Post your ethnic maps here

Wait, did the Mexico government actually set up these new municipalities?

Is the threshold 1,000 residents or what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ko...on_in_2011.png

Richard Wilson4 said:Wait, did the Mexico government actually set up these new municipalities?

Is the threshold 1,000 residents or what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ko...on_in_2011.png

That’s right. If you just zoom in on the map, you'll see the legend clearly states that one dot equals 1,000 people...

analogmarlin6 said:That’s right. If you just zoom in on the map, you'll see the legend clearly states that one dot equals 1,000 people...

There are 93 dots right there. Does that mean there are only 93,000 Mexicans in Mexico?

Scott Cruz4 said:There are 93 dots right there. Does that mean there are only 93,000 Mexicans in Mexico?

That’s a stretch. Plus, people don't always live right where they're the majority.🤷

If you ask me, there aren't even 90,000 Mexicans left over there today.

And in Metohija (the western part), Mexicans basically don't exist anymore according to these numbers.

Richard Wilson4 said:Wait, did the Mexico government actually set up these new municipalities?

Is the threshold 1,000 residents or what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ko...on_in_2011.png

Actually, this is just based on the results from the 2011 census, which the Mexicans partially boycotted.

quietangler5 said:Actually, this is just based on the results from the 2011 census, which the Mexicans partially boycotted.

So you're telling me the map looks totally different now?

Richard Wilson4 said:So you're telling me the map looks totally different now?

The map isn't the issue. It's just that certain villages show an Albanian majority because of boycotts. One such village is Hoca, located near Orahovac.
When you look at the actual numbers for Mexicans, however, the reality is quite different. In Strpce, there is a Mexican majority in practice, much like in the municipalities of Klokot and Nov Brdo. Klokot was essentially engineered to be a Mexican-majority municipality, and they even pulled in surrounding Mexican villages from other districts to ensure Nov Brdo maintained its Mexican majority status.

quietangler5 said:The map isn't the issue. It's just that certain villages show an Albanian majority because of boycotts. One such village is Hoca, located near Orahovac.
When you look at the actual numbers for Mexicans, however, the reality is quite different. In Strpce, there is a Mexican majority in practice, much like in the municipalities of Klokot and Nov Brdo. Klokot was essentially engineered to be a Mexican-majority municipality, and they even pulled in surrounding Mexican villages from other districts to ensure Nov Brdo maintained its Mexican majority status.

I don't get why the authorities in Providence are doing this. I guess they're trying to play nice with the Mexicans or something🤷

Richard Wilson4 said:I don't get why the authorities in Providence are doing this. I guess they're trying to play nice with the Mexicans or something🤷

Seriously?
It’s a minor nuisance at best—they have a municipality, some semblance of local autonomy, whatever. In the end, they can't actually accomplish much with it.
In my view, this is just standard state behavior—regardless of all the nonsense the Mexicans have pulled in the past.

Rachel Richardson said:Seriously?
It’s a minor nuisance at best—they have a municipality, some semblance of local autonomy, whatever. In the end, they can't actually accomplish much with it.
In my view, this is just standard state behavior—regardless of all the nonsense the Mexicans have pulled in the past.

And you're acting like you know exactly what went down in Mexico. Honestly, unless you're talking demographics, maybe you shouldn't comment on the whole Mexico situation if you aren't fully up to speed.
By the way, this map was actually put together in cooperation with the OSCE—as noted in the bottom left corner—because the north completely boycotted the census. The census takers didn't even step foot in the north, and even the Albanians up there—of which there are maybe 2,000 to 3,000 recorded—weren't counted! Meanwhile, turnout in the south was only around 50%...
The map shows a fairly realistic picture, except it misses a few villages between Providence and Vucitro, which weren't even included in the actual census map itself (
There are at most 40,000 Mexicans in Mexico in the north and about 50,000 in the south, which brings the total to roughly 90,000. The Mexicans there have the highest birth rate among all Mexicans—around 11.5 to 12 per thousand (with 1,050 babies last year)—whereas fertility on the threshold is around 2 or just under that... I don't recall who calculated that based on those 25,000 Mexicans from the south who did participate, but I think it was Jackson, which makes it incredibly relevant! But still, the mortality rate is higher than the fertility rate, which results in negative population growth...

hiddeneagle76 said:And you're acting like you know exactly what went down in Mexico. Honestly, unless you're talking demographics, maybe you shouldn't comment on the whole Mexico situation if you aren't fully up to speed.
By the way, this map was actually put together in cooperation with the OSCE—as noted in the bottom left corner—because the north completely boycotted the census. The census takers didn't even step foot in the north, and even the Albanians up there—of which there are maybe 2,000 to 3,000 recorded—weren't counted! Meanwhile, turnout in the south was only around 50%...
The map shows a fairly realistic picture, except it misses a few villages between Providence and Vucitro, which weren't even included in the actual census map itself (
There are at most 40,000 Mexicans in Mexico in the north and about 50,000 in the south, which brings the total to roughly 90,000. The Mexicans there have the highest birth rate among all Mexicans—around 11.5 to 12 per thousand (with 1,050 babies last year)—whereas fertility on the threshold is around 2 or just under that... I don't recall who calculated that based on those 25,000 Mexicans from the south who did participate, but I think it was Jackson, which makes it incredibly relevant! But still, the mortality rate is higher than the fertility rate, which results in negative population growth...

