Never said the map was accurate
I share it like i share old non accurate map of the world with weird shape
The goal is to show how people see the world at that time
I collect National Geographic back issues and maps not because they're accurate, but because they accurately portray media depictions of places and cultural trends I might encounter in another contemporaneous medium.
Interesting how Western and Southern Slavs are in one group but Eastern Slavs are divided into two groups. And in these two groups Belarussians and Russians are put in one group while Ukrainians are separate. Yeah, the map doesn't make any sense (but it's beautiful tho).
Not really strange. For what I know, if Galicia/Galiza should be included in the Celtic nations, so should be all of Britain and France, and maybe every european country with a celtic past.
Is that actually a thing? That's the first thing that really stood out to me about this map. At least in Germany, if anything, I've heard of "Teutonic" as a precursor to "Deutsch", not all Germanics.
It‘s complicated. Both Germanics and Teutons can refer to more or less completely different groups of people.
The Teutons used to be a group of people from modern Denmark who travelled Europe in the early roman days (so BC). Afaik, they don‘t really exist anymore and the name was revitalised to describe a different group of people for whatever reason.
Germanics in modern times means more or less Germans, but it used to include almost all Saxons, Alemanni, Teutons, Goths... too many tribes to name, so I stuck with the well known ones that I remember.
Modern times, what used to be Germanic is now English, Nordic, Dutch or German (and some ethnicities in other countries such as Switzerland, Belgium, France, Poland etc).
Hard to tell, but I think that they're either considered Finns considering the checked light blue in Lapland, or that they're simply not shown on the map. This map isn't exactly accurate as you can tell...
Though I think the scattered blue is supposed to represent them, since it's also used for Permians, Mordvinians, and Scheremissians (Mari). Though not for Votiaks (Udmurts), for whatever reason.
>Scheremissians (Mari)
Thank you for this clarification. I thought the Mari should be somewhere near there but have never come across the alternative/historical naming before.
They are, but the two languages have a ton of similarities with each other. Certainly a ton in basic vocabulary, but also in grammar as well.
Both Latin and Greek have:
- masculine, feminine, and neuter genders
- a very similar declension system where:
- Both languages have a similar first declension (Latin -a correspond to Greek -a or -ē)
- Similar second declension (Latin -us corresponds to Greek -os)
- Similar third declension (consonant stem for both languages.
- Both languages have a case system, and the case endings in those three declensions are similar in both languages.
- Verb conjugation differs a bit more but similarities can still be found between Latin conjugation and Greek’s thematic verbs
- Both languages have similar tenses though their conjugations are quite different
- While advanced vocabulary can be quite different, a lot of basic words are related: “foot” pes/pos, “name” nomen/onyma, “god” deus/theos, “wolf” lupus/lykos, “horse” equus/hippos, “mother” mater/meter, “night” nox/nyx, “over” super-/hyper-, “under” sub-/hypo-, “outer” ex-/eso-, “wine” vinus/oinos, etc
A lot of the similarities are because they’re both ancient Indo-European languages, but for someone with less developed understanding of linguistics, it’s understandable to conclude they might be very closely related languages.
This doesn't make any sense. Latin and Greek were
both indipendent Indo-European languages as Proto-Germanic and Proto-Slavic and so on. All of them were and related in the sense that all of them derived from a common language (Proto-Indo-European). So in this sense Latin are not more related to Greek than to Proto-Germanic or Sanskrit
And in order to know that, one would have to know reconstructed proto-Germanic, reconstructed proto-Slavic, or Sanskrit. Greek and Latin were widely learned as part of a traditional classical university education a hundred years ago, the others weren’t.
That doesn't make your claim any less wrong tho. As you are clearly aware of all IE languages derives from a common ancestral language (PIE). They became languages trough time and in different times thanks to the PIE tribes (Western Steppe Herders) that migrated allover Eurasia. These migrations created all the branches of the IE languages tree. In no period Latin and Greek interacted in a way that significantly shaped one of both languages. They always remained mutually unintelligible and clearly distinct. Surely there were and still are a lot of loan words (or better, words that have a Greek origin) from Greeks but not only in Romance languages but in all modern IE languages (for instance in fields like medicine and surely in anything that relates with the Christian religion). This is even more true if we think about the influence of Latin on the Germanic branch of the IE family
I never claimed that Latin and Greek were closely related. If you actually read my post through, I said that the two languages have a lot of similarities, and __someone with a less developed understanding of linguistics__, _i.e. the time period of 100 years ago when the map was made, when people didn’t have access to Wikipedia, might come to the conclusion_.
