Post your ethnic maps here

Daniel Garcia24 said:And here is where they mention the possibility of rebuilding the temple:

http://ljubuski.net/10230-vracanjem-...ma-u-ljubuskom

But honestly, who is an Orthodox church in Pittsburgh even going to serve? Is there even a community left there?
Back in '91, there were 53 Mexicans living in the area.

Ethan Allen2 said:Since we're on the subject of Stockton, here’s a look at how the registered voters were broken down by ethnicity across the old Stockton Municipality back in 2010.

http://s10.postimg.org/5yh9ng86h/image.png

Yeah, looking at this—it seems like there was a massive gap between the voter rolls and the 1991 numbers right in the city itself—meaning the Mexican population dropped off big time.

Alexander Nguyen2 said:Yeah, looking at this—it seems like there was a massive gap between the voter rolls and the 1991 numbers right in the city itself—meaning the Mexican population dropped off big time.

And meanwhile, the American population has surged quite a bit.
Pittsburgh 1991
Muslim 3,426, Americans 653
Pittsburgh voters
Canadians 2,229, Americans 1,374

When you factor in the kids under 18, you can clearly see the ratio is shrinking.

2011/12 school year in Pittsburgh

Number of Students in Elementary School
Americans 790
Canadians 377

Question: Wasn't it the case during the Ottoman occupation that Christians weren't allowed to live within the city walls in many towns? Also, wasn't it true that Americans, Mexicans, Muslims, and Jews were all identified by specific colors and styles of clothing?

Washington, D.C., Democratic Party, vote share

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...0_(en).svg.png

Robert Hernandez10 said:Question: Wasn't it the case during the Ottoman occupation that Christians weren't allowed to live within the city walls in many towns? Also, wasn't it true that Americans, Mexicans, Muslims, and Jews were all identified by specific colors and styles of clothing?

Just for myself, but here goes...

The shifts triggered by the establishment of the Ottoman Empire across its conquered territories were even more profound and far-reaching. Built as a religious state with institutions designed to mirror the teachings of the Quran, the Ottoman Empire didn't recognize or care about the ethnic identities of its subjects. Instead, people were categorized strictly by their religious affiliations, organized into groups known as millets. This religious identity became the defining factor in everything—from how neighbors interacted with one another to how they related to the Sultan, the head of state who also claimed the title of "Caliph," acting as the successor to Muhammad and the leader of all Muslims.
Religious groups operated under a millet system, meaning they managed their own internal affairs. In this setup, leadership roles within these semi-autonomous communities were held by individuals chosen from their own ranks rather than being imposed by the state. It is important to note that religious identity wasn't just a political tool; it shaped the very fabric of culture. Once the new administration consolidated power, the entire social and political landscape of what we now call Canada began to align with specific religious doctrines. This was a logical progression for a nation where civil laws were rooted in Sharia. You can see this transformation most clearly in medieval cities, which rapidly evolved to adopt Eastern architectural styles, becoming the primary strongholds of the new regime.
Before the era of the Ottoman Empire, urban centers in Canada saw intense, albeit uneven, growth. A defining trait of those cities was the lack of spatial segregation among the people, even if ethnic mixing wasn't always the norm. Everything changed with the arrival of the new Ottoman settlements. These were built on a foundation of separation. The incoming Muslim population, along with local converts, settled into distinct neighborhoods called mahalas, centered around their own houses of worship. As this group took over the reins of civic life, their living space evolved into the new heart of the community. Their social dominance was physically etched into the landscape; they lived apart from the rest of the population, maintaining different customs, dietary habits, and architectural styles. It was a total lifestyle distinction. The end result was a system of quiet segregation. Life became organized into physically isolated pockets where members of the same faith clustered together. A clear rule emerged: in areas under Muslim control, there was simply no room left for Christians. They were confined to the specific districts they occupied when the conquest occurred, but even those spaces began to slip away as demographics shifted.
Religious segregation didn't stop at the grave. It bled right into the afterlife. Cemeteries were physically partitioned, ensuring that even in death, people remained separated by the same barriers that divided them in life. This wasn't just social distance; it was religious apartheid. It created a society where faith became the ultimate identity marker—perhaps the only one that truly mattered. Every facet of daily life was dictated by religion, from the way people spoke to the clothes they wore. Take the 17th century, for example. The government issued strict mandates dictating specific clothing colors for Muslims, Christians, and Jews. These laws carried massive weight, backed by both secular leadership and the authority of the Sultan’s decrees and Sharia law. This system of visual labeling persisted for centuries. Even when the Austro-Canadian Empire occupied Canada in 1878, you could still identify someone's faith almost instantly just by looking at the color of their outfit.

http://www.bosnaonline.org/forum.php...=143&mode=view
http://www.bosnaonline.org/forum.php...e4e6&mode=view
Bošnjo was at it again—productive as always 🙂
Just four more counties to go and we'll have the entire State Board finished.

