|
the jizz taxi posted:- Both maps seem overly generous in showing the spread of some minority languages such as the Celtic languages The extent of Breton on the current map is a bit more accurate than the 19th century map, mostly because it recognizes that there is a small brittophone minority in upper Brittany, east of the "language line" that is very clear on the 19th century map. Also, in the area designated as Breton on the 19th century map the people there were by and large monolingual Breton whereas the last monolingual speaker died several years ago. If the map only colored communities where a majority spoke the language it would look very different and probably closer to what you'd expect. That said, even east of the language line there were Breton speaking communities, the easternmost one being Batz-sur-Mer near Saint Nazaire which was Breton-speaking until the 1950s or 1960s. Of course it's not surprising the map is more accurate regarding Breton, it was made by Mikael Bodlore-Penlaez (Michel Bolloré-Pelle officially because he was born before Breton names were legal), a Breton cartographer. His Eurominority website got hacked by angry Turks because he made this map. 
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 11:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 22:20 |
|
|
Soviet Commubot posted:The extent of Breton on the current map is a bit more accurate than the 19th century map, mostly because it recognizes that there is a small brittophone minority in upper Brittany, east of the "language line" that is very clear on the 19th century map. Also, in the area designated as Breton on the 19th century map the people there were by and large monolingual Breton whereas the last monolingual speaker died several years ago. If the map only colored communities where a majority spoke the language it would look very different and probably closer to what you'd expect. That said, even east of the language line there were Breton speaking communities, the easternmost one being Batz-sur-Mer near Saint Nazaire which was Breton-speaking until the 1950s or 1960s. Do the kurds believe that if they got their own state that it would "suck up" the remaining kurdish minorities? Also that is an awfully big kurdistan; probably the biggest ive ever seen outside of like joke maps or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 13:20
|
|
|
This might seem like a dumb idea but wouldn't it be a good idea if some of these states in the Middle East and Caucasus did a population swap à la Greece and Turkey in 1923? Sure, it wouldn't be an ideal situation, but at least I suppose it would alleviate some regional tensions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 13:51
|
|
|
the jizz taxi posted:This might seem like a dumb idea but wouldn't it be a good idea if some of these states in the Middle East and Caucasus did a population swap à la Greece and Turkey in 1923? Sure, it wouldn't be an ideal situation, but at least I suppose it would alleviate some regional tensions. That is called "genocide" nowadays and people tend to avoid it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 13:53
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Granted, without digging into the data it is hard to say what qualifies as different ethnicity in their eyes, since just because the US is only "medium grade" diverse doesn't make it not multi-ethnic nation. For example, German-Americans are 17.1% of the population which may be a plurality but doesn't seem nearly a overriding ethnicity. The US really doesn't have a single over-riding ethnicity period unless you just want random white people together. I think this is measured by # of speakers of other languages as a % of total population, just judging by how not diverse Brazil was classified as.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 13:53
|
|
|
the jizz taxi posted:This might seem like a dumb idea but wouldn't it be a good idea if some of these states in the Middle East and Caucasus did a population swap à la Greece and Turkey in 1923? Sure, it wouldn't be an ideal situation, but at least I suppose it would alleviate some regional tensions. So, what would you do with the people who didn't want to go?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 13:55
|
|
|
menino posted:I think this is measured by # of speakers of other languages as a % of total population, just judging by how not diverse Brazil was classified as. That wouldn't really explain Papua New Guinea unless it's only languages from other countries.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 14:00
|
|
|
the jizz taxi posted:This might seem like a dumb idea but wouldn't it be a good idea if some of these states in the Middle East and Caucasus did a population swap à la Greece and Turkey in 1923? Sure, it wouldn't be an ideal situation, but at least I suppose it would alleviate some regional tensions. Considering most of the problems in the Middle East are to do with ownership and control of natural resources, probably not a good idea, no. This is one of the reasons borders in the Middle East and Africa exist as they do; the colonial powers at the time created countries which had a little bit of everything (water, farmland, fishing access, mines etc), rather than assigning one ethnic group everything and leaving the others in barren wasteland. It's almost amusing seeing people suggest borders should be redrawn around ethnic lines, except that the reality is that some groups are going to end up in the desert just waiting for their bigger stronger neighbours to turn up and enslave them all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 14:02
|
|
|
duckmaster posted:Considering most of the problems in the Middle East are to do with ownership and control of natural resources, probably not a good idea, no. Also amusing: Mixing ethnic groups has a habit of turning into genocide. No wait I meant terrible. Actual question: Has there ever been a Kurdish state/kingdom/fiefdom/something?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 15:03
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:Actual question: Has there ever been a Kurdish state/kingdom/fiefdom/something? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kurdish_dynasties_and_countries Lots of petty kingdoms in the middle ages, some of which lasted with varying degrees of independence into the 19th century, plus a handful of 20th century postwar revolutionary things that were quickly absorbed by bigger countries. Here's a politically loaded map for you, from that page. 