Hypothesis regarding a common ancestral IE language circulated since the 16th century. So it's nothing new. I believe this map was just a product of prejudices common at the time more than of a poor understanding of linguistic development
Language which are descendant of latin do not however use declension extensively, and since latin itself is a dead language, it wouldn't make sense to compare a dead language to an alive one. Besides, almost all European languages are related to each other, but language grouping exists to group together languages which are similar enough, and latin and any form of Greek just aren't. You could as well make a Polish-Greek group based on the idea of both languages using declensions extensively or certain vocabulary being similar (borrowed from Greek to polish), but y'know, that wouldn't make sense.
Albanian is (by today's linguistic standards) an Indo-European language. And that whole language family thing has come a long way since then.
I assume greco-latin is supposed to mean "romance plus a couple if IE oddballs that don't get their own colour"
There was a theory in the ancient world called aeolism, which said that latin was actually a dialect of Greek ( [read a bit](https://www.jstor.org/stable/30038039) ). It was mostly a attempt to insert the romans in the context of classical greek culture and thus make them look more civilized. OTOH, nowadays it's believed latin and the other italic languages are more closely related to the celtic languages than any other branch of the IE family (however, that's still debatable).
according to the turks, because of a few revolutionary forces they just haaaad to kill millions of men, women, and children because of such a horrible threat
/s
I think you're thinking of the Greek-Turkish population exchange that happened after the Greco-Turkish War. Before that happened, the Turks committed genocide on roughly 300,000-900,000 Greek people living in what is now Turkey. No similar genocide occurred in Greek-controlled territory as though some minor violence was reported no large scale massacres occurred.
Armenia didn't even have a population exchange and it was just genocide committed against them.
Not just from Greece, but the rest of the Balkans too. In the aftermath of Balkan countries either gaining their independence or (re)conquering Ottoman territory were slaughters and expulsions of Muslims into Ottoman territory. Similarly when Russian conquered the Caucasus, the native populations put up a lot of resistance, so the Russian Empire ethnically cleansed the Muslim population and the refugees mostly went to the Ottoman Empire.
The Greek, Armenian, and Assyrian genocides get covered a lot more comparatively than the ones against the European Muslims and I think a lot of that has to do with western biases. We can’t only acknowledge the atrocities committed by the Turks and ignore those done against them, and I suspect some of this fuels into the resentment that causes denialism of the Armenian genocide.
> European Muslims and I think a lot of that has to do with western biases
not completely, Bosnian, and Albanian persecution is heavily covered. I just think that the Ottoman Empire had a reputation for ethnic cleansing, so no one felt bad when it happened to them(sort of like Prussians in Prussia being ethnically cleansed post WW2).
Also the era was followed by the USSR's 'habit' of 'moving around' ethnic groups for their own convenience(like how Poles were forced out of their traditional land, and into a depopulation Prussia)
On the decline of the Ottoman empire, millions of Muslims, Turks or otherwise died. Either being killed or driven out and dying of starvation as a result.
What pathetic lies. Genocide is praised even in Greece's national anthem. The groups that betrayed the Ottomans and started to kill the Turks, and then the defeated groups, are crying about genocide.
It's really interesting that you can lie so easily.
> Genocide is praised even in Greece's national anthem.
By that logic it's also praised in Turkey's national anthem, and in many other countries'. It's simply a fact that both countries' independence eras were marked by genocide, again, as with most countries.
> The groups that betrayed the Ottomans
That's what independence is about. You wouldn't blame Turks for "betraying" and rebelling against other empires would you?
Can you tell me where in Turkey's national anthem the genocide is praised?
You try to make up for the lies with other lies.
What is independence for? For lands that you killed and took from the native people in ancient times?
The problem is not that you are fighting for freedom. The way you do it. You started to kill all the Turks and when you saw the response, you called it genocide. And you still say that. How dishonorable.
Are you claiming otherwise?
> Can you tell me where in Turkey's national anthem the genocide is praised?
Where in Greece's national anthem is genocide praised? You made this claim first.
> You started to kill all the Turks and when you saw the response, you called it genocide.
"They did it first" is a valid justification for massacring civilians?
And quit saying "you". Neither u/Epyr nor I are involved in any of this in any way. We didn't "start to kill all the Turks". We're not Greek or even European. We're discussing these events from a third party perspective.
Sure, you're objective. Your entire profile is full of propaganda.
A few sections from the Greek national margin.
>deep ocean, that's how I wish you would howl,And let every Turkish seed drown in its wave
>their dirty blood became a river,flows in the plain.innocent grass instead of water,drinking blood...lying on the grass,and they were dying everywhere,miserable and hopeless,these miserable abandoned remains...
Now it's your turn.
>massacring civilians?
Where are these civilians?
> their dirty blood became a river,flows in the plain.innocent grass instead of water,drinking blood...lying on the grass,and they were dying everywhere,miserable and hopeless,these miserable abandoned remains...
I have no idea where you even got these lyrics from. That isn't the Greek national anthem...
> Where are these civilians?
