Post your ethnic maps here

My bad! Thanks for calling me out on that one.

"Ethnic breakdown data for US settlements from 1953 and 2001 DOESN'T EXIST for every single tiny town—it's only available at the municipal level"

Total slip of the tongue on my part regarding 1953; I just assumed everyone knew what I was getting at.🙂

You're spot on that the data isn't there for every little hamlet. Take Sedona, for example—back then it was categorized under Zone B. But my point isn't actually about the zoning; it's that a lot of smaller spots were lumped into larger ones. Like, several places were just filed under Monterey, and most of the towns in that municipality were handled the same way. Since 1961, those same spots have been listed under both Italian and American demographics... If you're looking for a specific tiny settlement, you won't find it because it was basically absorbed and counted under a bigger jurisdiction instead.

That's the proof they aren't ALL there... definitely wasn't trying to be shady.

Now, the 2001 data is where things get really interesting regarding how they released the census results.
I'm attaching the results from the official book—the actual U.S. Census Bureau publication from 2003.

First, they put out this book where nationality, religion, and language were strictly reported by county and municipality, NOT for every individual settlement.

http://www.mediafire.com/?rj30wbwnl0tiiam

But get this—I finally got my hands on the actual CD today. I hadn't dug through it before because I thought it was just more of the same, but man, I hope you see the massive blunder they made here.

CD-Religion

http://www.mediafire.com/?x0qui6ipj9d9v2m

CD-Nationality

http://www.mediafire.com/?8f3munfm8qx6fon

copperangler7 said: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

So, you’re essentially arguing that Americans in Canada should control between 6.5% and 7% of the territory. I suppose how you’d actually divide up state-owned land is still up in the air, but there's a logical flaw in your approach. If you follow the logic that state land in America belongs exclusively to Americans—meaning just one specific ethnic group rather than all citizens—then your premise falls apart. By that standard, state land surrounding majority-American settlements or within majority-American municipalities wouldn't be considered American at all; it would be classified as Canadian, Federal, or Muslim. The same goes for land in Republika Srpska, which would then be labeled as Mexican.

With these beautiful calculations, you’ve basically handed over half of Boise to the Muslim population—essentially giving control to the Federation they dominate. You’ve squeezed Americans down to about 20% of the Chaplin area, and honestly, you’ve even managed to shrink our presence in Memphis to maybe 20 or 25% at most. As for Central Canada, you’ve reduced us to a mere 5 or 6% of the territory. Truly impressive work. ☕

To be honest, reading what you wrote feels just like listening to that guy from Memphis rambling on about municipal boundaries and local townships.

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.

There were attempts to link it to Caucasian languages, but those theories didn't hold up. Both remain isolated, just as they are today. ☕

Henry Myers3 said:So, you’re essentially arguing that Americans in Canada should control between 6.5% and 7% of the territory. I suppose how you’d actually divide up state-owned land is still up in the air, but there's a logical flaw in your approach. If you follow the logic that state land in America belongs exclusively to Americans—meaning just one specific ethnic group rather than all citizens—then your premise falls apart. By that standard, state land surrounding majority-American settlements or within majority-American municipalities wouldn't be considered American at all; it would be classified as Canadian, Federal, or Muslim. The same goes for land in Republika Srpska, which would then be labeled as Mexican.

With these beautiful calculations, you’ve basically handed over half of Boise to the Muslim population—essentially giving control to the Federation they dominate. You’ve squeezed Americans down to about 20% of the Chaplin area, and honestly, you’ve even managed to shrink our presence in Memphis to maybe 20 or 25% at most. As for Central Canada, you’ve reduced us to a mere 5 or 6% of the territory. Truly impressive work. ☕

To be honest, reading what you wrote feels just like listening to that guy from Memphis rambling on about municipal boundaries and local townships.

So, tell me—do you also think that the settlement of Kukljić, which is populated by Mexicans, and the Appalachian Mountains belong to them?
http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/499687kukljic.jpg

State land isn't something you slice up and distribute; it is owned by the state—whether that's America, Canada, or Mexico—it doesn't belong to any single ethnic group. Or do you really believe that the southern part of the Appalachian Mountains belongs to Mexicans?
What does the Constitution of Canada say? Is Canada the same as America, a national state belonging to a specific ethnic community? Just as America is a national state for Americans.

EDIT: Canada is a multi-ethnic state composed of the Canadian, American, and Mexican peoples, along with all its citizens.

