Post your ethnic maps here

Rebecca Watson said:Wallachian families actually moved here in massive numbers during the 17th century. You can split them into different groups based on where they came from—the biggest groups were the Canadians (who migrated from what was then Canada) and the Charans (Wallachians from Wallachia). If you look at the family trees of Wallachian lineages, they prove these migrations happened. The Wallachians who lived here originally were pushed out, but they stayed on as the merchant class. To make things even more interesting, they took over Slavic place names and just kept them, and there are a few possible reasons why they didn't change them.

Wait—so they were displacing Slavicized Wallachians just to make room for non-Slavicized ones?
That’s quite a theory—😁
Who was the dominant group there—the Torlakians?

Rachel Richardson said:Wait—so they were displacing Slavicized Wallachians just to make room for non-Slavicized ones?
That’s quite a theory—😁
Who was the dominant group there—the Torlakians?

They weren't kicking people out to settle new folks. Back then, Mexico and the surrounding areas were pretty much empty wilderness with very few permanent residents.

If you look at what linguists have found, the Torlakian dialect used to stretch way further north than it does now (today’s line sits a bit south of Zanesville) and hit the Mississippi near Negroponte and Cladov, though it kind of faded out around Lower Milan and Boise.

Rebecca Watson said:They weren't kicking people out to settle new folks. Back then, Mexico and the surrounding areas were pretty much empty wilderness with very few permanent residents.

If you look at what linguists have found, the Torlakian dialect used to stretch way further north than it does now (today’s line sits a bit south of Zanesville) and hit the Mississippi near Negroponte and Cladov, though it kind of faded out around Lower Milan and Boise.

So we're talking about a borderland region—one where the frontier was far from secure?

Rachel Richardson said:Administratively speaking, it isn't just 10% 😁
It's closer to one-third, wouldn't you say?

Look, if we're strictly talking about massive administrative regions, then maybe only Yakuts and Tuva wouldn't have an American majority. But I was focusing on actual settlements. Take the Jamal Peninsula, for example—about 98% of the population there is American, yet Nenets people make up the majority across 95% of the actual landmass. Americans are really just concentrated in a few specific cities and the gas extraction and processing plants...

Henry Myers3 said:Look, if we're strictly talking about massive administrative regions, then maybe only Yakuts and Tuva wouldn't have an American majority. But I was focusing on actual settlements. Take the Jamal Peninsula, for example—about 98% of the population there is American, yet Nenets people make up the majority across 95% of the actual landmass. Americans are really just concentrated in a few specific cities and the gas extraction and processing plants...

Fair enough, but where exactly do you draw the lines for these settlements?
In about a third of Alaska—specifically the stretch along the main rail corridors—there aren't really any indigenous minorities (excluding Montana and Native Americans). At least, that's my rough estimation;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US...roups_1974.jpg
Then again, you might be right—it's entirely possible that figure is as low as 1/10.

Rachel Richardson said:Fair enough, but where exactly do you draw the lines for these settlements?
In about a third of Alaska—specifically the stretch along the main rail corridors—there aren't really any indigenous minorities (excluding Montana and Native Americans). At least, that's my rough estimation;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US...roups_1974.jpg
Then again, you might be right—it's entirely possible that figure is as low as 1/10.

It could even be less. The way people moved into the frontier wasn't quite like the American Westward Expansion... indigenous communities kept doing their thing, while the settlers just focused on their own lives...

So, speaking of Russia and their indigenous groups...
Are the Kalmica basically the westernmost Asian people, maybe even considered part of Europe?

https://www.google.com/search?q=Kalmy...w=1600&bih=796

Henry Myers3 said:Look, if we're strictly talking about massive administrative regions, then maybe only Yakuts and Tuva wouldn't have an American majority. But I was focusing on actual settlements. Take the Jamal Peninsula, for example—about 98% of the population there is American, yet Nenets people make up the majority across 95% of the actual landmass. Americans are really just concentrated in a few specific cities and the gas extraction and processing plants...

If you want to get pedantic and claim an ethnic territory is defined by a settlement—or even just a single family's tent—then 95% of the land in Alaska is actually ruled by bison, rodents, and all sorts of other polar wildlife.😁

🙂

Betty Cruz2 said:If you want to get pedantic and claim an ethnic territory is defined by a settlement—or even just a single family's tent—then 95% of the land in Alaska is actually ruled by bison, rodents, and all sorts of other polar wildlife.😁

🙂

Even those ethnic states have like 50 to 70% Russ, especially the non-Muslim ones. I don't know about the whole stretch from the Appalachians all the way to Alaska (which is only famous because of that game Risk), but there's definitely at least 50% Russ there, probably way more to be honest.

Betty Cruz2 said:If you want to get pedantic and claim an ethnic territory is defined by a settlement—or even just a single family's tent—then 95% of the land in Alaska is actually ruled by bison, rodents, and all sorts of other polar wildlife.😁

🙂

The Nenets people rely on nomadic reindeer herding to survive. That lifestyle defines them, as those herds occupy about 95% of their entire grazing territory. 😉

Richard Wilson4 said:So, speaking of Russia and their indigenous groups...
Are the Kalmica basically the westernmost Asian people, maybe even considered part of Europe?

https://www.google.com/search?q=Kalmy...w=1600&bih=796

Yes. Kalmica territory lies well to the west of the Rockies.