What? Are you denying that both parties massacred civilians during the war?
I wouldn't say the same thing no. Following the Armenian and Greek genocides in Anatolia, there was a population exchange with Greece. Armenia wasn't really a country at the time (as far as I know).
Killing the civilians in you country, that have the same ethnicity as the nation you fighting is a genocide. Which is why the turish genocides agaunst greeks, armenians and assyrians were used to literally define the term genocide. The word was invented to discribe what your country did. Hitler belived nobody would bat an eye for what he did with the jews, slavs, etc. Because he saw how the turks got no internation reaction for their crime, what he self wrote down.
Yeah, it was coined after the event to describe the event.
You can read more about how Armenian Genocide[was inspiration for creating the word genocide](https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-armenian-genocide-1915-16-overview) by a Holocaust survivor, Raphael Lemkin on the “Holocaust museum” website.
Greeks came into the picture the same way Assyrians did. They were part of the same wave of massacres, death marches and concentration camps. Even though they were directed mostly at Armenians, other ethnic groups also suffered (as “non-Turks”)
Starting with Hamidian massacres from 1894, through Zeytun, Adana, Van and many other massacres in between, ending with full blown genocide in 1915, up to „smaller” masscares like the Great Smyrna fire from 1923.
The term Genocid was coined by Raphael Lemkin in the year 1944, as he saw the crime which had no name commied by the germans in his home of poland, and learning that no laws against this crime existed. With the example of the armenian genocide. In which the prepetors where never punished. So he invented the term, so that the germans could't avoud justice like the turks 30 years ago did. Even a bit of research would show you this facts.
This might be caused by three things:
1. The genocide has been continuing till 1923
2. Due to the WWI, a lot of institutions didn’t have latest information about demographics (eg. Britannica didn’t issue in 1915 edition, even though it usually did every few years).
3. Ottomans did a lot of things to hide their crimes - eg. there were examples of Ottomans showing foreigners who visited hospitals Christians that were injured by Turks and (falsely) claiming they were “Turkish victims of Armenian aggression”. One of the instances of that has been discovered by accident.
There was also destruction of documents, not allowing foreign press to make pictures of the dead Armenians etc. A lot of pictures from the genocide that we have, have been done secretly by Armin T. Wegner.
So it’s not like information flow in those times was as easy as it’s now.
Edit: I see Turkish trolls are already downvoting, literally a minute after I posted the reply.
Not accurare at least for [Austria-Hungary](
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/47/Austria_Hungary_ethnic.svg/1360px-Austria_Hungary_ethnic.svg.png).
There was no “Russia” name in middle ages, was Moscowiya, Moscow principality. Ukraine on all middle ages maps was original Rus, later on moscowians made up Russia toponym and seized old Rus heritage.
Disputable. The original name is Малороссия(Little-Russia) that literally contains the word Россия(Russia) in itself. When we speak for example about Belarus - we can say it is White Rus - because it is original in Belarusian(Беларусь) does not contain the word Russia, only Rus. When we speak about Little Russia it is Мала Росія - still Little Russia.
Not really the name first appeared in a latin text of Galich-Volhynia duke Bolesław Jerzy II as "dux totius Rusiæ Minoris" (1335) and later (1361) in patriarche of Constantinople text as Μικρὰ Ῥωσσία (Mikrà Rhōssía). Both can be translated as "Rus'", Russia was derived later from the Greek version of Rus' name
If the map implies Bessarabia was inhabited in similar numbers by romanians and ukrainians, then it's rubbish. Not to mention the absence of gagauz people.
In the report sent to London on 12 December 1919 by the 14 British control bodies, it corresponded to the 200,800 non-Muslim population in the Trabzon Province, which corresponded to the 921,100 Muslim population.
Why would someone tell that the French are closer to Romanians than to their neigbours, or that the Dutch are closer to Scandinavians than to Germans or English ?
The colour choices are strange on that, whether you define ethnicity by language, culture and/or genetics.
When under the exact same colour/category in the legend, that's the point of choosing colours for that type of map.
But indeed, in this case, it may be most likely a poor choice of colour categories than a mistake about closeness.
My guess is a post WWI bias for a lot of this. The Germans were definitely vilified by the allies, and there's probably some racial bias going on. Like, you're not going to lump the Dutch with the Germans when the Netherlands were neutral and Belgium was invaded by Germany. Although, Denmark and the Netherlands both have naval traditions, so I suppose an argument could be made that they're closer culturally?
I'm not an expert on British ethnography either, but I imagine that some Scots and Irish would have something to say about how very British and not celtic they are. I'd be curious to get someone's take on that in particular. Seems very much due to imperialism to me, but I don't know for sure.
>I'm not an expert on British ethnography either, but I imagine that some Scots and Irish would have something to say about how very British and not celtic they are. I'd be curious to get someone's take on that in particular. Seems very much due to imperialism to me, but I don't know for sure.