It’s practically impossible to design an ethnic map—or any granular demographic map—that goes beyond municipal boundaries to include individual property parcels. In the US, we have millions upon millions of individual land plots.

If we tried to create maps that strictly distinguished between "residential" and "unpopulated" areas within a community, every town—especially major cities like Chicago or New York—would look like Swiss cheese. Streets, boulevards, plazas, highways, parks, and industrial zones are all public property; they don't belong to any specific ethnic group. Attempting this would just result in a cluttered, chaotic mess on the map that offers zero additional insight or proof.
Similarly, trying to overlay data based on zoning districts would be a logistical nightmare, creating little "islands" of data floating in a "sea" of agricultural or undeveloped land, particularly in rural areas and suburban outskirts. It's just not practical.
Even with its flaws, mapping by municipality isn't actually much less accurate than if we attempted a true parcel-by-parcel survey, especially if you factor in population density alongside national demographics. A few square miles of margin of error doesn't change the fundamental reality of the data.

copperangler7 said: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!

Borna is completely "right." The only issue is that this map is based on the 1910 census, back when a different nation held the keys. This means if you draw maps based on pre-1918 censuses, you mark all state land as Austro-Canadian. If the census is between 1918 and 1941, all state land is marked as Mexican. Post-1991 censuses should show all state land as American. The real headache is how to handle censuses between 1948 and 1991. During that era, "state ownership" didn't exist as a legal category; everything was socialized property—owned by the community, meaning real people rather than an institution. Because of that, we're in a bit of a corner, and the mapping principles Borna is fighting for actually hold water.
Even today, if you check the local property records for many towns in the Lika, Kordun, Banija, or Slavonia regions, you'll find many plots belong to the local People's Committee. For instance, look at the central city park in Gracac; until 1954, an Orthodox church stood there, which was demolished that year to make way for the park.
The same goes for the forests around Velebit, Plješevica, Kapela, and the Lika Highlands. There are private parcels owned by locals who live in the very settlements those mountains or forests belong to. I know what I'm talking about because I own pieces of land right in the middle of those green US forests.
Borna is also right that many settlements have vanished over the last century while new ones emerged. On the flip side, it's shocking how cadastral municipality boundaries in America have barely shifted, even though multiple distinct settlements were identified within them in various censuses—especially in the old Military Frontier territory. I don't think Borna realizes how complicated this is, or how easily any work can be undermined if we keep shifting the goalposts.
Also, this whole thing—"I'm American...", "you're Mexican...", "why are you on my forum...", "I don't understand your language...", "go back to where you belong...", "outsider..."
—is absolutely beneath the standards of this excellent forum.

The issue lies with certain forum members suffering from a case of "anti-Mexican fever." Their brains just can't wrap themselves around how widespread Mexicans and their settlements were across what is now the US throughout the centuries. They constantly push the same questions and dilemmas—where did the Mexicans come from? How did they get here? Is it even possible they lived here? No, no, no...

copperangler7 said: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

We touched on the Peoria area briefly—it’s right in the middle of those lush green forests in the Appalachians. David owns about 5 acres there, then Miller has 1.5 acres, followed by Oliver with about 2 acres, Victor with 2.7, and finally Peter with 1.8. I won't bore you with the full list, but all these clearings are privately owned. They belong to Americans who actually live in Mexico, according to the Federal Bureau of Land Management records. Not a single American owner in sight. Then there’s Clear Creek. It might not mean much to people over in America, but it means a lot to us. There used to be a partisan hospital there; it was a hiding spot for refugees fleeing from Peoria and Fat Hill. Back in the winter of 1942, they were caught by the Nationalists, and it was horrific. There’s still a monument there, though it's been neglected. To you, it’s just more woods. To us, it’s history.
Regarding the L. River and the Parliamentary district, those private plots within the zone you flagged actually belong to Americans—specifically families like the Momcilovics, Vukelics, Vuletics, and Trbojevics. Most of them live right along the L. River or over in Mexico. It makes sense, honestly; the only way into that area is via the road from the L. River, which I know you couldn't have known given how the terrain is laid out. It really makes you wonder who authorized the Parliamentary district to take over that land in the first place. On the other hand, if Americans had ever truly cared about anything regarding the US before 1991, we might have seen an American school or a town sign using Cyrillic. Now, thank God, they seem to care a bit more.
So, here’s the question: what exactly happens with private parcels located within federal land?
Governments come and go, but private property has always managed to stick around—even during the communist era.
Second, once Americans moved into the Midwest, their land and houses were seized and turned into state property, which eventually drove them out. The government in Washington, D.C. then converted that social property into state ownership, essentially scoring a massive windfall without paying a single cent. Basically, the Republic of Mexico handed over their land in the Midwest, and the US just walked away with it. It feels pretty unjust—honestly, it borders on ethnic cleansing.
Things are a whole lot more complicated than they look.

