Proposals and War Aims That Didn't Happen Map Thread
- Thread starter Beedok
- Start date
America is not so much about ethnicity, but rather about culture. Now there are lot's of things which go into culture, such as language, religion, social heirarchy, customs, etc. America in its early days was based more around different communities which are based on ethnicity (such as the Appalachian Scots, NYC's Italians and Irish, and the Tejanos of Texas) or based on religious communities (such as the Puritans of New England, Mormons of Utah, and Catholics of Early Maryland). However, as the nation grew in all ways, life changed heavily, and cultural intermixing became prevalent, and suddenly these older identities faded away or weren't nearly as important as the newer "American" identity which succeeded it. There are still traces of origins to earlier culture, but as time goes on your way of life changes heavily and so do your personal values. There are obviously different ways people assert their identity (such as the American south or the development of different cultures across Latin America), but people will still assert national identity. That's primarily what sets the American continent's nations apart.
When it comes to genetics, that's the one thing in America that's still persisted as major differences. We don't have much emphasis on ethnicity like most other countries do, but race is still a major part of identity. That's simply a consequence of a newer national culture replacing a ethnicity as a major defining. Ethnicity still somewhat matters for European and Asian-Americans, but most either call themselves White or Asian as their main identity, although some may still identify with their ethnicity. For Hispanics, there were already regional identities, such as the Tejanos, who occupied the area, but immigration from numerous parts of the Latin American world blended many of them together, although there are regional identities that persist. For many African Americans, their identities can be traced back through the areas where slavery was present, but because a new identity was essentially forced upon them, their old ethnicities are lost and replaced. In fact the gene testing they have to track your ancestry isn't very good in determining African American ethnicity, mainly because they use modern identities (e.i. Nigeria) which narrows it down but not nearly enough to be 100% complete because many African countries are multi-ethnic. It may have changed in recent years, which is good, but at this point I'm not aware that they can do it yet. The ones whose culture is rooted more in ethnicity are Native Americans whose reservations have prevented major identity shifts, Indian-Americans who may actually form into groups based on a country of origin or religion and are more likely to do that because of the conflicts in South Asia, and really most first/second generation immigrants.
Identity is complex when you dive deep into complexity, but when you get into it, it comes down to many factors (location, geography, language, clans, customs, religion, etc) which determines the main values of any one culture. It's why a lot of nationalist movements that start with "pan-" fail to even begin and only last for a little while when established (Turanism and Pan-Africanism being never attempted and Yugoslavia falling twice after being weakened by ethnic tensions, among other things).
Ethnicity is also like not at all genetic ??? An ethnic group is just a bunch of people identifying with each other based on shared traits. These traits can, but also can not, be traditions, culture, ancestry, language, history, society, nation, religion, social hierarchy and how they are treated by the other classes, castes, cuisine, architecture, painting, music, writing, clothing,...
An ethnic group is an amazingly heteroclite assemblage of people that in the end forms a homogenous whole
An ethnic group is an amazingly heteroclite assemblage of people that in the end forms a homogenous whole
Also you mention that as an American, you don't get this concept because it relies on genetics, yet America has like the concept of race rooted in its culture, a concept that heavily relies on genetics ?
It is based into genetics. Race is part of it, not the biggest or most significant part, but enough to distinguish between, for example, an Irish and Chinese person. If I lived in a foreign culture, then I'd probably stand out based on my appearance alone. It just is a part of what defines an ethnic group, along with all the traits you mentioned.
Uh, this is a map thread.
americanaejournal.hu
AMERICANA: "The Treaty of Trianon and the Hungarian Post-war Settlement in the Eyes of the British" by Erik Papp, Dorottya Forrai, and Zoltán Cora
AMERICANA: "The Treaty of Trianon and the Hungarian Post-war Settlement in the Eyes of the British" by Erik Papp, Dorottya Forrai, and Zoltán Cora / Cora Zoltán (PhD) is Senior Assistant Professor at the Institute of English and American Studies, University of Szeged (coraz@lit.u-szeged.hu)...