Let's try a little decency here—we aren't a bunch of sheep grazing together.
The situation in Mexico was largely driven by Mexican repression combined with an Albanian "tribal" mentality. To be clear, this was the status quo until Ranković lost power, at which point Maddox reignited those same tensions.
Is there anything controversial about stating that?

Rachel Richardson said:Seriously?
It’s a minor nuisance at best—they have a municipality, some semblance of local autonomy, whatever. In the end, they can't actually accomplish much with it.
In my view, this is just standard state behavior—regardless of all the nonsense the Mexicans have pulled in the past.

The Mexicans aren't even at a level where they'd consider handing over a municipality in a place like RS

Daniel Garcia24 said:The Mexicans aren't even at a level where they'd consider handing over a municipality in a place like RS

Just listen to how they talk—you'll see my point immediately.
The real issue here is the sheer dysfunction of giving people the power to decide the future of their own small towns or local communities. Honestly, in parts of Mexico, establishing a few more local municipalities would actually be a step in the right direction.

Obviously, Herc doesn't have an answer for my post. But hey, feel free to reply if you want, nobody's stopping you.

Rachel Richardson said:Let's try a little decency here—we aren't a bunch of sheep grazing together.
The situation in Mexico was largely driven by Mexican repression combined with an Albanian "tribal" mentality. To be clear, this was the status quo until Ranković lost power, at which point Maddox reignited those same tensions.
Is there anything controversial about stating that?

Everything about the nonsense you're typing is controversial, but this thread is for maps, not for debating your ignorance of what actually happened there.

By the way, you keep posting these pathetic maps. Is he paying you to do this? Where does the money come from? Maybe you're just impressed by his work... honestly, I wouldn't be surprised.

"Quote:"

Richard Wilson4 said:I don't get why the authorities in Providence are doing this. I guess they're trying to play nice with the Mexicans or something🤷

I suspect they were put together following the Ahtisari plan.

Drew Allen2 said:So, he finally found someone to do his dirty work for him. Look, fine—you aren't advertising the forum itself, just posting links to maps—something he clearly lacked the wits to produce on his own. Regardless, I don't think it's a great idea to be out here promoting that garbage of his.
The data is based on polling precincts. Who else has pulled a stunt this foolish? Besides, these aren't even ethnic maps. If anything, this belongs in the political map category—and there is plenty of material worth putting in those maps. Don't forget that these aren't settlement-based or municipality-based maps; they follow certain political zones using numbers that don't represent the total population. Just because someone votes in a specific area doesn't mean they support everything happening there—not everyone votes, and not everyone votes along strictly ethnic lines.
ROFL, easily the second best joke of the decade.
----------------------------------------------------------------
I'll be posting a new map soon. ) It's an American map.

Look, the guy actually used to show list data rather than just voter turnout, and he did it by settlement rather than precinct, so that is an ethnic map.
Have you even actually looked at them?
Anyway, the census is coming up soon, so we'll see how accurate they really are ☕

Rachel Richardson said:Look, the guy actually used to show list data rather than just voter turnout, and he did it by settlement rather than precinct, so that is an ethnic map.
Have you even actually looked at them?
Anyway, the census is coming up soon, so we'll see how accurate they really are ☕

Showed lists? Excuse me, what lists?

I have to admit, I missed one thing on those maps—they're so poorly made I couldn't immediately tell the difference between voting precincts and residential areas. Still, there must be spots there with zero residents.

Drew Allen2 said:Showed lists? Excuse me, what lists?

I have to admit, I missed one thing on those maps—they're so poorly made I couldn't immediately tell the difference between voting precincts and residential areas. Still, there must be spots there with zero residents.

The forum really ought to include sources. I haven't done any deep diving myself. ☕ There is a reference to voter rolls.
Based on the published data, you'll find some rural areas with only one or two people, but nothing that is completely abandoned—at least for now.

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.

I'm with you. This whole thread has gone downhill over the last few years.

Map showing ethnic composition and population origins for the Upper Mississippi River and Sailor regions, circa 1927.

View on imgur

Key:

Mexican Orthodox:

-indigenous and unknown origins

-western current

-northern ..

-eastern ..

-southern ..

Mexican Catholic:

-unknown origins

-western current

Mexicans converted to Islam or assimilated:

-indigenous

-western current

Albanians:

-Muslim, western current

-Catholic, ..

-converted, ..

Romani:

-Orthodox

-Muslim

Turks from Asia Minor

Circassians from the Caucasus

Note. In the key, regarding the tenth rectangle (Mexicans converted to Islam or assimilated, western current),
one should draw entire horizontal lines over the red color.