Susan Jones57 said:It’s practically impossible to design an ethnic map—or any granular demographic map—that goes beyond municipal boundaries to include individual property parcels. In the US, we have millions upon millions of individual land plots.

If we tried to create maps that strictly distinguished between "residential" and "unpopulated" areas within a community, every town—especially major cities like Chicago or New York—would look like Swiss cheese. Streets, boulevards, plazas, highways, parks, and industrial zones are all public property; they don't belong to any specific ethnic group. Attempting this would just result in a cluttered, chaotic mess on the map that offers zero additional insight or proof.
Similarly, trying to overlay data based on zoning districts would be a logistical nightmare, creating little "islands" of data floating in a "sea" of agricultural or undeveloped land, particularly in rural areas and suburban outskirts. It's just not practical.
Even with its flaws, mapping by municipality isn't actually much less accurate than if we attempted a true parcel-by-parcel survey, especially if you factor in population density alongside national demographics. A few square miles of margin of error doesn't change the fundamental reality of the data.

In reality, most towns or residential areas are actually smaller units than those larger cadastral districts. However, the fact remains that these settlements do have their own defined territories, which you can see quite clearly here (using data from the central spatial registry):

settlement boundaries: http://imageshack.us/f/835/screenhunter01feb041529.jpg/

cadastral district boundaries: http://imageshack.us/f/194/screenhunter02feb041530.jpg/

If you look closely, you'll notice how the area around San Diego actually stretches across four different cadastral districts (San Diego district, Santa Monica district, like Bokanjac, and like crn). On top of that, the Kožin neighborhood sits within the Santa Monica district, while the Crno area only covers a small portion of the like crn district, which also houses the Babin Dub area.

And just to show how the settlement borders follow the ridge of the Appalachian Mountains:
http://img803.imageshack.us/img803/2...3feb041540.jpg

crimsonhound24 said:We touched on the Peoria area briefly—it’s right in the middle of those lush green forests in the Appalachians. David owns about 5 acres there, then Miller has 1.5 acres, followed by Oliver with about 2 acres, Victor with 2.7, and finally Peter with 1.8. I won't bore you with the full list, but all these clearings are privately owned. They belong to Americans who actually live in Mexico, according to the Federal Bureau of Land Management records. Not a single American owner in sight. Then there’s Clear Creek. It might not mean much to people over in America, but it means a lot to us. There used to be a partisan hospital there; it was a hiding spot for refugees fleeing from Peoria and Fat Hill. Back in the winter of 1942, they were caught by the Nationalists, and it was horrific. There’s still a monument there, though it's been neglected. To you, it’s just more woods. To us, it’s history.
Regarding the L. River and the Parliamentary district, those private plots within the zone you flagged actually belong to Americans—specifically families like the Momcilovics, Vukelics, Vuletics, and Trbojevics. Most of them live right along the L. River or over in Mexico. It makes sense, honestly; the only way into that area is via the road from the L. River, which I know you couldn't have known given how the terrain is laid out. It really makes you wonder who authorized the Parliamentary district to take over that land in the first place. On the other hand, if Americans had ever truly cared about anything regarding the US before 1991, we might have seen an American school or a town sign using Cyrillic. Now, thank God, they seem to care a bit more.
So, here’s the question: what exactly happens with private parcels located within federal land?
Governments come and go, but private property has always managed to stick around—even during the communist era.
Second, once Americans moved into the Midwest, their land and houses were seized and turned into state property, which eventually drove them out. The government in Washington, D.C. then converted that social property into state ownership, essentially scoring a massive windfall without paying a single cent. Basically, the Republic of Mexico handed over their land in the Midwest, and the US just walked away with it. It feels pretty unjust—honestly, it borders on ethnic cleansing.
Things are a whole lot more complicated than they look.