Also about that particular Tajik claim, Francine Hirsch in "Empire of Nations" has a different interpretation of it
A contiguous bridge to Bukhara, but less of the rural and desert regions, it makes sense to me, although worth reminding that Farsi was spoken quite a bit in the rural areas around Samarkhand, not just in the city itself
Interestingly the division of Surkhan-Dar'ia depends on source, some talk about it going to the Tajik SSR entirely, other talk about a east-west compromise (like above) or a north-south compromise.
Also interesting note in Adeeb Khalid, Central Asia, A new history (2021)
"There is some irony in the case of Kazakh- stan, because Khrushchev had wanted to move the capital of the [Kazakh] republic to the same city (As Astana/Aqmola)—then called Tselinograd (Virgin Land Town)—but Kazakh elites had dragged their feet and defeated the proposal. Aqmola, as the town was renamed upon independence, was a small provincial town (its population was 281,252 at the time of the 1989 census) with an extreme continental climate: its temperatures range from -35°C to 35°C over the seasons, and it experiences savage winds from the steppe
funny, since nowadays many Russian Kazakhs consider the capital change as Internal Ethnic Kazakh colonialism
Beside Dasoguz (btw reading about it, it seems Khorezm revolutionaries were against handing it to Turkmen ssr, while Bukharan and Tashkent one didn’t care)
Farap and its district was also contested between Uzbek and Turkmen SSR
"Concerning Farab, there was no proposition that the inclusion of the village was necessary for the administrative, political or economic future of the respective republics. It was simply a question of the nationality of the population in the disputed area. Both subcommittees argued that their group represented the majority in the Farab district."
eventually the decision was put to a vote between deciding based on a 1923 survey (which had a Turkmen majority ) or waiting for additional data, the former won and the city was given to the Turkmen, considering the active uzbekisation efforts at the time, a delay may have changed the outcome
continuing in the Fergana valley, the book lists the contested cities (again under the same principle of a city to "fixate" a rural population) "
All the appeals regarded the urban areas of Osh, Margilan, Andijan and Jalal-Abad." the author says that Andijan was the principal point of contention, and that the Kyrgyz were insistant in claiming it, much more so than Osh or Jalal-Abad, which did end up inside Kyrgyzstan.
Going toward Tashkent (96,000 Uzbek for 174 Kazakh in 1923):
-Shymkent was also a Uzbek majority city, but was not claimed by the Uzbeks since they agreed on the Kazakh need for a city, this agreement stood only as long as they kept Tashkent of course
-Around Tashkent proper the Uezd of Tashkent and Mirzachul were hotly contested. The Establishment of National Republics in Soviet Central Asia by Arne Haugen describes it in depth from page 201
-The résolution favoured Uzbek
- This région had a large Kurama population (another group not formalised by the Soviets, considered at the the time as settled Kazakhs), both Uzbek and Kazakh claimed them as their brethrens and then got assimilated as Uzbek.
EDIT: I've been trying to find detailled late tsarist maps of the *Volost* of Syr-Darya Oblast, where the border disputes happened, to no avail, I found those of the neighbouring Semirechensk oblast!... good luck if you try to follow the various claims that are listed in Arne Haugen's book, it's not made any easier by multiple cities name change (tsarist->leninist->stalinist->post-stalinist->independent) and various reforms of the Russian, Uzbek and Kazakh language! Honestly, I can't even find Mirzachul Uezd, I only find some vague reference to it on russian wikipedia... Current Mirzachul is shown in red below
Nevertheless here's a rough comparison of the extent of the Tashkent Uezd with modern borders (using this dataset)
Perhaps the one interesting bit is that Moscow overrode some of the Territorial comittee, notably
1) the comittee decided to give Irjar (a location where a battle happened, just east of the red dot on the map above) to Kazakhstan along with four Volost, while Moscow decided to give the four volost in Uzbekistan (Dzhizaksii had 20 volost, so I guess around 20-30% of the area), this little panhandle south of the Shardara reservoir may have been quite larger had they not done it. As it is, the current border within Mirzachul is the maximum extent claimed by the Uzbeks, as they did not lay claim to irjar
2) The comittee gave Chinaz to Kazakh, but Moscow decided to keep it inside Uzbekistan
Otherwise in most of Tashkent Uezd Moscow followed the comitee, which mostly did a compromise, with some exception, Chirtchik was also notably claimed by the Kazakh but was refused in the first round by the territorial comitee,
Here's a map of the mentionned cities:
Finally the author suggests the decision to elevate Tajikistan as SSR was probably influenced by the afghan civil war
Last edited:
Does anyone has a series of proposed maps of Greater Serbia/Croatia/Bosnia during the Yugoslav Wars?
