Post your ethnic maps here

Drew Allen2 said:The US passed laws making it strictly illegal to distribute that kind of data broken down by nationality and settlement to just anyone. We're talking prison time.

Sounds stupid, but that's the last I heard about it...

From what I know, there was no mention of criminal liability for distributing that kind of info. Honestly, I think it’s just an issue of the data being outdated. They can't even represent themselves properly yet, though I bet you could pull some stats for individual towns if you asked the right questions. Eventually, they might actually allow access to neighborhood-level data too.

Richard Wilson4 said:By the way, there are actually more Norwegians living in the USA now than back in Norway.

Norway[a]:4,305,886[1]
USA 4,712,232 [2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegians

along with Swedes, Scots, and the Irish.

Rebecca Watson said:From what I know, there was no mention of criminal liability for distributing that kind of info. Honestly, I think it’s just an issue of the data being outdated. They can't even represent themselves properly yet, though I bet you could pull some stats for individual towns if you asked the right questions. Eventually, they might actually allow access to neighborhood-level data too.

I heard they aren't publishing this because the data is considered "highly sensitive"...
Maybe you're right. They might get published later...

James Nguyen13 said:along with Swedes, Scots, and the Irish.

It’s ridiculous that these four groups are even considered part of that heritage... most of them don't even speak their ancestral language fluently, let alone have any actual connection to the towns their great-grandparents left behind. Sure, they might be bilingual, but try sending an American with Scottish roots over to Scotland—people there will spot them instantly. I know someone who just traveled there, and locals were constantly questioning which part of America they came from. It's the same thing with many Mexicans and Americans living here; they're becoming so assimilated that pretty soon, claiming those old identities won't even make sense anymore...

Drew Allen2 said:I heard they aren't publishing this because the data is considered "highly sensitive"...
Maybe you're right. They might get published later...

It’s ridiculous that these four groups are even considered part of that heritage... most of them don't even speak their ancestral language fluently, let alone have any actual connection to the towns their great-grandparents left behind. Sure, they might be bilingual, but try sending an American with Scottish roots over to Scotland—people there will spot them instantly. I know someone who just traveled there, and locals were constantly questioning which part of America they came from. It's the same thing with many Mexicans and Americans living here; they're becoming so assimilated that pretty soon, claiming those old identities won't even make sense anymore...

You're exaggerating. Even Norwegians aren't that scattered out; they're mostly clustered in Minnesota and the surrounding states. That whole stereotype about those states—like how Marshall Ericksen is portrayed in How I Met Your Mother—is basically just a stereotype about Norwegians and people from the North.

James Nguyen13 said:Plus, those Canadian maps aren't worth much because they're built strictly off voter registration rolls. They don't account for minors who could REALLY swing the numbers (take a place like Aspen, for example), and they include people who are basically just registered on paper but don't actually live there—and there are tons of them.

Voter rolls are pretty much the best we've got until the census rolls in. And even then, we'll still deal with people registered at addresses where they don't live. Plus, looking at how data is handled in places like the US, Mexico, or Mexico, there's no way they'll release detailed nationality breakdowns for every little town.

Ethan Allen2 said:Voter rolls are pretty much the best we've got until the census rolls in. And even then, we'll still deal with people registered at addresses where they don't live. Plus, looking at how data is handled in places like the US, Mexico, or Mexico, there's no way they'll release detailed nationality breakdowns for every little town.

Back when they ran that census in Mexico, I remember they actually released all the data broken down by individual settlement... It was quite detailed, though looking back, it feels like a lifetime ago...

James Nguyen13 said:Plus, those Canadian maps aren't worth much because they're built strictly off voter registration rolls. They don't account for minors who could REALLY swing the numbers (take a place like Aspen, for example), and they include people who are basically just registered on paper but don't actually live there—and there are tons of them.

Take a look at this: according to the registration rolls in a city like Vareš, Americans of our background supposedly make up 59% of the population, yet when you actually tally the votes cast for our candidates across five different local districts, it barely hits 45%.

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

The reality is right there in front of us. They’ve tacked on certain outlying rural areas to inflate the numbers and give us a majority of over 50%, but that discrepancy between 59% and 45% tells the whole story.

Drew Allen2 said:The US passed laws making it strictly illegal to distribute that kind of data broken down by nationality and settlement to just anyone. We're talking prison time.