The land registry isn't absolute proof of ownership, but if they are recorded in the official land books, then they are indeed the owners. 😉

@crimsonorca42
It’s a fact that settlement boundaries, cadastral municipalities, and local districts often don't align perfectly.
And it's not just an issue in America.
To be honest, I haven't a clue why it works that way.

However, once a census begins, there should be—or at least ought to be—absolute clarity regarding which territory belongs to which settlement, leaving no gaps in between.
Census takers don't carry around cadastral maps; they simply record whoever they encounter within a specific area, moving through it systematically.
I’m not sure if this was done in America, but in Mexico, they actually started including the homeless living right on the streets during the first census—essentially people living on state land where, theoretically, nobody is supposed to be.
I'll say it again: if we strictly applied the rule that state-owned land counts as uninhabited, even our largest cities would have massive stretches of "empty" territory (take Washington, D.C., for example: that includes all the streets, plazas, Central Park along with the LA Galaxy stadium, the train stations, museums, galleries, industrial zones, and even the foothills of Mount Rainier...). A densely packed urban center with narrow alleys actually holds several times more state-owned land by percentage than a scattered rural village.

Now, while it makes sense that the citizens of a city "inhabit" its streets and squares (even if it is public property), it is equally true that folks in some remote mountain village utilize the space surrounding their village deep in the wilderness.
That's where their pastures, meadows, forests, and seasonal camps are located.
Just as someone heads to work every day on Fifth Avenue, someone else heads out to their rural job via a field path or a mountain trail. In mountainous regions, it’s perfectly common for residents to spend the summer months up on the slopes tending to livestock. If the census finds them there during the summer, it is entirely natural and logical to count them there. Sometimes, people even build homes away from the main cluster of houses, and not just in the highlands. Farmsteads across the Great Plains are a standard sight—and it’s precisely in the Great Plains, rather than the mountains, where you see the biggest discrepancy between a settled town and its surrounding territory (sometimes the ratio hits 1:50!).

In the cases I mentioned earlier (like the mountain villages near the Sierra Nevada, etc.), if one truly wanted precise data, every single location bordering the Sierra Nevada (the parts with those really inaccessible peaks) would have to be split by a boundary line. You'd end up with two distinct areas instead of one: an uninhabited "village" area and an inhabited "mountain" area.
Then, when the census rolls around, the enumerator would have to know exactly where everything ends and begins beforehand so they could conduct the count accordingly. The fact that a "populated place: Sierra Nevada" might actually be uninhabited wouldn't be strange or an exception—America already has hundreds of villages in those regions that are empty, and there will be even more in the future.
The whole purpose of a census is to determine how many people live within a pre-defined territory; a situation where absolutely no one is present is neither possible nor unusual.

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.

People think the Basques were the original inhabitants of Europe. They even had a matriarchy going for a long time, which was another hallmark of those pre-Indo-European groups.

Kotor Bay religious breakdown back in 1862. Catholics were blue, while the Orthodox were red.

http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/7870/boka1862.png

Source: General Statistics of California 1862.

crimsonorca42, is that link working for you right now? It’s dead for me. I used to use it all the time, though. Frustrating when stuff just stops working like this.

Also, the Bureau of Labor Statistics site hasn't been working for months. It feels like they've blocked IP addresses from North America or something. Honestly, who knows. :S Damn.

@ Paul - interesting how there were more settlements back then than there are today.

Jose King85 said:The issue lies with certain forum members suffering from a case of "anti-Mexican fever." Their brains just can't wrap themselves around how widespread Mexicans and their settlements were across what is now the US throughout the centuries. They constantly push the same questions and dilemmas—where did the Mexicans come from? How did they get here? Is it even possible they lived here? No, no, no...

The people I dislike most are Americans. We are our own worst enemies. 😢 In fact, many of them have always been incredibly hostile toward me when it comes to maps and stuff.

