|
steinrokkan posted:Historically Slovakia was part of Hungary, together with some Southern Slavic regions. The surname got widespread due to internal migration and colonization, during which numerous Slovaks left for "Lower Countries" of Hungary and at the same time Southern nationalities (particularly Serbs) and people of Roma descent settled in Slovakia - and brought the surname "Croat" with them, of course written in the official Hungarian language (it's to be noted that Hungarian bureaucracy assigned migrants new surnames, generally according to place of descent, so even people who originally had other surnames became Horvaths). Wouldn't it make more sense that most of the southern Slavs who migrated within the Austro-Hungarian empire were Croatians? Especially considering Croatia was a land of the Crown of Saint Stephen (Archiregnum Hungaricum) and was in a dynastic union with Hungary since 1102. There is debate whether separated institutions of statehood were maintained and what exactly was the relationship between the Hungarian and Croatian crown but in the 1868 Hungarian-Croatian Settlement the territory was defined "a state union of Kingdom of Hungary and Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia." Serbs settled mostly in southern Hungary as part of the Military Krajina while the Serbian state remained politically and territorially in the Ottoman empire. It seems more logical and it would explain Horváth (Croat) better. I am in no way an authority in Slovak history, however, so if I am wrong please correct me. 
SaltyJesus fucked around with this message at 15:09 on Aug 27, 2013 |
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 15:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 04:41 |
|
|
Pitch posted:They're old as hell patronymics that are now family names. Iceland still uses the father's personal name for the child's surname. With either -son or -dottir (daughter) added on. Although you can also choose to go with the first name of the mother + son/dottir.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 15:12
|
|
|
SaltyJesus posted:It seems more logical and it would explain Horváth (Croat) better. I am in no way an authority in Slovak history, however, so if I am wrong please correct me. Of course some of them were actual Croats. But 1) Their original name was not Horvath, it was chosen for them by the state. 2) Very large numbers of Serbs and Roma did indeed get the name Horvath following their resettlement, to the point that it even today carries the connotation of the person with this name being seen as of the Roma descent. After all, Croatia wasn't ethnically homogenous, and precise ethnic boundaries and distinctions probably weren't valued by bureaucrats as much as administrative expediency.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 15:22
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:After all, Croatia wasn't ethnically homogenous, and precise ethnic boundaries and distinctions probably weren't valued by bureaucrats as much as administrative expediency. Truth, I considered this but posted anyway because I wanted to see your reply.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 15:24
|
|
|
I work in administration and can vouch for the omnipresence of the Peeters surname. I also have a Walloon colleague whose surname happens to be Martin. I'm a bit confused at the American map though, I thought 'Miller' was also a common British surname instead of being exclusively German. As in, someone whose distant patrilineal ancestor was a miller.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 16:28
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:A bit ago, but the mnemonic my social studies teacher taught me: say laaaatitude and looooongitude incredibly exaggeratedly. Latitude Flatitude - all your mnemonics are now worthless poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 16:40
|
|
|
Real hurthling! posted:Latitude Flatitude - all your mnemonics are now worthless poo poo. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:Also Luxembourg isn't included which makes me super curious about what's the most common name there. It's "Schmit". Source. That site is pretty impressive (if you can read German).