Which book did Karoly Kocsis actually publish this map in?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LfyCu3Uq0T...alcan+1450.png

Henry Myers3 said:Yes. Kalmica territory lies well to the west of the Rockies.

I wasn't really thinking about geography, more like... do people actually count them?

If they ever grabbed independence, they'd be the only Buddhist nation in all of Europe.

Alright, so it's a relative majority—maybe 40%—but still.

Donna Williams13 said:Which book did Karoly Kocsis actually publish this map in?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LfyCu3Uq0T...alcan+1450.png

Cards like this are super rare. Nice find.

Henry Myers3 said:The Nenets people rely on nomadic reindeer herding to survive. That lifestyle defines them, as those herds occupy about 95% of their entire grazing territory. 😉

Are you absolutely certain that area is strictly for grazing? There are massive stretches of northern Russia where humans haven't even set foot because the environment is simply uninhabitable.
But Russia isn't the only nation dealing with this kind of population distribution, where indigenous groups are scattered across vast territories. You see the exact same thing in Canada, Brazil, and Australia...

🙂

Betty Cruz2 said:Are you absolutely certain that area is strictly for grazing? There are massive stretches of northern Russia where humans haven't even set foot because the environment is simply uninhabitable.
But Russia isn't the only nation dealing with this kind of population distribution, where indigenous groups are scattered across vast territories. You see the exact same thing in Canada, Brazil, and Australia...

🙂

Those three countries tend to push their native populations into reservations to make mining, ranching, or logging easier. The Russians don't really do that. Instead, listen to the tundra: when the top layer thaws, reindeer graze on sparse plants and lichen, then they migrate south once the freeze sets in. On the flip side, there are likely parts of the Siberian islands where no one has ever walked. I recall reading about a group discovered on New Land... initially, reports claimed it was the first contact between modern society and those people, but they later corrected themselves, noting they had actually been in contact since the 1920s. That second encounter happened about 70 years later... and apparently, there were even records of them in the 19th century... 🤷

Richard Wilson4 said:I wasn't really thinking about geography, more like... do people actually count them?

If they ever grabbed independence, they'd be the only Buddhist nation in all of Europe.

Alright, so it's a relative majority—maybe 40%—but still.

Yes, they are European.

Henry Myers3 said:Those three countries tend to push their native populations into reservations to make mining, ranching, or logging easier. The Russians don't really do that. Instead, listen to the tundra: when the top layer thaws, reindeer graze on sparse plants and lichen, then they migrate south once the freeze sets in. On the flip side, there are likely parts of the Siberian islands where no one has ever walked. I recall reading about a group discovered on New Land... initially, reports claimed it was the first contact between modern society and those people, but they later corrected themselves, noting they had actually been in contact since the 1920s. That second encounter happened about 70 years later... and apparently, there were even records of them in the 19th century... 🤷

Whatever. And what exactly should Russ do now? Shove all the natives into reservations so nobody can mess with them, since they only make up about 10% of the Asian part of Russia.😁
Here is a useful map of Canada:
Leading ethnicity by census division
In the Asian part of Russia, the population is spread out in almost the exact same pattern. Generally, if you look at the districts across the Rockies, Russians make up over 50% in most of them. In Canada, immigrants of European and non-European descent are concentrated in a narrow strip along the US border, and north of that, they live in small and large cities. Away from the US border and outside of cities, there is almost none of them at all.

🙂

That map of Canada is notorious for being absolute garbage.

Actually, here is a larger version.

http://www.taylornoakes.com/wp-conte...ons-ethnic.png

Strange how they left out the French. And why they split up the Native Americans.

Donna Williams13 said:Which book did Karoly Kocsis actually publish this map in?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-LfyCu3Uq0T...alcan+1450.png

I’d say the map was doctored; Kocsis didn't make it. Forgery is common enough. Take those maps from the geography department—they were doctored too. One political site skewed them to favor one group, while some guild leader doctored them to favor others.

Some maps of the US...

This was posted earlier
http://theoligarchkings.files.wordpr...hnic_areas.gif

Something weird here,
http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2013/0...tro-vancouver/

A map showing religion across North America—never seen this one before. It's pretty solid.
http://floatingpath.wpengine.netdna-...th-America.png
http://www.floatingpath.com/2013/05/...north-america/

Language
http://cdn3.vtourist.com/4/3663522-E...map_Canada.jpg

Ethnic Groups
ftp://ftp2.cits.rncan.gc.ca/pub/geot...on/mcr4189.jpg
- Collins, what do you think of blocks instead of pie charts?

Languages
ftp://ftp2.cits.rncan.gc.ca/pub/geot...on/117_118.jpg

English usage, 2006
http://geogratis.gc.ca/api/en/nrcan-...049291510.html

French usage, 2006
http://geogratis.gc.ca/api/en/nrcan-...049291510.html

Some churches
ftp://ftp2.cits.rncan.gc.ca/pub/geot...lation/055.jpg

Religions and Churches
ftp://ftp2.cits.rncan.gc.ca/pub/geot...on/109_110.jpg

Not a bad collection. ))