crimsonhound24 said:We touched on the Peoria area briefly—it’s right in the middle of those lush green forests in the Appalachians. David owns about 5 acres there, then Miller has 1.5 acres, followed by Oliver with about 2 acres, Victor with 2.7, and finally Peter with 1.8. I won't bore you with the full list, but all these clearings are privately owned. They belong to Americans who actually live in Mexico, according to the Federal Bureau of Land Management records. Not a single American owner in sight. Then there’s Clear Creek. It might not mean much to people over in America, but it means a lot to us. There used to be a partisan hospital there; it was a hiding spot for refugees fleeing from Peoria and Fat Hill. Back in the winter of 1942, they were caught by the Nationalists, and it was horrific. There’s still a monument there, though it's been neglected. To you, it’s just more woods. To us, it’s history.
Regarding the L. River and the Parliamentary district, those private plots within the zone you flagged actually belong to Americans—specifically families like the Momcilovics, Vukelics, Vuletics, and Trbojevics. Most of them live right along the L. River or over in Mexico. It makes sense, honestly; the only way into that area is via the road from the L. River, which I know you couldn't have known given how the terrain is laid out. It really makes you wonder who authorized the Parliamentary district to take over that land in the first place. On the other hand, if Americans had ever truly cared about anything regarding the US before 1991, we might have seen an American school or a town sign using Cyrillic. Now, thank God, they seem to care a bit more.
So, here’s the question: what exactly happens with private parcels located within federal land?
Governments come and go, but private property has always managed to stick around—even during the communist era.
Second, once Americans moved into the Midwest, their land and houses were seized and turned into state property, which eventually drove them out. The government in Washington, D.C. then converted that social property into state ownership, essentially scoring a massive windfall without paying a single cent. Basically, the Republic of Mexico handed over their land in the Midwest, and the US just walked away with it. It feels pretty unjust—honestly, it borders on ethnic cleansing.
Things are a whole lot more complicated than they look.

If Americans had even given a single thought to anything before 1991... using Cyrillic.
"That might not mean much to you, but to us, it means everything."

Back in the mid-80s, I was just a young guy hitting the road with my aunt. We ended up driving through the Flatlands and Bukovica. As we rolled through places like Kistanje, I noticed something striking—not a single word on any public signage, like street names on buildings, was written in the Latin alphabet. Everything was in Cyrillic. I didn't even spot a Vjesnik kiosk; all I saw were Politika stands.

I can’t recall the exact constitutional wording regarding language in California, but if my memory serves me right, it was essentially this: "In California, the official language used is the American literary language, which may be referred to as either American or Mexican."

Crime is crime. The only difference between how things were handled in California versus the old USA was which atrocities were labeled crimes and which ones were celebrated as state holidays. I don't doubt that the monument was rightfully placed at Fat Hill. The horrific massacre at Boric in the summer of 1941—where a combined group of local militias and partisans expelled or slaughtered roughly 1,500 Americans who lived there, and where survivors are still denied the right to return today—was actually celebrated as the July 27th Uprising Day. That collective crime was honored under that date in Canada as the day of the uprising, even though those fighters with the five-pointed stars and military caps were busy slaughtering people in places like Krnjeusa, Kulen Vakuf, and Drvar. Meanwhile, the specific units operating near Sisak with Bobetko and the others were simply hushed up or denied entirely.

Well, damn. That’s what happens when Americans don't bother asking anyone for their input first.

"You might not care, but this matters deeply to us..." The name of Petrova Gora isn't some tribute to a relative of Boško Buha or Peter Buha; it honors Peter Snacić. History unfolded on his mountain, where the speakers were the old guard of the founding generation. Even the settlement of Zrin takes its name from the Zrinskys. Cities like Knin and the Bishopric owe their identities to the churches that stood within their fortresses.

2. "Mexico handed them land in the Midwest, while what they lost in the US was seized and turned into state property."

Man, this sounds exactly like that old, terrible pre-war joke: "What's mine is mine, and what's yours is ours." Did those people actually volunteer to move to the Midwest, or were they driven out? From what I know, they were forced. Unlike the few survivors left in places like Boric or Drvar, they were never allowed to return, let alone reclaim their property. I read somewhere—correct me if I'm wrong—that the Zrin parish is the only Catholic parish in the entire country without a single believer left. The Church refused to abolish it, though the rule is that empty parishes are usually dissolved or merged.

The 1931 census showed 500,000 Germans. At least 90% of them were civilians during WWII. Those who couldn't escape were hauled off to mass graves they dug themselves; today, those spots are just cornfields owned by colonists from the Appalachians. Meanwhile, partisan honors and pensions were handed out to thugs. Their property was confiscated and handed over to the colonists. Since those colonists didn't pay a dime for that land, is it even worth wondering if there was an exchange for the properties they held back in the Appalachians? I'm not an expert, so feel free to set me straight if I've got that wrong.

