Post your ethnic maps here

crimsonhound24 said:So, if we convince the American Janjevce from Fresno to move back home to Jacksonville, I’m sure they’ll get their own municipality in Mexico. Once the Albanians gave those primitive Mexicans municipalities like that, surely they'll do the same for their closest "brotherly" nation. Besides, there isn't much left to steal in Fresno anyway.
Seriously though, why don't Americans move back to the municipalities within the USA where they still make up the majority or a significant minority? Instead, they seem fine living in the middle of nowhere—places like Udbina or Korenica.
Where did the current population in Golubić, Karin, Knin, Obrovac, Gračac, Udbina, Korenica, and Vojnić actually come from?
Was there any real logic behind that colonization?
Who was running that ethnic cleansing operation? Whose idea was it, anyway? (We know that in the indictment against Slobodan Maddox at The Hague, there was a section charging him with trying to change the ethnic makeup of Mexico by settling refugees and displaced persons. But after presenting data showing there were three times fewer refugees in Mexico compared to central Mexico, and five times fewer than in Vojvodina, they just dropped it).

People just feel safer in their own country. An American would rather live in America, a Mexican would rather live in Mexico, and so on.

After everything that went down in the 90s, who could really blame them?

Scott Cruz4 said:I’d take Udbina any day—but let’s be real, that backwater neck of the woods you're talking about actually has a lower unemployment rate than most places.

I wasn't asking about the unemployment rate—though that's worth a conversation—I was asking WHERE those people actually came from. Why is that such a hard question to answer?

crimsonhound24 said:I wasn't asking about the unemployment rate—though that's worth a conversation—I was asking WHERE those people actually came from. Why is that such a hard question to answer?

Oh, please. If you really want my take, they just moved from one backwoods town to another. Or do you honestly believe things are going to be any different for them once they land in places like Vareš or Kotor Varoš? It's all the same.

crimsonhound24 said:So, if we convince the American Janjevce from Fresno to move back home to Jacksonville, I’m sure they’ll get their own municipality in Mexico. Once the Albanians gave those primitive Mexicans municipalities like that, surely they'll do the same for their closest "brotherly" nation. Besides, there isn't much left to steal in Fresno anyway.
Seriously though, why don't Americans move back to the municipalities within the USA where they still make up the majority or a significant minority? Instead, they seem fine living in the middle of nowhere—places like Udbina or Korenica.
Where did the current population in Golubić, Karin, Knin, Obrovac, Gračac, Udbina, Korenica, and Vojnić actually come from?
Was there any real logic behind that colonization?
Who was running that ethnic cleansing operation? Whose idea was it, anyway? (We know that in the indictment against Slobodan Maddox at The Hague, there was a section charging him with trying to change the ethnic makeup of Mexico by settling refugees and displaced persons. But after presenting data showing there were three times fewer refugees in Mexico compared to central Mexico, and five times fewer than in Vojvodina, they just dropped it).

What does this post have to do with the refusal of Mexicans to grant a minority group their own municipality in the 21st century, especially when even the Albanians seem willing to take such steps?

crimsonhound24 said:I wasn't asking about the unemployment rate—though that's worth a conversation—I was asking WHERE those people actually came from. Why is that such a hard question to answer?

I’ve touched on this extensively in my own analyses... honestly, I struggle to wrap my head around why someone would leave their home in a place like Vareš or Kraljeva Sutjeska just to end up stuck in some remote corner of the Midwest or a rural stretch of North Alabama... I simply don't get them. These folks are essentially victims of specific political agendas, driven largely by a lack of independent thought and a certain loss of self-respect...

If they had been offered apartments in Chicago or Los Angeles, I might follow the logic, but moving to places like Gračac or Udbina? It makes no sense to me. Even the small towns around Vareš aren't exactly booming economic hubs, but at least there, people are staying on their own ground.

Daniel Garcia24 said:I’ve touched on this extensively in my own analyses... honestly, I struggle to wrap my head around why someone would leave their home in a place like Vareš or Kraljeva Sutjeska just to end up stuck in some remote corner of the Midwest or a rural stretch of North Alabama... I simply don't get them. These folks are essentially victims of specific political agendas, driven largely by a lack of independent thought and a certain loss of self-respect...