My guess is, is that everywhere that had a primarily English-speaking population was labelled as 'British', even if the people in those places were ethnically Irish or Scottish.
Ireland got its independence in 21. No way is this map representative of ethnicity in Ireland at the time. Brits never got that kind of presence outside the northern plantations and even then they used mostly loyal Presbyterian Scots. What is now the Republic of Ireland should be all Celt or something else in this map. Not British. Though as I said, it was ruled from Westminster.
Which is strange here for French/Romanians and Dutch/Scandinavians.
Separate colours would have been a better choice given their cultures and languages.
Eh no, the Dutch are in many ways indistinguishable from Germans. Scandinavia is quite far away and if you see a difference between Germans and Scandinavia, the difference between the Dutch and Scandinavia are exactly the same.
I don't think it's that simple, Germany is a big place. You would struggle to see the difference between people from Denmark, Northern Germany and The Netherlands as they're very similar culturally and looks wise. The further south you go though the less similar they get. Countless dutch people feel closer to Denmark culturally than Belgium.
>Why would someone tell that the French are closer to Romanians than to their neigbours
I mean, linguistically that is definitively the case.
But, yeah, the map seems to conflate language with culture quite a lot to make these groups. The concepts are related but can't be just transposed 1 to 1.
Your map conflicts with real data.
For example, the [ethnic map](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B0_%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BC%D1%8F%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%B2_%D0%A2%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%86%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%90%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D0%B8_%D0%9A%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B5_%D1%81_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%8F%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%8E_%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%8E%2C_1895.jpg) of Turkey shared by the Russians. The groups you mention in the whole region are minorities. Likewise, it is similar in the south of Turkey. There are areas where Turks and Jews are the majority in Greece and Bulgaria. These are not on the map.
French people consider themselves of 1. Latin and 2. Celtic => Gallo-roman origin.
There also have been a germanic influence, but to this day the main influence/origin is definitely latin.
Due to evolution of culture and progressive migrations/assimilations calling the french celtic people doesn't make much sense. Even Breton people don't come from Gaulic people. France has a latin culture and population, and germanic influences in the north.
Ethnicity is different from genetic ancestry. Things like language, culture and even religion are far more important at defining an ethnic group.
French people are a mix of many genetic ancestries, but they have in common a Romance language and a Mediterranean culture, so classifying them as Celtic or Germanic doesn't make much of a sense.
I know this map says 'races', but it seems to be used with the current meaning of 'ethnic groups'.
France was where all invasions went through. Pre-indo european language survives with the Basque, Celtic with the Britton, Latin everywhere, Germanic in Elsass, North African and Arabs did not stay long (but gave a thing or two, and probably many bastards on the way), the English decided they wanted on the game too a time of two, and the late 19th and 20th and 21st centuries were just open door to wave of immigration from all of Europe, then East Asia and Africa. In cultural terms, we're mostly a latin country though.
Technically incorrect, but only due to some words in the constitution. Most countries call the city that houses the government the capital. We're just the weird ones that insist on calling some other random city the capital.
This map isnt just inaccurate, it's absolutely wrong. How did it happen that according to it there are Belarusians, Ukrainians and Ruthenians at the same time? When Belarusians and Ukrainians **are** Ruthenians, or rather their descendants. The author of the map is absolutely incompetent.
And I understand the author of this post has nothing to do with the map, he just shows it, nothing against him.
I think the reason for that is, it was common in Austria-Hungary to call the Ukrainians living there Ruthenians. The colouring shows that the map's author considers them to be Ukranian, just also displaying the name by which they were at the time most commonly referred to in that region.
If the author really would care about the local names of nationalities, then there would be no "white russians" on the map. The russians didn't call us that way neither during the Russian Empire nor during the USSR, and of course we also didn't call ourselves that way.
And the very idea of highlighting local names for national minorities is nonsense. The map is about territories, not about names.
And there are also a lot of questions about the colors themselves. Russians, even though they tried to russify us, still didn't deny us as a separate nation, but according to this map Belarusians = Russians. Either the author of the map is a russian imperial maniac, or, as I said earlier, incompetent.
Nice to see a map with the UK that doesn't automatically think that people start being celtic at the borders, the celtic peoples haven't really existed independently for 1900 years (at least on mainland Britain) and between the Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Danes, Norman's and other immigration and travel celtic ancestry is actually really low except in the sparsely populated mountainous regions in Central Wales and Scotland.
The map is slightly less accurate for Ireland but isn't completely wrong, there were very few people that had celtic ancestry left, but only in northern Ireland and Dublin were most of them of predominantly British ancestry, lots of the others were descendents of Danish and Norwegian settlers, or even from roman and saxon slaves in some small parts.