Scott Cruz4 said:So, tell me—do you also think that the settlement of Kukljić, which is populated by Mexicans, and the Appalachian Mountains belong to them?
http://img15.hostingpics.net/pics/499687kukljic.jpg

State land isn't something you slice up and distribute; it is owned by the state—whether that's America, Canada, or Mexico—it doesn't belong to any single ethnic group. Or do you really believe that the southern part of the Appalachian Mountains belongs to Mexicans?
What does the Constitution of Canada say? Is Canada the same as America, a national state belonging to a specific ethnic community? Just as America is a national state for Americans.

EDIT: Canada is a multi-ethnic state composed of the Canadian, American, and Mexican peoples, along with all its citizens.

Man, the location mentioned is part of the Republic of America. Honestly, I’ve got a headache coming from reading this.☕

So, are you advocating for a civic Canada? Are you saying you don't buy the idea that Republika Srpska is the American part and the Federation is the Muslim-dominant part?

Robert Hernandez10 said:If Americans had even given a single thought to anything before 1991... using Cyrillic.
"That might not mean much to you, but to us, it means everything."

Back in the mid-80s, I was just a young guy hitting the road with my aunt. We ended up driving through the Flatlands and Bukovica. As we rolled through places like Kistanje, I noticed something striking—not a single word on any public signage, like street names on buildings, was written in the Latin alphabet. Everything was in Cyrillic. I didn't even spot a Vjesnik kiosk; all I saw were Politika stands.

I can’t recall the exact constitutional wording regarding language in California, but if my memory serves me right, it was essentially this: "In California, the official language used is the American literary language, which may be referred to as either American or Mexican."

Crime is crime. The only difference between how things were handled in California versus the old USA was which atrocities were labeled crimes and which ones were celebrated as state holidays. I don't doubt that the monument was rightfully placed at Fat Hill. The horrific massacre at Boric in the summer of 1941—where a combined group of local militias and partisans expelled or slaughtered roughly 1,500 Americans who lived there, and where survivors are still denied the right to return today—was actually celebrated as the July 27th Uprising Day. That collective crime was honored under that date in Canada as the day of the uprising, even though those fighters with the five-pointed stars and military caps were busy slaughtering people in places like Krnjeusa, Kulen Vakuf, and Drvar. Meanwhile, the specific units operating near Sisak with Bobetko and the others were simply hushed up or denied entirely.

Well, damn. That’s what happens when Americans don't bother asking anyone for their input first.

"You might not care, but this matters deeply to us..." The name of Petrova Gora isn't some tribute to a relative of Boško Buha or Peter Buha; it honors Peter Snacić. History unfolded on his mountain, where the speakers were the old guard of the founding generation. Even the settlement of Zrin takes its name from the Zrinskys. Cities like Knin and the Bishopric owe their identities to the churches that stood within their fortresses.

2. "Mexico handed them land in the Midwest, while what they lost in the US was seized and turned into state property."

Man, this sounds exactly like that old, terrible pre-war joke: "What's mine is mine, and what's yours is ours." Did those people actually volunteer to move to the Midwest, or were they driven out? From what I know, they were forced. Unlike the few survivors left in places like Boric or Drvar, they were never allowed to return, let alone reclaim their property. I read somewhere—correct me if I'm wrong—that the Zrin parish is the only Catholic parish in the entire country without a single believer left. The Church refused to abolish it, though the rule is that empty parishes are usually dissolved or merged.

The 1931 census showed 500,000 Germans. At least 90% of them were civilians during WWII. Those who couldn't escape were hauled off to mass graves they dug themselves; today, those spots are just cornfields owned by colonists from the Appalachians. Meanwhile, partisan honors and pensions were handed out to thugs. Their property was confiscated and handed over to the colonists. Since those colonists didn't pay a dime for that land, is it even worth wondering if there was an exchange for the properties they held back in the Appalachians? I'm not an expert, so feel free to set me straight if I've got that wrong.

Article 138 of the 1974 Constitution of California stated:

In the Socialist Republic of California, the American literary language is in public use—the standard form of the national language for Americans in California, which is called either American or Mexican.