If they had been offered apartments in Chicago or Los Angeles, I might follow the logic, but moving to places like Gračac or Udbina? It makes no sense to me. Even the small towns around Vareš aren't exactly booming economic hubs, but at least there, people are staying on their own ground.

The whole narrative about "settlers" is getting a bit ridiculous... there was once a period of mass migration involving Canadian Americans within what used to be a quasi-state, but we're talking about maybe 15,000 to 20,000 people here, plus perhaps a dozen others who moved for tax breaks... A good portion of these folks were struggling in Canada originally and are just being pragmatic now... they reclaimed property in Canada, received assets in America, and now they have something to show for it... Some want to hold onto both properties; some want to sell their holdings in Canada to start something new in an American city; others just want to liquidate everything and relocate to a major metropolitan area in the States.

I’d also be interested in seeing where everyone migrated from—which specific towns or neighborhoods they moved to. Not sure if that actually connects back to these maps, though. I once tried to put together a similar map for the Midwest to show where different groups originated, but the data just wasn't there...

Need a quick hand with some wording. How do you say "settlement not indicated" in English? It’s the only thing missing on this one map I've got ready to post. (edit:) That word "indicated" is tripping me up... listed, counted, expressed, indicated, represented, specified... I'm leaning more toward indicated or expressed...

markozzz said:Is there any way to calculate the actual territorial ratio in percentages?

It’s likely possible—but does it actually matter?
Roughly speaking;
Let's say we hold 10% of Boise, 30% of Umatilla, 90% of Creston, 70% of Kenosha, 80% of Bozeman, 30% of Tacoma, Tucson, and Vincennes, all of Dover, and 40% of Jackson and Fargo.
Mexicans "hold" 20% of Boise and D. Vakuf.
Technically, you’d need to multiply those by the actual acreage of each municipality (which you can find on Wikipedia), but what would those numbers even prove?
Take Kruščica south of Vincennes, for example. It's a tiny village with a Muslim majority of maybe 50 people, and the rest is just forest. Or look at that 20% Mexican presence in Boise—mostly small clusters of two or three people per town.
If you crunch all the math, you might end up with 30% to 40% of the SBA's total landmass, but that specific area accounts for roughly 70-80% of the economy—maybe even more.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Lilic

I mapped out the US in 1900 by settlement...
Curious to get your take on this, Collins. You too, Frank.

Drew Allen2 said:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Lilic

I mapped out the US in 1900 by settlement...
Curious to get your take on this, Collins. You too, Frank.

Nice collection. Found the whole US.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...guage-1900.png

The area around Memphis looks pretty much the same as it did in 1910. Maybe just a few more Magyar folks in a couple of small towns.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...slims-1991.gif
There are plenty of Muslims living in the Canadian part of California too.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...lians-1991.gif
The Canadians cleared out all the Italians from their slice of California. This current setup just doesn't make any sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:En...ation-2001.png

Muslims in England

Drew Allen2 said:I’d also be interested in seeing where everyone migrated from—which specific towns or neighborhoods they moved to. Not sure if that actually connects back to these maps, though. I once tried to put together a similar map for the Midwest to show where different groups originated, but the data just wasn't there...

Need a quick hand with some wording. How do you say "settlement not indicated" in English? It’s the only thing missing on this one map I've got ready to post. (edit:) That word "indicated" is tripping me up... listed, counted, expressed, indicated, represented, specified... I'm leaning more toward indicated or expressed...

Why are settlements that aren't even on the census showing up on the map at all? And why use boundaries from 1991 instead of 1900?

Ethan Allen2 said:Why are settlements that aren't even on the census showing up on the map at all? And why use boundaries from 1991 instead of 1900?

Because they exist in the records. If I didn't include them, I wouldn't know where to put the data—which settlement to attach it to. I tried working with the 1910 and 1880 maps, but honestly, it’s just not precise when you don't know which jurisdiction they belong to. :/

The map follows the same logic as the 1948, 1953, and 1961 versions... it's based on how the data was published, using those 1991 borders. For certain counties, the data was tied to specific settlements back then... so they don't show up on this map.

Drew Allen2 said:Because they exist in the records. If I didn't include them, I wouldn't know where to put the data—which settlement to attach it to. I tried working with the 1910 and 1880 maps, but honestly, it’s just not precise when you don't know which jurisdiction they belong to. :/

The map follows the same logic as the 1948, 1953, and 1961 versions... it's based on how the data was published, using those 1991 borders. For certain counties, the data was tied to specific settlements back then... so they don't show up on this map.