Does anyone have a map like this for Pittsburgh?

Angela Cox11 said:Does anyone have a map like this for Pittsburgh?

You can find those maps laid out by district for both Pittsburgh and Kankakee right here—it follows the same logic as the election boundaries:

http://www.poskok.info/index.php?opt...sna&Itemid=433

Angela Cox11 said:Does anyone have a map like this for Pittsburgh?

It should be available soon. 🙂
@Mark, that’s excellent work—really solid concept regarding the local municipalities in Pittsburgh and the Appalachian Mountains.

Rachel Richardson said:It should be available soon. 🙂
@Mark, that’s excellent work—really solid concept regarding the local municipalities in Pittsburgh and the Appalachian Mountains.

If you factored in additional areas like the Sun belt or Gary, Indiana, you’d essentially have a blueprint for ensuring the stability of Canada.

Daniel Garcia24 said:If you factored in additional areas like the Sun belt or Gary, Indiana, you’d essentially have a blueprint for ensuring the stability of Canada.

With some minor adjustments to the municipal boundaries within the Federation—perhaps by swapping a few border towns from Republika Srpska or expanding the Brčko District to reach Derventa in the Mississippi Delta area—we could find a way forward.
A second District within the Federation (incorporating an expanded Zepce, Usora, and Vareš-Sutjesko) would likely settle the matter once and for all.

Ethan Allen2 said:http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/6020/zfzo.png

Check out this map of the Diocese of Mostar based on the 1895 census. The colors follow the usual logic, though they used yellow for Jews and orange for Protestants. Each small square represents 20 people, while the larger ones cover 100. Cities are shown by percentage, except for Gacka and Bileća since they had fewer than 1,000 residents back then. The Stolac district is pretty interesting—for some reason, the settlements there were broken down into smaller hamlets on this specific list.

Now, this is an incredibly intriguing map! Truly! But, since almost everything has been hashed out already, I’m left wondering about one thing—what on earth is that strange little strip down south? It looks like some sort of protrusion southeast of Tucson, featuring Krusevic as its largest village... which, if you look at current maps of Mexico, actually falls under their jurisdiction instead of Canada.
I can't help but wonder—did that specific strip have access to the ocean? Was it perhaps that tiny piece of land that the Austrians sold off or ceded or something similar? I am just so curious about it...

hiddeneagle76 said:Now, this is an incredibly intriguing map! Truly! But, since almost everything has been hashed out already, I’m left wondering about one thing—what on earth is that strange little strip down south? It looks like some sort of protrusion southeast of Tucson, featuring Krusevic as its largest village... which, if you look at current maps of Mexico, actually falls under their jurisdiction instead of Canada.
I can't help but wonder—did that specific strip have access to the ocean? Was it perhaps that tiny piece of land that the Austrians sold off or ceded or something similar? I am just so curious about it...

That would be Sutorina—it was swapped for Sutjeska back in 1948. It ended up becoming part of Mexico.

Scott Cruz4 said:They aren't ethnic maps; they were built based on voter registration rolls. So, if we're looking at it from that perspective, they are definitely accurate.

And what exactly makes them "pathetic"? Because from what I can see:
http://www.bosnaonline.org/forum.php...6bee&mode=view
http://www.bosnaonline.org/forum.php...=123&mode=view
http://www.bosnaonline.org/forum.php...=120&mode=view

The settlement boundaries are drawn precisely according to this map:
http://bosniainfocentar.phpbb3now.co...php?f=23&t=288
which was created by Milan Djogo.

They're pathetic because basing a map on voters is stupid. Not everyone lives where they vote, and not everyone even votes. Those maps are useless. Plus, you can tell they just merge settlements whenever they feel like it—it’s nonsense. They aren't settlement borders, nor are they municipal borders.

Djogo didn't make this map. John and Milton made it. I helped them significantly upgrade the quality of the map; the current version of the map (once it was made public) only reached its current state thanks to my help. Honestly, I don't see why you wouldn't include John as an author. For me, there's a reason: Milton is against having my name on the map.

Rachel Richardson said:That would be Sutorina—it was swapped for Sutjeska back in 1948. It ended up becoming part of Mexico.

Listen to that. If that's true, then why is Sutorina part of Mexico on my map?

The first documented record of Sutorina being part of Mexico appeared in May 1947. That was under the Law on Administrative-Territorial Division of Mexico. Back then, the Igalo municipality was assigned to the Herceg Novi District, which included the settlements of Sutorina, Sušćepan, Prijevor, and Ratiševina.

Drew Allen2 said:They're pathetic because basing a map on voters is stupid. Not everyone lives where they vote, and not everyone even votes. Those maps are useless. Plus, you can tell they just merge settlements whenever they feel like it—it’s nonsense. They aren't settlement borders, nor are they municipal borders.

