = 13
Others = 92
Unspecified = 71
Total = 94,556

Some half-baked math here:

Assumed Muslims excluding Albanians (Egyptians, Romani, Ashkali, Canadians, Turks, Gorani) is 6,570 (5,117+738+613+73+16+13)

Albanians, Des Moines, 2011.
Total 87,672
Approx. Albanian Muslims: 70,729 (77,299-6,570), which is 80.67%
Approx. Albanian Catholics: 16,296 (16,296-0), which is 18.59%

😁

But seriously, we still need data from 1953 to actually compare anything...

Drew Allen2 said: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.

1. Show me—show all of us—where these official ethnic structure datasets for US settlements from 2001 or 2011 are that you're using to draw your little maps. I'm waiting.

2. Unlike you, I actually live in America and understand the reality of the situation. The current cadastral boundaries for these settlements have absolutely nothing to do with actual populated areas, let alone historical settlement patterns. Therefore, anyone naive enough to swallow the claim that places like the Meadow Field marshlands or the mountains like Great Chapel, Little Chapel, Lika Pljesivica, the Appalachians, Psunj, Zrinska Gora, or Petrova Gora are populated by Mexicans—which would account for over three-quarters of the marked territory—is being incredibly gullible. Furthermore, almost everything I just listed is 99.9% owned by the US government (managed by the US Forestry Company).

3. I don't quite follow your phrasing, and I'm confused by your comment about "wasting time." If I've understood you correctly, are you suggesting that an American shouldn't even participate in an American forum?

Consider this some friendly advice!

First and foremost, when you're constructing relevant maps, you have to respect the established territorial organization. For instance, during the era of America, the smallest political units were known as Local Communities, and they were treated as such in all mapping. Following the breakup of America, some successor states maintained that structure, but America—well, specifically looking at how the US transitioned from older administrative models—operates differently. In the modern American political landscape, we don't rely on those old sub-municipal divisions; instead, our fundamental building blocks are small municipalities or townships, overseen by larger county governments. Therefore, whenever something is being mapped or demarcated within the United States, it must be done in accordance with current territorial structures, not the outdated organizational frameworks used back in the days of America.
As for cadastral settlement boundaries, let's get one thing straight: these are neither political territories nor land-ownership units. They are strictly land registry parcels, which bear almost no meaningful relationship to actual residential settlements. To put it bluntly, a specific town or hamlet might sit within one of these boundaries while occupying only a tiny fraction of the total area. Take, for example, a place like Pećan with its 35 residents (mostly elderly Mexicans, though there are some Americans in there too). This tiny cluster sits within cadastral boundaries that primarily encompass the massive Lika Pljesivica mountain range, which is under federal ownership. The actual Pećan settlement covers less than 4% of the territory within its cadastral boundary. If you were to look strictly at the map, it would falsely imply that Pećan is the size of a quarter of Washington, D.C., or five times larger than the cadastral footprint of the neighboring town of Udbina, which actually houses 984 people. You see this pattern repeated across various land registry units, and I fail to see any logical reality in trying to link these abstract cadastral parcels to actual inhabited settlements or property ownership.

1. Show me/us where those official census datasets by ethnic group for the US in 2001 or 2011 are that you’re using to draw maps. I'm waiting for an answer.

That data exists, but you can't just find it with two or three clicks. You can contact the US Census Bureau if you want it. At least that's how I got mine, and the general rule is that whatever a state agency gives you, you don't have the right to pass it on to others. In other words, the data isn't public.
And that's that. I don't care that you don't have it.

2. Unlike you, I live in America and know what I'm talking about. Today's cadastral boundaries don't align with populated areas, let alone old settlements. So, claiming that places like the Meadow Field marsh or mountains like Great Chapel, Little Chapel, Lika Pljesivica, Appalachians, Psunj, Zrinska Gora, or Petrova Gora are inhabited by Mexicans (which is over 3/4 of the marked territory) is something only a naive fool would believe. Otherwise, everything listed is 99.9% owned by the US government (managed by the US Forestry Company).