Pakled fucked around with this message at 15:17 on Sep 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 15:07
|
|
|
the jizz taxi posted:This might seem like a dumb idea but wouldn't it be a good idea if some of these states in the Middle East and Caucasus did a population swap à la Greece and Turkey in 1923? Sure, it wouldn't be an ideal situation, but at least I suppose it would alleviate some regional tensions. Nagorno-Karabakh (the Armenian blob you'll see in southwest Azerbaijan) was an autonomous oblast in the Soviet Union, though considered subsidiary to Azerbaijan. So really, all they needed to do was draw a thicker border and make it independent, rather than force anyone to leave; instead, on independence, Azerbaijan dissolved the NKAO. This was one cause of the war which led to the newly-declared Nagorno-Karabakh Republic owning much of southwest Azerbaijan, though it has remained completely unrecognized for over 25 years, even by Armenia. Guess who else was an autonomous oblast? South Ossetia. And Abkhazia was an autonomous republic within the Georgian SSR. And see how those eventually turned out. The Soviets definitely knew how to draw ethnic borders. (I made all of the early maps of NK for Wikipedia, and perhaps are the very definition of politically charged maps)
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 15:25
|
|
|
the jizz taxi posted:I found the first one in GIS on Stormfront, so make of that what you will Interesting that there's no Yiddish anywhere on the map when there should be a lot of it in eastern Europe, particularly The Pale.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 15:30
|
|
|
Bloodnose posted:Interesting that there's no Yiddish anywhere on the map when there should be a lot of it in eastern Europe, particularly The Pale. Good point. You'd think that this being posted on Stormfront, it would actually include Yiddish so they could point at how the Jewish Threat was actually A Thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 15:44
|
|
|
Well, the Pale wasn't exactly majority Jewish -- this map includes Yiddish but it's only a few scattered y's:
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 15:50
|
|
|
Bloodnose posted:New York City is usually described as the most linguistically diverse place in the world. Many highly endangered languages are preserved by immigrant communities there. At least for now. Still doesn't hold a candle to Papua New Guinea. Anyway, the United States might be diverse in a strictly ethnic/genetical sense, but outside of immigrant enclaves the dominant culture is very clearly Anglo-American. Up to the point that even many recent immigrants will Anglify their names. It's not really comparable to, say, a country like Lebanon, where every community is almost completely self-contained. The only major exceptions are border cities and other places like Miami, where Spanish is the dominant language instead of English. I've always wondered about that, for all the talk about right-wing xenophobia in the US, the reaction to mass immigration from Mexico and the rest of Latin America has been surprisingly tame. Perhaps it is linked to my first observation, with Americans being so self-confident that they don't really feel threatened.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 16:37
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:Also amusing: Mixing ethnic groups has a habit of turning into genocide. That has so much more to do with the deliberately dysfunctional political systems left behind when the colonizers called it a day though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 16:41
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
the jizz taxi posted:Apparently, the two maps are also at odds whether Low German is a distinct language (it is) or whether Bulgarian and Macedonian are all that different (a contentious issue). Same with Flemish and Dutch, though the two were arguably wider apart in the 19th century than they were today. Since when do people in Brabant and Limburg speak 'Flemish'? It's a bizarre decision to make the linguistic border coincide with the national border, especially in the 19th century when the latter was brand new.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 16:51
