Post your ethnic maps here

Richard Wilson4 said:I think I have that thing sitting in my parents' attic back in Ohio. Next time we head up there, I might dig it out and check it. It was bought used, though, so it's probably nothing special, plus it's been sitting there for maybe ten or fifteen years already.

I've been thinking... how could we actually get all these maps organized and gathered in one spot? Same goes for stuff people scan...

Maybe I'll build a website for this. Don't know yet...

Drew Allen2 said:In the US, we call them Indigenous or Native Americans—the people who were here before white settlers arrived. In that sense, they are Native Americans, because that's what they are. Maybe a slightly different group, but at the end of the day, they're all Indigenous/Native American.

Can you scan it or take a photo?

Speaking of New England, here are a few...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nsus_block.png

http://doddcenter.uconn.edu/asc/rese...014_SV_Map.jpg

http://verseau.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/mass.jpg

http://www.massbenchmarks.org/stated...010_county.jpg

Inuit aren't part of the Native Americans group, and that term doesn't really apply to them. Even "Indian" isn't quite right, which means the Indian Reorganization Act, the law that handles the status and rights of Indians in America, doesn't cover the Inuit either. Plus, the Inuit aren't part of the National Congress of American Indians. They actually have their own specific laws governing their status.

Ethan Allen2 said:Inuit aren't part of the Native Americans group, and that term doesn't really apply to them. Even "Indian" isn't quite right, which means the Indian Reorganization Act, the law that handles the status and rights of Indians in America, doesn't cover the Inuit either. Plus, the Inuit aren't part of the National Congress of American Indians. They actually have their own specific laws governing their status.

So if you just use "indigenous" as a synonym for Indian (which is a stretch)... then technically they are?

Drew Allen2 said:So if you just use "indigenous" as a synonym for Indian (which is a stretch)... then technically they are?

Hold on, you can't really just decide what defines an Indian. In Canada, there’s actually a legal definition for being an Indian. And that doesn't include either the Inuit or the Métis.

Ethan Allen2 said:Hold on, you can't really just decide what defines an Indian. In Canada, there’s actually a legal definition for being an Indian. And that doesn't include either the Inuit or the Métis.

I knew about the Inuit, but I totally figured the Métis would be included, at least 🤷

Ethan Allen2 said:Hold on, you can't really just decide what defines an Indian. In Canada, there’s actually a legal definition for being an Indian. And that doesn't include either the Inuit or the Métis.

Well, in the English-speaking world here in North America, it’s just not politically correct to call them that anymore. You won't hear people using the term "Indians" here; instead, they say "indigenous," which lumps everyone into one group.

Take this, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Langs_N.Amer.png. If you look at the map, they're all shown as some kind of indigenous people. It makes sense for them to be the same color on a general map of Canada...

Drew Allen2 said:Well, in the English-speaking world here in North America, it’s just not politically correct to call them that anymore. You won't hear people using the term "Indians" here; instead, they say "indigenous," which lumps everyone into one group.

Take this, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Langs_N.Amer.png. If you look at the map, they're all shown as some kind of indigenous people. It makes sense for them to be the same color on a general map of Canada...

Give me a break. People don't just stop saying Indian, right? Even the government uses the term.

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/110.../1100100032378

For instance, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Langs_N.Amer.png. If you look at the map, you can see they are all some kind of indigenous people, so it makes sense for them to be the same color on a general map of Canada.

You’re still stuck on your point. That map you're complaining about was made by a government organization. It's based on census data. And the census uses categories defined by law. But sure, according to your logic, none of that matters.

By your logic, the first map is better than the second one, isn't it?

http://imageshack.us/a/img191/3317/b70.gif
http://imageshack.us/a/img405/7008/dk2m.gif

All Slavs would be the same color since they're one group. Even if they were listed separately in censuses, just like Native Americans and Inuit.

Ethan Allen2 said:Give me a break. People don't just stop saying Indian, right? Even the government uses the term.

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/110.../1100100032378

For instance, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Langs_N.Amer.png. If you look at the map, you can see they are all some kind of indigenous people, so it makes sense for them to be the same color on a general map of Canada.

You’re still stuck on your point. That map you're complaining about was made by a government organization. It's based on census data. And the census uses categories defined by law. But sure, according to your logic, none of that matters.

By your logic, the first map is better than the second one, isn't it?

http://imageshack.us/a/img191/3317/b70.gif
http://imageshack.us/a/img405/7008/dk2m.gif

All Slavs would be the same color since they're one group. Even if they were listed separately in censuses, just like Native Americans and Inuit.