I think it's fair to say you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I've seen official government maps that show the settlements.
Why are you suddenly obsessed with lecturing me when you used to harass people this way before?
Also, the US Census Bureau released several papers containing settlement-level data from 1991 for earlier censuses. That's where I got my 1910 data. Again, I don't care that you don't have it. I spent a long time scanning these things, while you clearly haven't a clue about maps or censuses, so why should I care? It's not my problem.

3. I don't really understand your slang and don't get what you meant by "annoying/bothering here." If I understood correctly, an American shouldn't be on an American forum, right?

"Annoying" means to tire, bother, pester... etc.

I gave you good advice!

You have no idea what you're talking about on this forum.

First of all, when creating relevant maps, the territorial structure is respected. For example, the former America had Local Communities as its smallest political units.

The smallest units are settlements. Any idiot or moron knows that. That's how the census data was organized.

Oh, I remembered. Here's a link. It doesn't show ethnic groups, but just so you can see that settlement-level data actually exists. http://pop-stat.mashke.org/usa-census.htm

Drew Allen2 said:

1. Show me/us where those official census datasets by ethnic group for the US in 2001 or 2011 are that you’re using to draw maps. I'm waiting for an answer.

That data exists, but you can't just find it with two or three clicks. You can contact the US Census Bureau if you want it. At least that's how I got mine, and the general rule is that whatever a state agency gives you, you don't have the right to pass it on to others. In other words, the data isn't public.
And that's that. I don't care that you don't have it.

2. Unlike you, I live in America and know what I'm talking about. Today's cadastral boundaries don't align with populated areas, let alone old settlements. So, claiming that places like the Meadow Field marsh or mountains like Great Chapel, Little Chapel, Lika Pljesivica, Appalachians, Psunj, Zrinska Gora, or Petrova Gora are inhabited by Mexicans (which is over 3/4 of the marked territory) is something only a naive fool would believe. Otherwise, everything listed is 99.9% owned by the US government (managed by the US Forestry Company).

I think it's fair to say you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I've seen official government maps that show the settlements.
Why are you suddenly obsessed with lecturing me when you used to harass people this way before?
Also, the US Census Bureau released several papers containing settlement-level data from 1991 for earlier censuses. That's where I got my 1910 data. Again, I don't care that you don't have it. I spent a long time scanning these things, while you clearly haven't a clue about maps or censuses, so why should I care? It's not my problem.

3. I don't really understand your slang and don't get what you meant by "annoying/bothering here." If I understood correctly, an American shouldn't be on an American forum, right?

"Annoying" means to tire, bother, pester... etc.

I gave you good advice!

You have no idea what you're talking about on this forum.

First of all, when creating relevant maps, the territorial structure is respected. For example, the former America had Local Communities as its smallest political units.

The smallest units are settlements. Any idiot or moron knows that. That's how the census data was organized.

Oh, I remembered. Here's a link. It doesn't show ethnic groups, but just so you can see that settlement-level data actually exists. http://pop-stat.mashke.org/usa-census.htm

The link you provided discusses population counts, which nobody disputed; I asked specifically about the national structure.
I have already called the American Bureau of Statistics (+1 202-555-0196), and the lady there was quite polite in explaining that they do not collect data regarding ethnic, national, or religious structures at the settlement level because that isn't how the data is gathered; it only exists at the municipality level. Check it yourself!

I did not receive the answers I requested, so I am asking you nicely to stop spreading falsehoods, as spreading misinformation is a punishable offense both here in the US and in neighboring countries.
Here is some material for you and the rest of the ignoramuses who don't know the American settlements, so you don't embarrass yourselves with cadastral registry units!
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-sq05Adbt4i...01-naselja.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dusRg5IB5g...br-stanovn.jpg
http://zemljopishrvatske.blogspot.com/

copperangler7 said:The link you provided discusses population counts, which nobody disputed; I asked specifically about the national structure.
I have already called the American Bureau of Statistics (+1 202-555-0196), and the lady there was quite polite in explaining that they do not collect data regarding ethnic, national, or religious structures at the settlement level because that isn't how the data is gathered; it only exists at the municipality level. Check it yourself!