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:I've always wondered about that, for all the talk about right-wing xenophobia in the US, the reaction to mass immigration from Mexico and the rest of Latin America has been surprisingly tame. Perhaps it is linked to my first observation, with Americans being so self-confident that they don't really feel threatened. The xenophobes and racists are actually a (very) noisy minority. We're all taught from grade school that America is a melting pot and a nation of immigrants, and most of us don't have a big problem with it. But our useless media feel compelled to 'give equal airtime to both sides'. Many of the people that do have a problem with immigration are more upset by the economic effects of undocumented workers being paid off the books and thus not paying taxes. This is a legitimate problem - but one of regulation and enforcement (of the employers) - but it makes this category of people more susceptible to the racist rhetoric being spewed by the other anti-immigrant groups. Family Values fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Sep 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 17:04
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:I've always wondered about that, for all the talk about right-wing xenophobia in the US, the reaction to mass immigration from Mexico and the rest of Latin America has been surprisingly tame. It's tame in most cities (where most of the nation's population resides) and areas near the border, as they have tons of immigrants and more liberal populations, not to mention long-established histories of latin american immigrants, and/or Mexicans and Spaniards as original residents before becoming part of the US, in some cases...but the reaction to mass immigration from latin america is generally less friendly in small towns and rural areas, which aside from parts of CA and the Southwest, and some other random spots, are still very heavily dominated by white people. There's been plenty of xenophobia towards latin american immigrants over the years, with plenty of racial slurs against them, groups like the Minutemen, sheriff Joe Arpaio's war on hispanic people, plenty of other discrimination (lazy mexicans smoking marihuana! protect your children from the devil weed!), etc. There's also the fact that the the tide of latin immgration is so huge, and has been ongoing for so long, that I'm sure plenty of xenophobic people have given up on hating latin americans too much simply becuase it's a losing battle. There's also the fact that white hispanic people are often accepted as "normal" white folks, so would be much more accepted by xenophobes than mestizo, native, and black Hispanic people. edit: also, what Family values said above. It's not just racism that fuels anti-hispanic sentiment in the US. A lot of it is for political reasons due to immigration and TAKING ARE JERBS  and such.
Rah! fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Sep 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 17:16
|
|
|
Family Values posted:The xenophobes and racists are actually a (very) noisy minority. And as far as I've understood (I'm not American) largely regionally concentrated in the South and Great Plains? I mean those areas are more rural and more rural usually means more bigoted - speaking as someone who has lived most of their life in a rural area. Although the History of Southern United States is basically taught as the History of Hating Black People to a Bizarre Extreme in here so that might admittedly color my viewpoint.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 17:20
|
|
|
Freudian posted:That is called "genocide" nowadays and people tend to avoid it. As long as nobody dies, it's "only" ethnic cleansing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 17:27
|
|
|
Riso posted:As long as nobody dies, it's "only" ethnic cleansing. Well to be fair, when it's ethnic cleansing some people can die. I think you can start calling it genocide when you hit the percentage points!