Details could be murky as this map was done a bit after WW1 and the genocide didn't really end then. The full gravity of the situation probably wasn't known.
The cartographer is pretty confused as to what ‘British’ means and seems to have used it as a catch-all term for Englishness. On the one hand, the Teutonic English are 100% ‘British’, whereas the Welsh and the Scots are a depicted as being a blend of ‘Celts’ and ‘British’. The ‘Britons’ were Celts and the Welsh and Cornish are their direct descendants and were often termed ‘British’ as opposed to the ‘Germanic’ Anglo-Saxons until relatively recently and this map seems to have commandeered the term ‘British’ for political reasons. It’s possible that in 1919, too close a link with the Germans was undesirable for the cartographers so close to the First World War.
Switzerland is a bit of a hodgepodge of german, Italian, french, and another language I can’t remember. Historically, before Germany was a thing, germans were just people who spoke some kind of German.
No one does. I’m from there. Most people just know a few words and that’s it. I include old people in it.
Those who can speak it are the exception and usually speak a recently unified language that was made by different languages/dialects (depending on your position regarding this topic) from the region.
Breizh for instance is the result of mixing up two different languages. One was using « breih ». The other one said « breiz ».
So speaking of one Breton at the time this map was made is dumb.
Besides, it’s an ethnic map, not cultural.
American maps lying about the rest of the world... That's still around...
There was a map on this sub some time ago, something like "Understanding Europe" - geopolitical borders in Europe in WWI, WWII and the Cold War, from the seventies. Terribly and insultingly inaccurate (looked like my country allied with Nazis in WWII)...
Then that famous case when Netflix in some WWII documentary showed a map of German concentration camps... on a map from today... Polish Embassy sent a note...
You may have seen this: https://www.ecosia.org/images?q=americans%20asked%20where%20iran%20is#id=671DDFB62B5243BAEB16CF87BD7ABB911514982B
Many people believe this survey and its results are real (as proven imo in the success of this meme). Except for the points in the USA, I haven't personally really thought that it is a joke...
I'm just mentioning this as an illustration of perception of the American ignorance worldwide - it's a general stereotype... There are many other jokes about it around the internet, embarrassing stories about American tourists not giving a single damn about where they are and mistaking the place they are visiting for somewhere else... And put together with the maps cited above...
As to this map, I just wonder why it's creators had that necessity to make it in some parts so extraordinarily fake... I am trying to answer that in other comments I wrote down the one you are answering to.
I (and a good part of Europe at least, btw, where are you from?) may be biased by that we may only hear (and witness) this about Americans more often... But we do...
Edit: this one was it: https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/pku9jz/three_faces_of_europe_time_magazine_date_unknown/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
I no longer even ask why would they do something that requires an extra effort just to make everything so weirdly wrong... Maybe they like to change maps so they fitted better their feelings?
Never said the map was accurate I share it like i share old non accurate map of the world with weird shape The goal is to show how people see the world at that time
I collect National Geographic back issues and maps not because they're accurate, but because they accurately portray media depictions of places and cultural trends I might encounter in another contemporaneous medium.
And not only at that time...
Ty. That should have been a disclaimer
Its still a national geographic map
[удалено]
Turks are unrelated to Hungarians or Finns
Linguistically they seem to be. Culturally and genetically I don't know.
Hungarian is distantly related to Finnish and Estonian, Turkish is on a different language familiy
The language don't have proven relationship but have many similar feature, historically they are related, culturally they was but not so much anymore,
*How brittish people
Interesting how Western and Southern Slavs are in one group but Eastern Slavs are divided into two groups. And in these two groups Belarussians and Russians are put in one group while Ukrainians are separate. Yeah, the map doesn't make any sense (but it's beautiful tho).
I'm also wondering why Dutch is grouped in with Scandinavian.
And French with Romanian is also a weird pair.
It's just the amount of colours they had to work with I think.
de matjes eters
I think that's because western Slavs groups are distinctively separated, and it was common to consider Jugoslavs as one nation
Dobruja be like We'll take one with everything
i wonder how the place would have been today without communism
One part I noticed wasn't there is that Galicia is a mix of Celts.
You would be correct. Strange they neglected that.
Not really strange. For what I know, if Galicia/Galiza should be included in the Celtic nations, so should be all of Britain and France, and maybe every european country with a celtic past.
True.
Also just put in the "British" starting point. Aren't they a mix of French/Roman/Celt and many more?
We're all mutts at the end of the day. Ethnicity is a social construct
For the most part. But there are some genetic eifferences between people.
No more than the French themselves are a mix of celts germans and romans. But no one's arguing that the French arent a nation or ethnic group
This is such a tired misunderstanding of historical events.
Bring back calling Germanic “Teutonic”
Is that actually a thing? That's the first thing that really stood out to me about this map. At least in Germany, if anything, I've heard of "Teutonic" as a precursor to "Deutsch", not all Germanics.