I did not receive the answers I requested, so I am asking you nicely to stop spreading falsehoods, as spreading misinformation is a punishable offense both here in the US and in neighboring countries.
Here is some material for you and the rest of the ignoramuses who don't know the American settlements, so you don't embarrass yourselves with cadastral registry units!
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-sq05Adbt4i...01-naselja.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dusRg5IB5g...br-stanovn.jpg
http://zemljopishrvatske.blogspot.com/

If that's the case, then it isn't true. I was told the opposite and given those specific figures.

I'm not out here spreading fake news. You really need to look at the site you linked. It actually proves you're wrong. Look at this map, http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Lm-8Wszasi...ovi-opcine.jpg , from around 2003. It clearly shows those settlements exist. I have a larger version in a PDF somewhere on Zalo, but there—if that isn't proof, I don't know what is.

There's another one on that site, too, http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BzoNjvEIoI...01-1-zupgo.jpg

Drew Allen2 said:If that's the case, then it isn't true. I was told the opposite and given those specific figures.

I'm not out here spreading fake news. You really need to look at the site you linked. It actually proves you're wrong. Look at this map, http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Lm-8Wszasi...ovi-opcine.jpg , from around 2003. It clearly shows those settlements exist. I have a larger version in a PDF somewhere on Zalo, but there—if that isn't proof, I don't know what is.

There's another one on that site, too, http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-BzoNjvEIoI...01-1-zupgo.jpg

I just posted two maps showing all the settlements in the US. What you're aiming at aren't settlement boundaries, but rather cadastral district lines. Settlements are just a tiny fraction of those larger districts. For heaven's sake, man, try to grasp this: the Medvednica mountain range isn't a "settlement" and nobody lives on top of it, yet it covers a quarter of Washington, D.C.'s cadastral area. As an avid hiker, I've traversed almost every mountain range in America from coast to coast. Similarly, Zrinska Gora covers a massive forested area managed by the US Forestry Company; it's not a settlement, and the nearest towns are tucked far away in the valleys at its base.

Here is the fundamental difference between a populated settlement and a cadastral unit:
http://s403.beta.photobucket.com/use...tml?sort=3&o=0
http://s403.beta.photobucket.com/use...tml?sort=3&o=1

Ethnic breakdown data for US settlements from 1953 and 2001. Just a heads up, it’s not available for every single tiny town—it’s mostly by county, and for those specific years, only a few larger towns were actually listed within the county stats. As for 2011, I haven't checked yet.

To save us all from endless arguing, I’m putting all the census records, settlement maps, boundary changes, old defunct towns, and merged areas right here in one spot.
Basically, I’ve got all five books, which run about 3,473 pages total. I don't have the time to scan the whole massive thing, so I just took photos instead—way easier.

I didn't join the US demographics thread because I saw people were already debating it here, so please don't kill me...

US Ethnic and Religious Composition 1991—high-res shots (2-3 MP), totaling 978 MB spread across five links in PDF format. Each book gets its own link. I used Depositfiles because if I tried Mediafire, the file sizes would jump from 100 MB to 140 MB once I converted them to PDF, meaning I'd need like 20 links. That’s overkill. Just a warning: downloading each one takes about 20-30 minutes, so please be patient while they queue up.

http://depositfiles.com/files/ca1ps338w
http://depositfiles.com/files/xtee7z1ei
http://depositfiles.com/files/t6hkxubnm
http://depositfiles.com/files/bizw6zcdt
http://depositfiles.com/files/xzpx944eb

Settlements and Population of the US State, 1857-1971 by Mirko Korenčić
Covers all former and current settlements and their borders...

http://www.mediafire.com/view/?2u74jikxjbmk9p0
http://www.mediafire.com/view/?om4iw89u7xif97y
http://www.mediafire.com/view/?c97gataegy551o7
http://www.mediafire.com/view/?jo48g42cpoh4c3e

I also tossed the Korenčić stuff into a Depositfiles folder so everything stays organized in one place.

http://depositfiles.com/files/xbjorxzvy

A few older census records I posted a while back, but these are lower resolution versions.