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
what the hell is up with that legend?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 18:02
|
|
|
I think what was meant by "relatively tame" isn't in terms of rhetoric but in terms of action. Americans are xenophobic as hell but by all appearances we are less likely to shave our heads, go out, and start killing immigrants/minorities. Contrast that with, say, Eastern Europe where there is all kinds of xenophobia coupled with massive amounts of widely reported violence. While certainly less violent than Eastern Europe, you've also got areas in France, Germany and the UK where "Tea Party"-type groups are actively beating up minorities in a way that the US doesn't appear to have. I'd argue a lot of that has to do with the massive amount of systemic racism in the US. Instead of being violent 18 year old skinheads going out trying to commit violence on minorities, in the US we have fairly normal looking dudes who were just trying to protect themselves (see: George Zimmerman). That changes how racially motivated crime gets reported on by the police as well as the media. "The Dirty so-and-so was trying to rob/attack me so I shot him in self defense!" plays very differently from "Heil Hitler! We have to maintain the purity of our country and race!" Even if what they are saying is functionally the same thing. Not that America doesn't also have the latter, but the nasty racist skinhead/neo-nazi culture seems to have greater penetrance in Europe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 18:15
|
|
|
Riptor posted:what the hell is up with that legend? I know the guy who made it and despite insisting on making his maps in both English and Breton he doesn't really speak either of them all that well. I used to send him corrections in both languages when he'd post drafts on Facebook but I stopped because it's way too much effort without getting money for it. e: Basically if you speak French it's almost a word for word translation from that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 18:26
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:Not that America doesn't also have the latter, but the nasty racist skinhead/neo-nazi culture seems to have greater penetrance in Europe. Well, it was born here. Also, were Europeans. White vs black/brown is kid stuff. Back here we've gotten used to brutally eradicating people who look like us, speak the same language and are probably related to us, just for the reason that they happen to have a different way of worshiping the exact same deity. Or you know we might actually be countrymen for thousands of years right down to the oddly specific branch of another branch of an religion but some of the countrymen happen to adopt a slightly different political philosophy and there we go again. I mean we could just stick with hating people based on their melanin count like you guys but it's just so easy. I don't think what Europe has been doing can really be called "racism" anymore as it's just some weird general unfocused hatred that shifts main targets every 20 years or so. Some constants remain (the Roma for example are just hated by pretty much everyone) but say a hundred years ago if you put a Frenchman in the same room with a Brit, a German and a Jew, held a gun to his head and told him that he has to slit the throat of one of the others, his only complaint would be that he wouldn't be allowed to do them all. I know people tend to be all "Europe is oh so civilized compared to America" but really, compared to us you're a bright bastion of racial harmony and tolerance. We're just focused our particular bigotries to such weird, specific degrees and change them every half a century that it's harder to pick up. U.S. is basically a drunken teenager drawing swastikas in the subway. Europe is fifty identical clones of Arthur de Gobineau who all hate each other. DarkCrawler fucked around with this message at 18:38 on Sep 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 18:32
|
|
|
The whole anti-Roma thing is so . . . strange. When I lived in Germany, I got attacked by a group of three kids, couldn't have been older than ten because I was a "Gypsie". I'm not, I look like an Eastern European/Eastern European Jew. I will say beating up kids is every bit as satisfying as you'd think it is. Surreal experience.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:The whole anti-Roma thing is so . . . strange. They stand out. In Europe that means that they didn't even have a chance. Doomed from the start.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 18:45
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:The whole anti-Roma thing is so . . . strange. When I lived in Germany, I got attacked by a group of three kids, couldn't have been older than ten because I was a "Gypsie". I'm not, I look like an Eastern European/Eastern European Jew. LOL, were you an adult at the time?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 18:48
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:While certainly less violent than Eastern Europe, you've also got areas in France, Germany and the UK where "Tea Party"-type groups are actively beating up minorities in a way that the US doesn't appear to have. Really? And where's that? Without wanting to  about 'reverse racism', it's definitely closer to being the other way around. Especially in France, holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 18:50
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:The whole anti-Roma thing is so . . . strange. When I lived in Germany, I got attacked by a group of three kids, couldn't have been older than ten because I was a "Gypsie". I'm not, I look like an Eastern European/Eastern European Jew. And, speaking as someone from the Czech republic, it's getting worse.  People here have no history of diversity education, and Communist solution to ethnic problems was to restrict the Roma to rural communities / urban ghettos, where they have no chance of supporting themselves now that the welfare system has been thoroughly transformed and privatized capital drifted away. So the deliberately ostracized and increasingly impoverished Roma are getting caught up in petty crime and violence, other people are getting agitated and more than comfortable to let their casual racism known, and populist politicians have turned the question of "non-adaptive persons" into a great electoral pull.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 18:59
