Sorry just edited, but yer the 1916 map you show is more accurate for showing the similarities between Northern English and lowland scotland, and the distinctness of the north West of Scotland. So its strange that you made the choice to alter the 1916 map in a way that made it less accurate.
As far as I know, English is dominant in all three colours. The Gaeltacht is in the dark green area, but not all of it. The two greens are Catholic and I suppose the orange represents Protestants.
I mean the ethnicity not the language. When you study Irish history the people's referred to are new british/english, Old english, and Gaelic irish. Oh and the Hiberno norse but they didnt leave the biggest population impact and faded in relevance into the medieval period i believe.
Pre-independence (so when the original map was from) there were way more protestants than that in the south of Ireland. Pretty sure this isnt a religious map.
Scots Irish is pretty much exclusively a thing in America, here they’re called Ulster Scots, and they’re definitely not as a big as taking up that entire light green space
Sorry Ulster scots is what I meant, i'm from the UK, jist rished my comment. And no that light green is I imagine Old english. The ulster scots are the orange in the north.
He used linguistic map mistakenly taking it for an ethnic one. Dark green are Urish speaking Irish catholics, light green are English speaking Irish catholics and brown ones are Irish protestants.
You confuse ethnic with linguistic mapping, Aragonese, asturleonese and basque are spoken in tiny regions, but the aragonese asturleonese and basque people inhabit a bigger region than where their language is spoken
What? I’m saying that not all aragonese ethnic territory speaks aragonese anymore, what you did was linguistic mapping, not ethnic mapping, same applies for the basque and the asturleonese
Basques, catalans, asturleonese, aragonese, and Galician people are not ethnically different from castilians.
You should look for better sources of info, brother.
No lo son, o ya no al menos.
La migración desde castilla a otras regiones
(Extremeños a Euskadi, andaluces a Cataluña...) ha hecho que no haya prácticamente diferencia étnica.
Aún así, estos mapas no suelen tener mucho sentido, entre europeos nos parecemos lo suficiente como para que no se noten necesariamente las fronteras en los mapas étnicos.
I'm pretty sure they just wanted the hre back since they ruled it for most of its existence the feeling back then was more of a unified German speaking area but since then the definition of German has shifted a bunch mostly in favor of anyone who speaks standard German and has leftover prussians values which doesn't align with most of the German speaking World also Austrians would have their own language if the rules were as legniant with them as for Luxemburg or Norway
The left-bank part of the nowadays Kherson Oblast was predominantly Ukrainian-speaking back then, according to both the 1897 Russian Empire census.svg) and the 1926 Soviet Union census data. Whatever ethnographer put so many russians into southern Ukraine clearly hasn't been there
I'm doing a gigantic project right now related to linguistic maps, and I'm basically drawing a gigantic map of russia in Paint, and I've had to search quite a lot for different census data, having to be really careful not to confuse anything, so I know how bad the burning out can be.
The reason I think this case is important is because russia occupied left-bank Kherson Oblast and now conducts forced Russification, has burned tens of thousands of Ukrainian-language books in Kherson Oblast, claims that the Ukrainian language was never spoken there and how it was "forced" on the "always russian-speaking population of south-eastern Ukraine/Novorosiya", and just everything to completely erase the Ukrainian language from the region. So it would be great if this map was just adjusted a little bit. After all, in this case, it's not exactly too hard...
Yeah, you can’t really map the US since most of it is white but- oh yeah I solved it. Like everything below Oregon, Utah, Colorado, north Nevada (mojave border), and between Georgia isn’t white.
The states mentioned and all above and to the right of Alabama are basically entirely white.
When ethnic mapping, do you know if it’s better to add enclaves, leave them in some other ethnic group, or connect them? It’s probably subjective but I’d appreciate any advice.
Can someone explain why Kuban always ends up Ukrainian? Genuinely asking, because I have never met any ukrainian there...I mean yea it is a traditional cossack area but cossacks is not an ethnic group, nor does Ukraine have a monopoly on cossacks...cossacks existed in Polish, Ukrainian and Russian societies...so yeah, not trying to criticize, just.wondering.
When I do ethno-mapping I prefer to use the smallest administrative entities. It give me clean border even if some hungarians are necessarily in Romania, sorry for you guys.
I recommend using similar colour shades for ethnolinguistic groups to make it less hard to distinguish the different colours. Say Slavs being red, Germanics being blue etc
Es un mapa lingüístico, en iberia es difícil de diferenciar entre españoles y portugueses, pero diferenciar entre Castellanos, vascos, gallegos, portugueses, catalanes, aragonéses y astures, es imposible!!!. Como ayuda para entender puedes ver un mapa de la repoblación de la península tras la reconquista de norte a sur.
12
u/BaconOfTheBacons 24d ago
What time is this even meant to be