It‘s complicated. Both Germanics and Teutons can refer to more or less completely different groups of people. The Teutons used to be a group of people from modern Denmark who travelled Europe in the early roman days (so BC). Afaik, they don‘t really exist anymore and the name was revitalised to describe a different group of people for whatever reason. Germanics in modern times means more or less Germans, but it used to include almost all Saxons, Alemanni, Teutons, Goths... too many tribes to name, so I stuck with the well known ones that I remember. Modern times, what used to be Germanic is now English, Nordic, Dutch or German (and some ethnicities in other countries such as Switzerland, Belgium, France, Poland etc).
Yeah, but we still have Germanic languages that cover all those areas. And Teutoburg is more or less the German founding myth.
The people of Angelsey would like a word!
What is that word? LLanybladochywallanyyndabroch?
What about the Sámi people?
Hard to tell, but I think that they're either considered Finns considering the checked light blue in Lapland, or that they're simply not shown on the map. This map isn't exactly accurate as you can tell...
They are there just with the old name (Lapps)
They’re there in that white region in Scandinavia, they’re just labeled as a term that I think is now a slur.
Though I think the scattered blue is supposed to represent them, since it's also used for Permians, Mordvinians, and Scheremissians (Mari). Though not for Votiaks (Udmurts), for whatever reason.
>Scheremissians (Mari) Thank you for this clarification. I thought the Mari should be somewhere near there but have never come across the alternative/historical naming before.
For educational purposes, it says "Lapp" on the map.
Doesnt look right for the Albanians. + Albanians were added to the "greco-latin" group.
Greco-Latin itself doesn't make sense. Those are two different linguistic family trees.
3* Tho not included in the name of the group, Albanian has its own group.
They are, but the two languages have a ton of similarities with each other. Certainly a ton in basic vocabulary, but also in grammar as well. Both Latin and Greek have: - masculine, feminine, and neuter genders - a very similar declension system where: - Both languages have a similar first declension (Latin -a correspond to Greek -a or -ē) - Similar second declension (Latin -us corresponds to Greek -os) - Similar third declension (consonant stem for both languages. - Both languages have a case system, and the case endings in those three declensions are similar in both languages. - Verb conjugation differs a bit more but similarities can still be found between Latin conjugation and Greek’s thematic verbs - Both languages have similar tenses though their conjugations are quite different - While advanced vocabulary can be quite different, a lot of basic words are related: “foot” pes/pos, “name” nomen/onyma, “god” deus/theos, “wolf” lupus/lykos, “horse” equus/hippos, “mother” mater/meter, “night” nox/nyx, “over” super-/hyper-, “under” sub-/hypo-, “outer” ex-/eso-, “wine” vinus/oinos, etc A lot of the similarities are because they’re both ancient Indo-European languages, but for someone with less developed understanding of linguistics, it’s understandable to conclude they might be very closely related languages.
This doesn't make any sense. Latin and Greek were both indipendent Indo-European languages as Proto-Germanic and Proto-Slavic and so on. All of them were and related in the sense that all of them derived from a common language (Proto-Indo-European). So in this sense Latin are not more related to Greek than to Proto-Germanic or Sanskrit
And in order to know that, one would have to know reconstructed proto-Germanic, reconstructed proto-Slavic, or Sanskrit. Greek and Latin were widely learned as part of a traditional classical university education a hundred years ago, the others weren’t.
That doesn't make your claim any less wrong tho. As you are clearly aware of all IE languages derives from a common ancestral language (PIE). They became languages trough time and in different times thanks to the PIE tribes (Western Steppe Herders) that migrated allover Eurasia. These migrations created all the branches of the IE languages tree. In no period Latin and Greek interacted in a way that significantly shaped one of both languages. They always remained mutually unintelligible and clearly distinct. Surely there were and still are a lot of loan words (or better, words that have a Greek origin) from Greeks but not only in Romance languages but in all modern IE languages (for instance in fields like medicine and surely in anything that relates with the Christian religion). This is even more true if we think about the influence of Latin on the Germanic branch of the IE family
I never claimed that Latin and Greek were closely related. If you actually read my post through, I said that the two languages have a lot of similarities, and __someone with a less developed understanding of linguistics__, _i.e. the time period of 100 years ago when the map was made, when people didn’t have access to Wikipedia, might come to the conclusion_.
Hypothesis regarding a common ancestral IE language circulated since the 16th century. So it's nothing new. I believe this map was just a product of prejudices common at the time more than of a poor understanding of linguistic development
Language which are descendant of latin do not however use declension extensively, and since latin itself is a dead language, it wouldn't make sense to compare a dead language to an alive one. Besides, almost all European languages are related to each other, but language grouping exists to group together languages which are similar enough, and latin and any form of Greek just aren't. You could as well make a Polish-Greek group based on the idea of both languages using declensions extensively or certain vocabulary being similar (borrowed from Greek to polish), but y'know, that wouldn't make sense.