|
|
|
DarkCrawler posted:And as far as I've understood (I'm not American) largely regionally concentrated in the South and Great Plains? I mean those areas are more rural and more rural usually means more bigoted - speaking as someone who has lived most of their life in a rural area. Kind of, but it's not quite as simple:  Note that New Jersey and Delaware, which are liberal coastal states, have just as many hate groups per capita as Alabama and Vermont is even with Georgia.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 21:07
|
|
|
Wax Dynasty posted:Kind of, but it's not quite as simple: I don't think that statistic really means anything. More interesting would be how many people were involved with hate groups per capita in each state.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
This made me think of you, map thread http://www.hulu.com/watch/529632 Steve Yun fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Sep 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
Phlegmish posted:Really? And where's that? Without wanting to It's you. You are the real racist. http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/263-CS-RV-NR-FR.pdf
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 21:25
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:It's you. You are the real racist. Yes, nuke me from orbit, goon sire. So where are these areas in France where nazi skinhead gangs supposedly roam the streets, threatening the well-being of immigrants? Be more specific, please. Even in the link you posted, it says that most of the racial violence was anti-semitic in nature and perpetrated by Maghrebians. Did you expect me not to bother reading it or something? quote:Of 313 racist, xenophobic or anti-Semitic incidents in 2002 (the highest figures seen since 1992), 193 were directed at the Jewish community (6 times more than in 2001), while 120 acts concerned other forms of racism or xenophobia. The reality is that racism in Western Europe is mostly systemic and institutional in nature. It rarely involves outright violence or confrontation and is instead perpetuated through more subtle forms of exclusion and discrimination. Just like in the United States. Sorry if this doesn't fit into your American-exceptionalist worldview, I know I shouldn't have encouraged it in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 21:49
|
|
|
duckmaster posted:Considering most of the problems in the Middle East are to do with ownership and control of natural resources, probably not a good idea, no. Not to mention redrawing the borders of Africa to represent ethnic boundaries would be practically impossible.  This one is a relatively simple map in terms of divisions, and there'd still be quite a few groups that would be absolutely hosed if countries were drawn around ethnic boundaries. But if you're going by say, something like the Murdock map, then frankly its an impossible task to give each group its own state.  
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2013 23:47
|
|
|
First, two things: 1) Way to focus on one part of the paper in order to dismiss the rest. 2) gently caress you for assuming anyone who points of differences between regions is asserting regional exceptionalism. Saying the opponent is claiming "American Exceptionalism" is a piss-poor rhetorical device to deflect criticism. You want to talk regions of France where minorities get violently hosed with? How about violent anti-gay protests in Paris? How about Marseille and Lille where right-wing mobs attacked Roma villages and burnt them to the ground? How about the loving GUD? Or just go to Aix or Marseille at night and look around. Plenty of 18 year old skinheads to see. Sure, it isn't Rostock but it ain't pretty. Unless things have changed dramatically in the last eight years since I was there (which is possible, though I don't find it likely). It was intimidating as gently caress. That work for ya?
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2013 00:10
|
|
|
the jizz taxi posted:- Both maps seem overly generous in showing the spread of some minority languages such as the Celtic languages People always seem very surprised by how widespread Welsh is. I was talking to one of my English friends the other day who'd been to Wales for a holiday (I live in Manchester) and he was amazed that when he went into shops and restaurants people would speak in Welsh first until he told them that he was English. I mean I'm from Swansea which is linguistically a very anglified area but I still knew a lot of people, especially from the north of the county, who would speak in Welsh as their first language.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2013 12:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 22:20 |
|
|
True as that may be, those areas shouldn't be monocoloured though. I suspect that a majority of people in Wales still has English as a first language, and that would be even more true for Scotland and Ireland. It's like how they colour the northwestern corner of France as Dutch-speaking, while in reality only a minority of people there has Dutch as a first language. Speaking of which, apparently something odd is happening in the Pas-de-Calais and Nord region since they decided to offer Dutch courses. The traditional dialect of the Dunkirk area is West-Flemish and only old people speak it, but the young people who learn Dutch get taught Standard Dutch, meaning that they probably still can't communicate with their grandparents! I also heard there's a rise in people who feel culturally 'Flemish', despite the fact cities like Lille were never Dutch-speaking. Half a year ago I met two guys from that area who rejected the 'Ch'ti' label in favour of feeling Flemish instead.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2013 13:12
|
|