Post your ethnic maps here

velvetotter19 said: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.

It exists for 2001—and honestly, I don't get why anyone would even argue about that 🤷
and it's there for 1953 too.

You claim you have those books—well, those volumes actually include the settlement lists for 1948 as well as 1953; though, if I recall correctly, the 1948 census was the only one specifically conducted that way.

Can you trolls please stop obsessing over townships and municipal boundaries? If it bugs you that much, just read the "map by county" as "map by municipality."

Uninhabited stretches of the Springfield highlands
http://s403.beta.photobucket.com/use...tml?sort=3&o=0

The town of Udbina within its local municipality:
http://s403.beta.photobucket.com/use...tml?sort=3&o=1

The village of Ponikva within its local municipality:
http://s403.beta.photobucket.com/use...tml?sort=3&o=2

The village of Pećana within its local municipality:
http://s403.beta.photobucket.com/use...tml?sort=3&o=3

Settlements across the United States:
http://s403.beta.photobucket.com/use...tml?sort=3&o=6

US settlements ranked by population size:
http://s403.beta.photobucket.com/use...tml?sort=3&o=2

Urban zoning plans for various US municipalities:
http://s403.beta.photobucket.com/use...tml?sort=3&o=3

Population density in the United States:
http://s403.beta.photobucket.com/use...tml?sort=3&o=1

Ethan Allen2 said:Can you trolls please stop obsessing over townships and municipal boundaries? If it bugs you that much, just read the "map by county" as "map by municipality."

Who asked for your opinion anyway?
If you’re having an issue with how things are labeled, that doesn't give you a free pass to start calling everyone else "trolls."

Scott Cruz4 said:Who asked for your opinion anyway?
If you’re having an issue with how things are labeled, that doesn't give you a free pass to start calling everyone else "trolls."

Isn't repeating the same argument every few months when you're clearly wrong actually trolling? You should probably check the forum rules.

Plus, it’s pretty simple to just look up official government documents from various levels of authority here in the States to see how a settlement is actually defined.

http://www.cityofchicago.org/iva...4.1.chicago.pdf
http://www.columbia.edu/hr/pdf/Odluka%20o...20Budrovci.pdf

Ethan Allen2 said:Isn't repeating the same argument every few months when you're clearly wrong actually trolling? You should probably check the forum rules.

Plus, it’s pretty simple to just look up official government documents from various levels of authority here in the States to see how a settlement is actually defined.

http://www.cityofchicago.org/iva...4.1.chicago.pdf
http://www.columbia.edu/hr/pdf/Odluka%20o...20Budrovci.pdf

Nobody is questioning the definition of a settlement here. The whole point is about the inhabited versus uninhabited areas within that specific area—specifically that the uninhabited space doesn't belong to any single ethnic community. This isn't some "story" or "trolling"—it's just the plain truth.

And frankly, those links you posted have absolutely nothing to do with what we're discussing.

copperangler7 said:Uninhabited stretches of the Springfield highlands
http://s403.beta.photobucket.com/use...tml?sort=3&o=0

The town of Udbina within its local municipality:
http://s403.beta.photobucket.com/use...tml?sort=3&o=1

The village of Ponikva within its local municipality:
http://s403.beta.photobucket.com/use...tml?sort=3&o=2

The village of Pećana within its local municipality:
http://s403.beta.photobucket.com/use...tml?sort=3&o=3

Settlements across the United States:
http://s403.beta.photobucket.com/use...tml?sort=3&o=6

US settlements ranked by population size:
http://s403.beta.photobucket.com/use...tml?sort=3&o=2

Urban zoning plans for various US municipalities:
http://s403.beta.photobucket.com/use...tml?sort=3&o=3

Population density in the United States:
http://s403.beta.photobucket.com/use...tml?sort=3&o=1

Sick map. I dig how 👍

Scott Cruz4 said:Nobody is questioning the definition of a settlement here. The whole point is about the inhabited versus uninhabited areas within that specific area—specifically that the uninhabited space doesn't belong to any single ethnic community. This isn't some "story" or "trolling"—it's just the plain truth.

And frankly, those links you posted have absolutely nothing to do with what we're discussing.

The maps you're attacking are based on municipality lines. Isn't that just reality? You can see all the municipal borders in the US right here: http://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files.html

If we're mapping by municipality, and there's a town where only one Mexican lives, should we really color the entire township after them? That doesn't make sense, does it?

Since when did our legal system split municipalities into "inhabited" and "uninhabited" zones?

This one’s actually pretty decent, but you can barely make out the details—the forests, the farmland, and the residential zones are all just a bit too blurry.
http://s403.beta.photobucket.com/use...tml?sort=3&o=3

Ethan Allen2 said:The maps you're attacking are based on municipality lines. Isn't that just reality? You can see all the municipal borders in the US right here: http://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files.html

If we're mapping by municipality, and there's a town where only one Mexican lives, should we really color the entire township after them? That doesn't make sense, does it?

Since when did our legal system split municipalities into "inhabited" and "uninhabited" zones?

Look, I know how this works—you don't need to lecture me. I probably saw or made maps like these before you were even born.
Good grief, I actually agree that you could color an entire area based on the majority ethnic group, but that doesn't mean—especially not—that the whole territory is the private property of some specific ethnic group within those borders!
Is that clear enough for you?
That’s why I’m saying these maps are technically done correctly, but they’re also completely irrelevant to me.

Exactly—on that geoportal or sites like arcgis.com, you can find everything from cadastral municipalities and townships to specific residential areas and even private property lines. If anyone actually had the will to make a map like that, go ahead. But I suspect it would take a massive amount of effort to pull off something that detailed.