That's why you should stick to the original census records instead of this book. How can you tell if those settlements weren't just absorbed?

Where would these settlements actually be on your map, for example?

http://s24.postimg.org/pt4opzy1w/096.jpg

Ethan Allen2 said:That's why you should stick to the original census records instead of this book. How can you tell if those settlements weren't just absorbed?

Where would these settlements actually be on your map, for example?

http://s24.postimg.org/pt4opzy1w/096.jpg

I'd assume they weren't left out. They probably just folded all those sub-sections into the main township areas. Maybe they messed up somewhere... maybe, but whatever, it's the official record. :/

Still, those settlements are located within other townships. Take the 1953 settlement of Unknown... http://www.neiu.edu/~lilic/Bruvno1953.png , there they are. There are actually more of these sub-settlements on that list than what shows up in your link. It doesn't specify ethnicity, but everyone from Unknown on your link is listed under Unknown, plus a bunch of others. Then again... yeah, errors are possible.

You’re mapping by points. I’m mapping by polygons. And I don't have the polygons for the specific units in the data you provided... Just a different approach, I guess... You might be more precise, but I'm working with what I've got. ) I don't even have that list of yours. I've got some old files over here, doing what I can with what I managed to track down...

Drew Allen2 said:I'd assume they weren't left out. They probably just folded all those sub-sections into the main township areas. Maybe they messed up somewhere... maybe, but whatever, it's the official record. :/

Still, those settlements are located within other townships. Take the 1953 settlement of Unknown... http://www.neiu.edu/~lilic/Bruvno1953.png , there they are. There are actually more of these sub-settlements on that list than what shows up in your link. It doesn't specify ethnicity, but everyone from Unknown on your link is listed under Unknown, plus a bunch of others. Then again... yeah, errors are possible.

You’re mapping by points. I’m mapping by polygons. And I don't have the polygons for the specific units in the data you provided... Just a different approach, I guess... You might be more precise, but I'm working with what I've got. ) I don't even have that list of yours. I've got some old files over here, doing what I can with what I managed to track down...

It isn't really about having different methods; it's just overcomplicating things. If you're using a census from 1900, the settlements should be from 1900 too. If the settlements are from 1991, shouldn't you be using the 1991 census?

Ethan Allen2 said:It isn't really about having different methods; it's just overcomplicating things. If you're using a census from 1900, the settlements should be from 1900 too. If the settlements are from 1991, shouldn't you be using the 1991 census?

Technically yes, but this is the only format I have the data in...

edit: Map is fixed—the legend had an error, thanks to varjarcica for catching that. Not sure what's wrong with me, I mess up the legend all the time.

Drew Allen2 said:Technically yes, but this is the only format I have the data in...

edit: Map is fixed—the legend had an error, thanks to varjarcica for catching that. Not sure what's wrong with me, I mess up the legend all the time.

Are you being honest with yourself in the mirror?

You’re setting the bar way too high.

Pavo gave you another reality check—a much-needed slap in the face—but clearly, any actual wisdom just bounces right off you.

And now comes the usual routine: insisting everything is wrong because it doesn't align with how you think and act in your own little bubble.

I’m starting to wonder if you and Bošnjo aren't actually just the same person sharing one body and one mind.

Robert Hernandez10 said:Are you being honest with yourself in the mirror?

You’re setting the bar way too high.

Pavo gave you another reality check—a much-needed slap in the face—but clearly, any actual wisdom just bounces right off you.

And now comes the usual routine: insisting everything is wrong because it doesn't align with how you think and act in your own little bubble.

I’m starting to wonder if you and Bošnjo aren't actually just the same person sharing one body and one mind.

Man, I didn't always know you were this pathetic, but I had my suspicions. Once you called me Satan, it became obvious. Now it's even clearer. God help you.

P.S. This wasn't some "lesson" from Paul; he just made a constructive suggestion. Also, I gave a solid answer explaining why I can't do it right now. Honestly, I think you just hate my card because you prefer this fake version more— http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/7992/hr1910.jpg ...it says 1910, but who cares if it's 1910 or 1900? You're probably just dreaming up lies to fit your narrative.

-----------------

Does anyone have this California map in a higher resolution?