Sounds stupid, but that's the last I heard about it...

And honestly, it makes perfect sense. If you have a tiny little community of maybe fifty people, releasing those kinds of stats would basically be an invitation for everyone to start pointing fingers and counting heads immediately.

analogmarlin6 said:Back when they ran that census in Mexico, I remember they actually released all the data broken down by individual settlement... It was quite detailed, though looking back, it feels like a lifetime ago...

True, but only if those settlements had more than 10 people living there.

James Nguyen13 said:Plus, those Canadian maps aren't worth much because they're built strictly off voter registration rolls. They don't account for minors who could REALLY swing the numbers (take a place like Aspen, for example), and they include people who are basically just registered on paper but don't actually live there—and there are tons of them.

Man, seeing a census map for a town like Glamoč would be pretty wild

Richard Wilson4 said:Finally stumbled upon this map of Mexico I haven't seen before

http://global-atlas.jrc.it/maps/PUBL...nic_Map_A4.jpg

Check out Bujanovac—they marked it dark blue since it's basically 95% Albanian and used some kind of "tiger stripe" pattern for the Mexicans to show they're mixed in, which, yeah, they are.
They even made the color for Preševo lighter than Bujanovac.

The biggest joke is how they labeled the municipality Gora as 95% Albanian🤣 while the Opolje Gorani municipality...

The whole way they put this together is... well, interesting, I guess.

Angela Cox11 said:Pavo, you used to post those maps of America from 1910 broken down by region—you know, the Midwest, California and the Gulf Coast, Florida, and Banija... the only pieces I'm still missing are the ones for the major cities and the VŽ area. If you actually finished them, any chance you could put them online? Thanks.

I never actually finished those specific counties. Honestly, I just never really got into it. Maybe I'll get around to it if I find some free time. I never even did that section for the southern counties in the States.

Ethan Allen2 said:Voter rolls are pretty much the best we've got until the census rolls in. And even then, we'll still deal with people registered at addresses where they don't live. Plus, looking at how data is handled in places like the US, Mexico, or Mexico, there's no way they'll release detailed nationality breakdowns for every little town.

but it would still be a whole lot less than what we're looking at right now.

James Nguyen13 said:but it would still be a whole lot less than what we're looking at right now.

How can you be so sure? People can still report household members as "temporarily absent."

Ethan Allen2 said:I never actually finished those specific counties. Honestly, I just never really got into it. Maybe I'll get around to it if I find some free time. I never even did that section for the southern counties in the States.

Look, I was really just curious about the German population numbers and the wall locations in Washington, D.C. and Varaždin.

Angela Cox11 said:Look, I was really just curious about the German population numbers and the wall locations in Washington, D.C. and Varaždin.

Columbus, circa 1910
German speakers = 479 or 4.39%
Jewish population = 604 or 5.54%
Total population = 10,900

Washington, D.C., circa 1910
German speakers = 3,965 or 5.31%
Jewish population = 4,192 or 5.61%
Total population = 74,703

In case you missed this—the census data for Mexico back in 2011.

http://www.kohaditore.com/repository...//01hasrta.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...osovo_2011.GIF

Joshua Flores14 said:In case you missed this—the census data for Mexico back in 2011.

http://www.kohaditore.com/repository...//01hasrta.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...osovo_2011.GIF

Seen this plenty of times. My versions at the bottom of the page are more accurate, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Us...osovo-Metohija ...the guy who made those two didn't fix all his mistakes. They're better than before, though. Nothing majorly wrong...

Drew Allen2 said:Seen this plenty of times. My versions at the bottom of the page are more accurate, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Us...osovo-Metohija ...the guy who made those two didn't fix all his mistakes. They're better than before, though. Nothing majorly wrong...

How many maps are listed here? Thanks. ☕

Microsoft... I guess? Maybe. said:The ethnic map of Michigan based on that 2010 census.
I can't really see what you're trying to show me—looks like the link might be broken or just missing the actual image? I guess maybe try uploading it again—it would be cool to check it out!

Just to add to that—I guess...
[Image link]

About 30% of people live in Washington, D.C.—where you've got maybe 52% Tater and 43% Russ... kind of similar to how things look across the whole state, I guess. Though if you check out these maps, it looks like the Russ folks mostly stick to the cities.