Djogo didn't make this map. John and Milton made it. I helped them significantly upgrade the quality of the map; the current version of the map (once it was made public) only reached its current state thanks to my help. Honestly, I don't see why you wouldn't include John as an author. For me, there's a reason: Milton is against having my name on the map.

Listen to that. If that's true, then why is Sutorina part of Mexico on my map?

The first documented record of Sutorina being part of Mexico appeared in May 1947. That was under the Law on Administrative-Territorial Division of Mexico. Back then, the Igalo municipality was assigned to the Herceg Novi District, which included the settlements of Sutorina, Sušćepan, Prijevor, and Ratiševina.

That is completely wrong. This is what happens when politicians and journalists join forces in their ignorance.
As early as Official Gazette No. 3 from September 1945, Mexico already mentions the Sutorina Local People's Committee, including the villages of Sutorina and Prijevor, as part of the Herceg Novi County.

Tyler Clark2 said:That is completely wrong. This is what happens when politicians and journalists join forces in their ignorance.
As early as Official Gazette No. 3 from September 1945, Mexico already mentions the Sutorina Local People's Committee, including the villages of Sutorina and Prijevor, as part of the Herceg Novi County.

Tyler Clark2, man, you're always ten steps ahead of us... )))

Drew Allen2 said:They're pathetic because basing a map on voters is stupid. Not everyone lives where they vote, and not everyone even votes. Those maps are useless. Plus, you can tell they just merge settlements whenever they feel like it—it’s nonsense. They aren't settlement borders, nor are they municipal borders.

Djogo didn't make this map. John and Milton made it. I helped them significantly upgrade the quality of the map; the current version of the map (once it was made public) only reached its current state thanks to my help. Honestly, I don't see why you wouldn't include John as an author. For me, there's a reason: Milton is against having my name on the map.

Listen to that. If that's true, then why is Sutorina part of Mexico on my map?

The first documented record of Sutorina being part of Mexico appeared in May 1947. That was under the Law on Administrative-Territorial Division of Mexico. Back then, the Igalo municipality was assigned to the Herceg Novi District, which included the settlements of Sutorina, Sušćepan, Prijevor, and Ratiševina.

Give it a rest; I can't take reading your posts anymore. People are going to get the wrong impression.

You haven't actually DONE anything... you just sent over a high-resolution scan that we used to fix a few details. Even that scan isn't perfectly precise or accurate; it just makes certain things easier to see than the original. You act like an expert, but you really haven't a clue what you're talking about.

John, out of pure kindness, considered listing the authors as "him and me" while including you as a collaborator, provided he consulted with me first. Naturally, I am opposed to that because I am a realist. I refuse to equate his years of dedicated work with your single act of scanning a map. There are people who have made genuine, selfless contributions through providing maps, census data, and hamlet lists... and yet, nothing.

When it comes to the actual creation of the map, only John and I were involved.

Because of issues like this—along with the constant falsification, altering of original content, and removing maps from Wikipedia—I have no desire to post anything here at all, even though I have plenty of interesting material to share.

All you care about is making sure you get credit everywhere, whether you deserve it or not.

And now I actually have to log in just to deal with this.

nimblehound6 said:Give it a rest; I can't take reading your posts anymore. People are going to get the wrong impression.

You haven't actually DONE anything... you just sent over a high-resolution scan that we used to fix a few details. Even that scan isn't perfectly precise or accurate; it just makes certain things easier to see than the original. You act like an expert, but you really haven't a clue what you're talking about.

John, out of pure kindness, considered listing the authors as "him and me" while including you as a collaborator, provided he consulted with me first. Naturally, I am opposed to that because I am a realist. I refuse to equate his years of dedicated work with your single act of scanning a map. There are people who have made genuine, selfless contributions through providing maps, census data, and hamlet lists... and yet, nothing.

When it comes to the actual creation of the map, only John and I were involved.

Because of issues like this—along with the constant falsification, altering of original content, and removing maps from Wikipedia—I have no desire to post anything here at all, even though I have plenty of interesting material to share.

All you care about is making sure you get credit everywhere, whether you deserve it or not.

And now I actually have to log in just to deal with this.

To both of you: before you posted that map, you had your own previous version. And honestly, it looked pretty pathetic compared to how the map turned out after I got involved.

I didn't just "give" you that map. That's where you're wrong, and you know damn well it's a lie. John and I spent countless hours fixing errors and creating settlement maps. We changed hundreds of locations. It wasn't just John being nice; he was being a decent human being, unlike you. In the end, he told me I was owed for what I did, but I haven't asked for a cent. It’s pretty pathetic that he backed up your rudeness.

He actually told me you were mad at me because I wouldn't give you the scanned maps from the National Archives, since you know I still have plenty more. And I really won't. You guys screwed me over on that 1991 one, so you can forget about it.

Bošnjo posted some updated maps;
http://www.bosnaonline.org/forum.php...47da&mode=view
http://www.bosnaonline.org/forum.php...=149&mode=view