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:I work in administration and can vouch for the omnipresence of the Peeters surname. I also have a Walloon colleague whose surname happens to be Martin. A lot of surnames were anglicized, either at point of immigration or sometime later. So Mueller becomes Miller and Schmidt becomes Smith.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 18:39
|
|
|
You what's fun? Searching "Greater (country name)" in GIS and seeing what turns up:   
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 19:05
|
|
|
Bro Dad posted:You what's fun? Searching "Greater (country name)" in GIS and seeing what turns up: Most "greater Turkey" maps I've seen push towards central Asia to integrate a country with the other Turkic peoples.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 19:29
|
|
|
 quote:Here is a map of Greater India, when Ghandi gives India independence to India by 1923, rather than 1947. At this moment of time, India becomes an empire and begins its expansion, starting with Afghanistan, one of the closest islamic states. Under the reign of a wise and religious oligarchy, the people of India then go eastward towards the Dutch colonies in the Pacific, Thailand, and French Indochina. Within the empire, English and Hindi have both become the two official languages of India. By the 1950's, Arabia and Ethiopia are conquered and thus East Africa is rename "New India". In 1965, two years after the Pakistani Rebellion of 1963, India conquers Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, and iraq in an attempt to create technology far beyond that of the USA's and the Soviet Union's, escalating the Cold War. By 2003, After having new conquests within Latin America , the Pacific, and Africa, India becomes the world's largest empire and forms an alliance with the USA, since the american helped Indian Forces take over Hong Kong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 19:32
|
|
|
I'll always love the countries that are spared conquest in these maps, if you're gonna go nuts why not go all the way? At least make the borders pretty when you go total nationalist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 19:37
|
|
|
Peruser posted:I'll always love the countries that are spared conquest in these maps, if you're gonna go nuts why not go all the way? At least make the borders pretty when you go total nationalist. Nobody messes with Tanzania. There are limits, even in alternate history scenarios.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 20:02
|
|
|
Ah yes, America helps expansionist India kick the British out of Honk Kong, of course!
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 20:05
|
|
|
India being more technologically advanced than the US or USSR in the 1960's was also a nice touch.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
Pretty borders are very important. Here is a famous 1959 map by anthropologist George Murdock, showing ethnic groups in Africa, and the way that they do not correspond to national boundaries. There are problems with the actual data, of course, but it's still interesting.  A blog entry by Pete Larson has some more related images (trying to relate prevalence of conflict to national-ethnic division) and higher-resolution versions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 20:15
|
|
|
The Many Meanings of "Guinea" This link gives a short historical explanation why Wikipedia's disambiguation page for Guinea lists 4 different countries and 9 former European colonies. (Plus some other things.)   
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 20:38
|
|
|
SaltyJesus posted:The Many Meanings of "Guinea" Huh. This is debated, but apparently Guinea started as a racial slur against Africans but eventually became applied to Italian-Americans who were darker-skinned than what was "acceptable." 
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 20:47
|
|
|
Dr. Tough posted:India being more technologically advanced than the US or USSR in the 1960's was also a nice touch. But they're led by a wise and religious oligarchy! How could they not be?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 21:16
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
What's hilarious about it is that the dude that made it up isn't even an Indian nationalist as far as I can tell. He also has a thing where the Middle East unites into a Third Roman Empire and conquers Europe and America and a thing where Texas becomes Nazis or something. edit: look and despair at your leisure http://generalhelghast.deviantart.com/
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 21:23
|
|
|
AlexG posted:Pretty borders are very important. That reminds me of maps of the Holy Roman Empire: 
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 21:25
|
|
|
Kegluneq posted:Longitude...schlongitude?  esquilax posted:
According to that map there are English Millers in the US too, though the German Miller is apparently much more common.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 21:57
|
|
|
Falukorv posted:For Sweden, Andersson has been since last year i think surpassed by Johansson as the most common surname. Where are the Johanssons coming from? Or what's happening to the Anderssons? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 22:20
|
|
|
Hey well at least they got Rwanda right. PittTheElder posted:drat, really? I kinda want that now. Nat Geo is a pretty good source of maps in general; you'll get a few double-sided poster sized ones every year. They come folded up in magazines though, if you're bothered by that sort of thing, although most of the ones I have hanging up have been there so long that they're all flat now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 22:22
|
|
|
I think my favourite part of that India map is the random colonization of Honduras, El Savador, Nicaragua and literally nothing else in the Americas at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 22:30
|
|
|
Randandal posted:Where are the Johanssons coming from? Or what's happening to the Anderssons? Or maybe the Anderssons are just dying in greater numbers 
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 22:32
|
|
|
Randandal posted:Where are the Johanssons coming from? Or what's happening to the Anderssons? Johan has been spending a suspiciously large amount of time around Anders' wife.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 22:48
|
|
|
Randandal posted:Where are the Johanssons coming from? Or what's happening to the Anderssons? Both names are in decline, but last year Andersson dropped a little bit more than Johansson. As of now it's pretty even. But for 60 straight years Johansson was the most common surname, until 2011/2012 Andersson became the most common, and now it's back to Johansson being the most common name. As of the latest statistics, 250910 people have the surname Johansson, and 250446 people are Andersson's. Why it shifts has to do partly with in which regions the names are most common. Some areas where one name is more popular than the other might experience lower birth figures. For example Mid-southern Sweden (Götaland excluding Skåne) and Northern Sweden have more Johanssons, where alot of municipilaties with declining birthrates lie. In Stockholm for example, with higher birthrates, Andersson is more common, and that enabled Andersson to get a leg up after 60 years of Johansson domination. And why Johansson and Andersson are so drat common is simple, as until the late 19th century the majority of Swedens population were rural, where patrionymic names were the norm, and the most common first names were Johan and Anders. Falukorv fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Aug 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 00:01
|
|
|
Maps that show the ethnoreligous dvision, population density, land usage, and economic activity in Syria.   