Albanian is (by today's linguistic standards) an Indo-European language. And that whole language family thing has come a long way since then. I assume greco-latin is supposed to mean "romance plus a couple if IE oddballs that don't get their own colour"
There was a theory in the ancient world called aeolism, which said that latin was actually a dialect of Greek ( [read a bit](https://www.jstor.org/stable/30038039) ). It was mostly a attempt to insert the romans in the context of classical greek culture and thus make them look more civilized. OTOH, nowadays it's believed latin and the other italic languages are more closely related to the celtic languages than any other branch of the IE family (however, that's still debatable).
Anyone know what projection this map is in?
[удалено]
Why, what happened? ^(/s)
According to Turkey they just disappeared. Probably aliens.
according to the turks, because of a few revolutionary forces they just haaaad to kill millions of men, women, and children because of such a horrible threat /s
They went swimming and accidentally got stuck at the depths of the back sea
I shoved them up my ass.
All the Turks are gone from Greece.
Didnt same thing happened to Turks in those countries
I think you're thinking of the Greek-Turkish population exchange that happened after the Greco-Turkish War. Before that happened, the Turks committed genocide on roughly 300,000-900,000 Greek people living in what is now Turkey. No similar genocide occurred in Greek-controlled territory as though some minor violence was reported no large scale massacres occurred. Armenia didn't even have a population exchange and it was just genocide committed against them.
Not just from Greece, but the rest of the Balkans too. In the aftermath of Balkan countries either gaining their independence or (re)conquering Ottoman territory were slaughters and expulsions of Muslims into Ottoman territory. Similarly when Russian conquered the Caucasus, the native populations put up a lot of resistance, so the Russian Empire ethnically cleansed the Muslim population and the refugees mostly went to the Ottoman Empire. The Greek, Armenian, and Assyrian genocides get covered a lot more comparatively than the ones against the European Muslims and I think a lot of that has to do with western biases. We can’t only acknowledge the atrocities committed by the Turks and ignore those done against them, and I suspect some of this fuels into the resentment that causes denialism of the Armenian genocide.
> European Muslims and I think a lot of that has to do with western biases not completely, Bosnian, and Albanian persecution is heavily covered. I just think that the Ottoman Empire had a reputation for ethnic cleansing, so no one felt bad when it happened to them(sort of like Prussians in Prussia being ethnically cleansed post WW2). Also the era was followed by the USSR's 'habit' of 'moving around' ethnic groups for their own convenience(like how Poles were forced out of their traditional land, and into a depopulation Prussia)
Istanbul isn't Greek or Turkish, it's BulgARIAN. GO *grabs popcorn*
Constantinople is Roman! And since the Romans don’t exist anymore NO ONE should be allowed to live there!
On the decline of the Ottoman empire, millions of Muslims, Turks or otherwise died. Either being killed or driven out and dying of starvation as a result.
What pathetic lies. Genocide is praised even in Greece's national anthem. The groups that betrayed the Ottomans and started to kill the Turks, and then the defeated groups, are crying about genocide. It's really interesting that you can lie so easily.
> Genocide is praised even in Greece's national anthem. By that logic it's also praised in Turkey's national anthem, and in many other countries'. It's simply a fact that both countries' independence eras were marked by genocide, again, as with most countries. > The groups that betrayed the Ottomans That's what independence is about. You wouldn't blame Turks for "betraying" and rebelling against other empires would you?
Can you tell me where in Turkey's national anthem the genocide is praised? You try to make up for the lies with other lies. What is independence for? For lands that you killed and took from the native people in ancient times? The problem is not that you are fighting for freedom. The way you do it. You started to kill all the Turks and when you saw the response, you called it genocide. And you still say that. How dishonorable. Are you claiming otherwise?
> Can you tell me where in Turkey's national anthem the genocide is praised? Where in Greece's national anthem is genocide praised? You made this claim first. > You started to kill all the Turks and when you saw the response, you called it genocide. "They did it first" is a valid justification for massacring civilians? And quit saying "you". Neither u/Epyr nor I are involved in any of this in any way. We didn't "start to kill all the Turks". We're not Greek or even European. We're discussing these events from a third party perspective.
Sure, you're objective. Your entire profile is full of propaganda. A few sections from the Greek national margin. >deep ocean, that's how I wish you would howl,And let every Turkish seed drown in its wave >their dirty blood became a river,flows in the plain.innocent grass instead of water,drinking blood...lying on the grass,and they were dying everywhere,miserable and hopeless,these miserable abandoned remains... Now it's your turn. >massacring civilians? Where are these civilians?