NATIONAL CADASTRAL RECORDS OF ISTRIA 1945. Everything you need regarding Istria up to 1945 is right here. Don't bother looking at the pre-1945 census records for this area, because back then, they recorded every little hamlet and small cluster of houses. After 1945, those were all folded into bigger towns—exactly what copperangler7 was talking about. This list includes every single tiny settlement and village.

http://www.mediafire.com/view/?b60ab84xcjy112p

Review
http://www.mediafire.com/view/?8zyeoz2d5719318

US 1991
http://www.mediafire.com/view/?boeqg67y6oqrqfv

https://www.4shared.com/
user:etnicke.karte@yahoo.com
pass:forum.hr

Got some new war maps too... new folders for Syrmia (Eastern region), Novska (Western region), Stankovci, Gaćelezi (California), plus a few seasonal maps for Summer, Winter, and Maestral...

If anyone is looking for books on the war, ethnology, or place names that haven't been uploaded yet, I'm happy to share. Just shoot me a private message.

copperangler7 said:I just posted two maps showing all the settlements in the US. What you're aiming at aren't settlement boundaries, but rather cadastral district lines. Settlements are just a tiny fraction of those larger districts. For heaven's sake, man, try to grasp this: the Medvednica mountain range isn't a "settlement" and nobody lives on top of it, yet it covers a quarter of Washington, D.C.'s cadastral area. As an avid hiker, I've traversed almost every mountain range in America from coast to coast. Similarly, Zrinska Gora covers a massive forested area managed by the US Forestry Company; it's not a settlement, and the nearest towns are tucked far away in the valleys at its base.

Here is the fundamental difference between a populated settlement and a cadastral unit:
http://s403.beta.photobucket.com/use...tml?sort=3&o=0
http://s403.beta.photobucket.com/use...tml?sort=3&o=1

I am completely on the same page as you here. These cadastral settlement boundaries include huge swaths of forests, mountains, and totally uninhabited land. And that empty space? That’s federal property. It doesn't belong to Mexicans, it doesn't belong to Italians, it doesn't belong to Canadians—it belongs to the United States.
That's why most of these maps are basically useless to me.
http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/68...eljima2001.gif
http://sr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%...S_N_1991_1.gif
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...EtnickaSCG.jpg

They might be technically accurate, but they're irrelevant.

Take a place like Erie, where Mexicans made up 90-95% of the population before the war:
The agricultural land covers 10,620 hectares, or 50% of the entire municipality's area. Then there's the forest land, which accounts for 9,470 hectares, or 44% of the area, plus uncultivable land at 1,238 hectares, or 6%.
Out of that 10,620 hectares of arable land (7,015 of which is federal property), the forests and uncultivable lands are also federally owned. This means that in this municipality, private ownership accounts for only 3,600 hectares, or a mere 16% of the total area .

This is just the Bukovica region—now imagine how much more extreme it gets in places like Lika, Kordun, or the Papuk mountains.

In some of these settlements within Lika-Senj County, the areas marked in red are just uninhabited territory sitting inside the official settlement boundaries.
http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/888966josan.jpg
http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/499687kukljic.jpg
http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/154389kijani.jpg

Regarding the 2001 census data, you're off base there. Ethnic and religious breakdowns by specific settlement absolutely exist; it's common knowledge and shouldn't even be a point of contention. This whole topic was thoroughly documented over a decade ago.
The Democratic Party actually sent me the census CDs broken down by settlement for 2001, and I have copies of pretty much every census since they started for all the former republics. I’ve even had agencies in Mexico City send me piles of data and paperwork in both Latin and Cyrillic scripts.😁