nope, ethnicities are unrelated to genetics, an ethnicity is a purely cultural phenomenon. The concept that ethnicities are genetic is essentially scientifically outdated since Weber in 1900, the UNESCO officially ditched any trace of concept of genetical ethnicities in 1950, and since then no serious ethnologue has been defining ethnicities by genetics.
"An ethnic group or an ethnicity is a grouping of people who identify with each other on the basis of shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups. Those attributes can include common sets of traditions, ancestry, language, history, society, culture, nation, religion, or social treatment within their residing area." Wikipedia
"Ethnicity refers to the identification of a group based on a perceived cultural distinctiveness that makes the group into a “people.” This distinctiveness is believed to be expressed in language, music, values, art, styles, literature, family life, religion, ritual, food,…" Britannica
"Race and ethnicity don't show up at the genetic level" "Genetic tests cannot be used to verify or determine race or ethnicity" National Geographic UK
Proposals and War Aims That Didn't Happen Map Thread
And here's a map from a 2015 article titled "Why China will reclaim Siberia". Note some similarity to the crazy Ukrainian plan shown back on page 103. Speaking of that plan, here's what it looks like if neither Belarus nor China backstab Russia. An independent Siberia was suggested as an...
www.alternatehistory.com
I was just having a look over the Map Request thread and came across this:
A bit of digging turned up some more detail by the University of Alaska:
A bit of digging turned up some more detail by the University of Alaska:
This area would consist of 85% of the population of the Alaska Territory.
Very interesting, I wonder what will happen with the rest of the territory in the future--will the Prudhoe Bay Oil Field be discovered? If it is, will Alaska (the state) be enlarged or will Alaska (the territory) be admitted as a state?I was just having a look over the Map Request thread and came across this:
A bit of digging turned up some more detail by the University of Alaska:
This area would consist of 85% of the population of the Alaska Territory.
Idk, probably OTL Uzbek borders with Irjar, the Tajik "chicken head", and direct land connections to Uzbek exclaves in Kyrgyzstan
I meant more or less the actual war goals, as far as I know the left Greater Serbia one dates from after the wars, and is only advocated by a fringe nationalist party .
If the State of Alaska and Alaska Territory (Seward/Bering?) develop like OTL, then the state would have a rough population of 660,000 and the territory would be home to some 74,000 people (mostly Native Alaskan), so it probably wouldn't be admitted as a state; using the example of Nevada gaining western parts of the Utah and Arizona Territories, it could probably be enlarged, but I think it would remain a majority native populated territory.
Quick and dirty qbam version since I find that Timisoara salient particularly interesting.Uh, this is a map thread.
View attachment 775859
AMERICANA: "The Treaty of Trianon and the Hungarian Post-war Settlement in the Eyes of the British" by Erik Papp, Dorottya Forrai, and Zoltán Cora
AMERICANA: "The Treaty of Trianon and the Hungarian Post-war Settlement in the Eyes of the British" by Erik Papp, Dorottya Forrai, and Zoltán Cora / Cora Zoltán (PhD) is Senior Assistant Professor at the Institute of English and American Studies, University of Szeged (coraz@lit.u-szeged.hu)...
Bigger than that, I suspect. If Tajikistan never becomes a full SSR then it could be subsumed into Uzbekistan the same way Karakalpakstan has been in OTL. I could also see the border with Turkmenistan running along the Amu Darya.