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 01:41
|
|
|
Randandal posted:Where are the Johanssons coming from? Or what's happening to the Anderssons? Maybe it's the same with Sweden as with Finland that whatever families happened to join crazy (on a Nordic scale; perfectly sane by, say, American standards) religious groups a century or more ago have the most popular names and the Johanssons just got their second loving wind (also Johanssons marrying more I guess)? (Crazy religious types tend to not use condoms is the point.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 10:05
|
|
|
Koramei posted:Hey well at least they got Rwanda right.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 10:27
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:The hilarious part is that they went: 'well, they're all in the same ethnic group? Can't have that. We'll just make some up, then.' Basic imperialist doctrine! Also it's not necessarily settled that it was entirely colonialist action, to my knowledge. Has something new come out in the last [since whenever forums user GreyjoyBastard bothered to update his memory]? Which is to say, all I recall is that it was a prominent / the most probable theory for the whole Bantu-related sub-ethnicity thing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 17:30
|
|
|
Here are some politically-loaded maps that show America's racial segregation. Haven't seen it posted here yet. http://www.wired.com/design/2013/08/how-segregated-is-your-city-this-eye-opening-map-shows-you/
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 17:46
|
|
|
Price Check posted:Here are some politically-loaded maps that show America's racial segregation. Haven't seen it posted here yet. That's because it has its own thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 18:11
|
|
|
Jerry Cotton posted:Maybe it's the same with Sweden as with Finland that whatever families happened to join crazy (on a Nordic scale; perfectly sane by, say, American standards) religious groups a century or more ago have the most popular names and the Johanssons just got their second loving wind (also Johanssons marrying more I guess)? (Crazy religious types tend to not use condoms is the point.) I wouldn't read too far into it. Things like this can change due entirely to random processes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 19:11
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Basic imperialist doctrine! Also it's not necessarily settled that it was entirely colonialist action, to my knowledge. Has something new come out in the last [since whenever forums user GreyjoyBastard bothered to update his memory]?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 19:53
|
|
|
HookShot posted:I think my favourite part of that India map is the random colonization of Honduras, El Savador, Nicaragua and literally nothing else in the Americas at all. That was the first thing I noticed and I thought that the person who made the map probably thought "didn't some Indians go to the Carribean and West Indies?! They must have gone to El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua!" This is, of course, not where those people from India went.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:I'm not sure. I basically always heard that it was a class divide turned into an ethnic divide thanks to Belgo-German pseudoscience. I do remember reading that the Hutus and Tutsis were originally the same ethnic group but one group herded while the other farmed, and that eventually there existed a small distinction that the colonizers took and exploited. Am I off on this? Did anyone else read this? I think it may have been a War Nerd column, and he tends to get over his head when he writes about Africa. E: Yeah it was a War Nerd article, which is behind a paywall here. The gist of it was that the Tutsis were the cattle herders who had come down from the lakes in the 1400's and were better fighters but couldn't overwhelm the numerically superior (because of agriculture) Hutus. His take was that Rwanda was one more iteration of the war between the two and that the UN stepping in has prolonged the misery. I don't where he's getting his research from though. Map: 
menino fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Aug 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 22:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 04:41 |
|
|
GreenCard78 posted:That was the first thing I noticed and I thought that the person who made the map probably thought "didn't some Indians go to the Carribean and West Indies?! They must have gone to El Salvador, Honduras, and Nicaragua!" This is, of course, not where those people from India went. Many went to Trinidad i think
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 22:44
|
|