Looking at the map—you have areas like the old Canadian borderlands, parts of Ohio being largely Canadian influence, and many Americans from the Baranya region eventually identifying as Mexicans—it’s a complex web. Even the townspeople in certain pockets became Mexicans, much like how you find Muslims in the South, or Germans living in places like Dakota and Indianapolis. Places like Boise and Pounje aren't even part of our core identity, and let's be honest—there are actually quite a few Mexicans living in the USA... plenty 🤣
I won't even get started on Kotoriba or the Bačka Americans.

Has this one popped up in the thread yet?
http://www.bogardi.com/gen/pic/r9030516.jpg

Terry Walker74 said:Has this one popped up in the thread yet?
http://www.bogardi.com/gen/pic/r9030516.jpg

Yeah, she was, but I don't think she looked like this.

Richard Wilson4 said:Yeah, she was, but I don't think she looked like this.

The picture wouldn't be complete without some failing Slovaks added to the mix.😁

Is there actually a term used in Canada for Srem? I've heard some strange things about it lately. 😂🤣

Drew Allen2 said:In the US, we call them Indigenous or Native Americans—the people who were here before white settlers arrived. In that sense, they are Native Americans, because that's what they are. Maybe a slightly different group, but at the end of the day, they're all Indigenous/Native American.

Can you scan it or take a photo?

Speaking of New England, here are a few...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...nsus_block.png

http://doddcenter.uconn.edu/asc/rese...014_SV_Map.jpg

http://verseau.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/mass.jpg

http://www.massbenchmarks.org/stated...010_county.jpg

Solid principle right there 👍

http://www.massbenchmarks.org/stated...010_county.jpg

Classic pie chart style, but it works. Man, I love that the circles stay the same size regardless of the population count.

Ethan Allen2 said:Give me a break. People don't just stop saying Indian, right? Even the government uses the term.

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/110.../1100100032378

For instance, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Langs_N.Amer.png. If you look at the map, you can see they are all some kind of indigenous people, so it makes sense for them to be the same color on a general map of Canada.

You’re still stuck on your point. That map you're complaining about was made by a government organization. It's based on census data. And the census uses categories defined by law. But sure, according to your logic, none of that matters.

By your logic, the first map is better than the second one, isn't it?

http://imageshack.us/a/img191/3317/b70.gif
http://imageshack.us/a/img405/7008/dk2m.gif

All Slavs would be the same color since they're one group. Even if they were listed separately in censuses, just like Native Americans and Inuit.

The Indian Act dates back to the 1800s. It's the only reason that name stuck, though calling indigenous people Native Americans today is generally considered offensive.
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/2009/...tory_word.html

As for the other thing, no, that map is more like this: http://www.neiu.edu/~lilic/au_primer.gif

is Srem called Ser in Canadian?!?

"sz" in Canadian makes an "s" sound... it's not just a plain "s" 🙂

Drew Allen2 said:The Indian Act dates back to the 1800s. It's the only reason that name stuck, though calling indigenous people Native Americans today is generally considered offensive.
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/2009/...tory_word.html

As for the other thing, no, that map is more like this: http://www.neiu.edu/~lilic/au_primer.gif

is Srem called Ser in Canadian?!?

"sz" in Canadian makes an "s" sound... it's not just a plain "s" 🙂

Actually, the Indian Act isn't some ancient history. It's still the main legal framework governing Native American status today.

And if it's supposed to be offensive, why is it still used as an official term?

http://pib.ca/
http://www.skeetchestn.ca/

Ethan Allen2 said:Actually, the Indian Act isn't some ancient history. It's still the main legal framework governing Native American status today.

And if it's supposed to be offensive, why is it still used as an official term?

http://pib.ca/
http://www.skeetchestn.ca/

Because remnants of colonialism haven't disappeared. It'll take time to phase out the term "Indian," but we're definitely moving toward dropping that terminology entirely.

Take the Idle No More movement, for instance. It is perhaps the biggest movement of indigenous people in the US. They certainly wouldn't refer to themselves as Indians.

Check your email, by the way. 🙂

In my opinion, the most thorough and detailed ethnic maps are the ones from the USA. I also find the ones covering Israel and Palestine pretty fascinating.
http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/72...nisrael200.png

It would be even better if there were similar maps specifically broken down by local townships or neighborhoods. 🙄

Here is a map of Jerusalem.
http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/64...graphicMap.jpg
http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/50...usalem2006.gif

Since Bethlehem is basically right next to Jerusalem, I knew it wouldn't be a huge trek, but honestly, it feels closer than commuting from Jersey City to Manhattan.

It’s honestly wild when you look at how much land the Israelis have managed to seize from the Palestinians
http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/834775map.jpg

The map is wrong, and so are the labels "Jew" and "Palestinian." You might as well just pull up a map of the US from the early 90s and claim one group snatched the whole country away from the other.

Pure propaganda.