Scott Cruz4 said:Look, I know how this works—you don't need to lecture me. I probably saw or made maps like these before you were even born.
Good grief, I actually agree that you could color an entire area based on the majority ethnic group, but that doesn't mean—especially not—that the whole territory is the private property of some specific ethnic group within those borders!
Is that clear enough for you?
That’s why I’m saying these maps are technically done correctly, but they’re also completely irrelevant to me.

Exactly—on that geoportal or sites like arcgis.com, you can find everything from cadastral municipalities and townships to specific residential areas and even private property lines. If anyone actually had the will to make a map like that, go ahead. But I suspect it would take a massive amount of effort to pull off something that detailed.

So, does it really matter if they're relevant to you or not? If they aren't, then why even bother criticizing them? It's not like I care about Taylor Swift, so I don't go around lecturing people on her business.

At the end of the day, just roll up your sleeves and make some better cards yourself.

Ethan Allen2 said:The maps you're attacking are based on municipality lines. Isn't that just reality? You can see all the municipal borders in the US right here: http://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files.html

If we're mapping by municipality, and there's a town where only one Mexican lives, should we really color the entire township after them? That doesn't make sense, does it?

Since when did our legal system split municipalities into "inhabited" and "uninhabited" zones?

Those are cadastral boundaries, not settlements! Forests, mountains, lakes, swamps, the ocean... none of those are "settlements." Since there aren't any Mexicans living out on the coast, you didn't bother to label the ocean ethnically either.

Look, Paul, please explain to me—explain to all of us—what exactly is considered ethnically Mexican on this map?
Are you suggesting, perhaps, that the vast stretches of American state-owned forests covering over 9/10ths of the Pecheneg cadastral zone in the Appalachians are somehow Mexican property rather than American?
http://s403.beta.photobucket.com/use...ml?sort=3&o=11

Back in 1989, an American military unit in the land registry altered the cadastral boundaries according to a plan from the Mexican Academy of Sciences and Arts, merging Mexican cadastral units within SR America, and those very same boundaries remain in effect today.
Cadastral boundaries prior to 1989:
http://s403.beta.photobucket.com/use...tml?sort=3&o=1

Cadastral boundaries from 1989 to the present:
http://s403.beta.photobucket.com/use...tml?sort=3&o=2

Saborsko-Lika Plains:
http://s403.beta.photobucket.com/use...tml?sort=3&o=0

Ethan Allen2 said:So, does it really matter if they're relevant to you or not? If they aren't, then why even bother criticizing them? It's not like I care about Taylor Swift, so I don't go around lecturing people on her business.

At the end of the day, just roll up your sleeves and make some better cards yourself.

And why the hell should I care if they're "relevant" to me? This isn't your platform, and you don't get to decide what everyone else writes about—get that through your head.

I’ll critique whatever the hell I want to critique. If you don't like it, move along or just ignore it.
You're the one sitting here calling other users trolls without any actual basis for it. Go ahead, file a report if you're so pressed about it; there isn't a single rule being broken here.

Look, one thing is for sure. It’s finally obvious—though it should have been clear all along—that we actually have the 2001 census data broken down by settlement for both ethnicity and religion. At least we have that much now.

Also, it’s pretty pathetic that you’re relying on an outdated map, Borna. That specific version you grabbed was just the very first draft I ever made for the entire US. Back then, I didn't have a proper base map to work with, so I just grabbed whatever was lying around, tweaked some borders, and did my best. That map was always meant to be temporary. Here is the updated, more accurate version: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...igion-2001.png . It might look a bit washed out on certain screens, so I'll probably need to re-upload it once I figure out what's going on with the display settings.

Henry Myers3 said: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... ☕

How much of a gap is there between Spanish and, say, Catalan? Can they actually understand one another, or are we talking about two completely different languages?

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.

I don't have the raw census figures on hand; what I shared was based on information provided by the Catholic Church. There was a news feature focusing on the situation involving the Catholic Church in that area, which is where I pulled those specifics from.

It was a report published in The Voice of the Council a few years back.

Daniel Garcia24 As specified by:
What’s the actual gap between Spanish and, say, Catalan? Can they actually understand one another, or are we talking about two entirely different languages?

Spanish belongs to the Ibero-Romance group—sitting alongside Portuguese and Galician—while Catalan falls under the Southern French umbrella, much like Provençal or Occitan. The only outlier is Catalan, which underwent significant Hispanization over time, narrowing the linguistic gap. To me, the distinction feels similar to the relationship between Polish or Canadian and English.

Rachel Richardson said:

Daniel Garcia24 As specified by:
What’s the actual gap between Spanish and, say, Catalan? Can they actually understand one another, or are we talking about two entirely different languages?

Spanish belongs to the Ibero-Romance group—sitting alongside Portuguese and Galician—while Catalan falls under the Southern French umbrella, much like Provençal or Occitan. The only outlier is Catalan, which underwent significant Hispanization over time, narrowing the linguistic gap. To me, the distinction feels similar to the relationship between Polish or Canadian and English.

But what about Basque? Who is its closest relative?

Daniel Garcia24 said:But what about Basque? Who is its closest relative?

Honestly, Basque is a total outlier. It doesn’t have any real connection to any other language group—it isn't even part of the Indo-European family. You could basically call it the last surviving indigenous language in Europe from before the whole Indo-European era took over.

gentleranger10 said:Honestly, Basque is a total outlier. It doesn’t have any real connection to any other language group—it isn't even part of the Indo-European family. You could basically call it the last surviving indigenous language in Europe from before the whole Indo-European era took over.

Basque is an absolute outlier; it shares no roots with any known language.
People who actually study it often say you just have to memorize everything by rote—you essentially have to turn your brain off, because there's no logical way to process it otherwise.
The way it handles accusatives and reflexive verbs is completely different from anything else we know...