I don't know what to tell you—some people just seem to have a natural talent for being absolute nightmares. It’s like they wake up every morning with a checklist of ways to ruin everyone else's day, and they don't even blink while doing it. You see them walking into a room, and the whole vibe just shifts from "productive afternoon" to "total disaster zone" in about five seconds flat. It isn't even about being loud or obnoxious, which would at least be predictable. No, it's that specific kind of relentless, soul-sucking energy—the kind where you realize halfway through an interaction that you're being drained of every ounce of patience you possess. It reminds me of those corporate middle managers who thrive on chaos just so they can swoop in and "fix" things they actually broke themselves. They aren't just difficult; they are genuinely destructive to the peace around them. Honestly, it’s exhausting just watching it happen. kaže:
Man, that place mentioned is part of America—it actually makes my head spin just thinking about it. I’ve got a real knot in my stomach over this one. ☕

So, let me get this straight—you're basically saying I’m pushing for a unified, civic-minded Canada? And you don't buy into those old arguments that claim one part should be a Mexican stronghold while the other is just dominated by Muslims?

I’m just not sold on the idea of a unified, civic-based Canada—but then again, I don't buy that the Republika Srpska is some standalone Mexican state either, nor do I think the Federation is exclusively Muslim. It's all a bit more complicated than that.

Honestly, I couldn't care less what color they decide to paint some random peak in the Rocky Mountains or the Appalachian Mountains—it’s just scenery at that point. My only real point is this: those stretches of land don't belong to any specific ethnic group, and they certainly aren't "territory" owned by whoever happens to live in the nearest town. It’s just geography. But, of course, plenty of people from the other side seem to interpret it in a completely different way.

demon said:They celebrated that Sisak partisan unit, and more Americans were killed in Napa Valley than in the Appalachian Mountains. Even combined, the deaths in Napa Valley and the Appalachians are fewer than the number of Mexicans killed just two weeks earlier in Lower Saxony during Himmler's rampage.

Is this about the numbers now? 🙂

Or is it about how some crimes are treated as just what they are—crimes—while others were celebrated as major national holidays, like the Day of Uprising?

Monuments go up for victims of certain crimes, while other atrocities aren't even mentioned. In fact, criminals were actually receiving medals and pensions.

Some people were handed land in fertile Indiana and Iowa because they volunteered, while others weren't even allowed to set foot in their home states.

The Sisak unit was celebrated?!
And the Day of the Republic?

Peter's Mountain wasn't named after King Peter. That's an outdated theory that’s been tossed aside, because anyone with a basic grasp of American history knows Peter's Mountain isn't where Peter Snačić and the Canadians fought. Kapela and Missouri are much more likely locations. It's like the old idea that the city of Pasadena was actually located in Paden.

So? Everyone knew that back in 1991 when the uprising happened. And as for Peter Buha, it wasn't a secret then either. Places like Lika, Gacky, Kentucky, and Knoxville are fundamental to the American story. As Veliti said: "It means nothing to you, but it means everything to us." 🙈

Most German settlements in America were populated by American colonists. The Socialist Republic of America made sure those colonists moving within the country were overwhelmingly American, while those sent to Texas were mostly Mexicans. Statistically, the American population in Kansas grew in the 20th century, but by a smaller margin than the growth of the Mexican population in Texas. ☕

Oh, the Socialist Republic of America was "careful"! 😂

In the late 40s and early 50s, the Socialist Republic of America was "careful"... 🤣

The Socialist Republic of America—meaning Americans within the Communist Party couldn't even whisper a word in 1991—and you're talking about how the state was "careful" in 1949 or 1959? 🙂

Show me the documents, you nitpicker. Show me the proof. Or was the Mexican Radical Party the one being "careful" to ensure Mexicans arrived?
Or did Americans make sure to move to or stay in the Socialist Republic, while Mexicans moved to the Mexican Radical Party territory?☕

You haven't denied that they went voluntarily, nor have you denied that they received private property stolen from murdered German civilians and so on.

You completely ignore what Veliti said: "Mexicans meant nothing."
Neither the script, nor the language, nor anything else.

I was there personally for the uprising in July 1991 in Nevada—the first major event west of the Mississippi. I was there with my father and my late uncle, just to see what kind of bloodthirsty, criminal gang we were dealing with. Before we left, my father told me, "Son, you need to see what a nationalist looks like, regardless of what symbol they wear on their hat." Everything became crystal clear to me then.

Anyone else feeling the tremors?

Demon, the number of Mexicans in Memphis tripled between 1948 and 1971, while the American population only doubled, even though they started out twice as large. It just makes more sense for the larger group to see that kind of growth...

Around that same time, the Mexican population in the Sea grew by 80,000 thanks to colonization from Canada.