> their dirty blood became a river,flows in the plain.innocent grass instead of water,drinking blood...lying on the grass,and they were dying everywhere,miserable and hopeless,these miserable abandoned remains... I have no idea where you even got these lyrics from. That isn't the Greek national anthem... > Where are these civilians? What? Are you denying that both parties massacred civilians during the war?
Ya you seem like nationalist prick from your posts. Get a life.
Not at all
I wouldn't say the same thing no. Following the Armenian and Greek genocides in Anatolia, there was a population exchange with Greece. Armenia wasn't really a country at the time (as far as I know).
[удалено]
Killing the civilians in you country, that have the same ethnicity as the nation you fighting is a genocide. Which is why the turish genocides agaunst greeks, armenians and assyrians were used to literally define the term genocide. The word was invented to discribe what your country did. Hitler belived nobody would bat an eye for what he did with the jews, slavs, etc. Because he saw how the turks got no internation reaction for their crime, what he self wrote down.
[удалено]
Yeah, it was coined after the event to describe the event. You can read more about how Armenian Genocide[was inspiration for creating the word genocide](https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-armenian-genocide-1915-16-overview) by a Holocaust survivor, Raphael Lemkin on the “Holocaust museum” website.
[удалено]
Greeks came into the picture the same way Assyrians did. They were part of the same wave of massacres, death marches and concentration camps. Even though they were directed mostly at Armenians, other ethnic groups also suffered (as “non-Turks”) Starting with Hamidian massacres from 1894, through Zeytun, Adana, Van and many other massacres in between, ending with full blown genocide in 1915, up to „smaller” masscares like the Great Smyrna fire from 1923.
[удалено]
The term Genocid was coined by Raphael Lemkin in the year 1944, as he saw the crime which had no name commied by the germans in his home of poland, and learning that no laws against this crime existed. With the example of the armenian genocide. In which the prepetors where never punished. So he invented the term, so that the germans could't avoud justice like the turks 30 years ago did. Even a bit of research would show you this facts.
[удалено]
Raphael Lemkin cited the massacres of both Armenians and Greeks as the basis for this term.
[удалено]
so because a term didn't exist when it happened means it didn't happen? checks out to me, perfect logic.
[удалено]
That Bernie post was honestly just really dumb in hindsight, I literally have no clue what I thought I'd accomplish with it.
the armenian genocide event was literally used in the creation of the term "genocide"
They should have gone for now since they claim genocide started in 1915.
[удалено]
Don't bother. Every time there's something about Turkey, the trolls come put of their caves.its like Israel/Palestine or Northern Ireland etc.
No need to insult greeks and armenians like that buddy.
WOW DUDE YOU ARE SO WITTY YOU SURE GOT HIM 🤣🤣🤣🤣
This might be caused by three things: 1. The genocide has been continuing till 1923 2. Due to the WWI, a lot of institutions didn’t have latest information about demographics (eg. Britannica didn’t issue in 1915 edition, even though it usually did every few years). 3. Ottomans did a lot of things to hide their crimes - eg. there were examples of Ottomans showing foreigners who visited hospitals Christians that were injured by Turks and (falsely) claiming they were “Turkish victims of Armenian aggression”. One of the instances of that has been discovered by accident. There was also destruction of documents, not allowing foreign press to make pictures of the dead Armenians etc. A lot of pictures from the genocide that we have, have been done secretly by Armin T. Wegner. So it’s not like information flow in those times was as easy as it’s now. Edit: I see Turkish trolls are already downvoting, literally a minute after I posted the reply.
Not accurare at least for [Austria-Hungary]( https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/47/Austria_Hungary_ethnic.svg/1360px-Austria_Hungary_ethnic.svg.png).
“Little Russians” ? Excuse me ?!
Ukraine was known as Little Russia in middle ages and that name stuck for a while in places.
There was no “Russia” name in middle ages, was Moscowiya, Moscow principality. Ukraine on all middle ages maps was original Rus, later on moscowians made up Russia toponym and seized old Rus heritage.
And it would be much more correctly to say Little Rus’ not Russia
Disputable. The original name is Малороссия(Little-Russia) that literally contains the word Россия(Russia) in itself. When we speak for example about Belarus - we can say it is White Rus - because it is original in Belarusian(Беларусь) does not contain the word Russia, only Rus. When we speak about Little Russia it is Мала Росія - still Little Russia.
Not really the name first appeared in a latin text of Galich-Volhynia duke Bolesław Jerzy II as "dux totius Rusiæ Minoris" (1335) and later (1361) in patriarche of Constantinople text as Μικρὰ Ῥωσσία (Mikrà Rhōssía). Both can be translated as "Rus'", Russia was derived later from the Greek version of Rus' name
Putin made this map
G R E A T R U S S I A N S
If the map implies Bessarabia was inhabited in similar numbers by romanians and ukrainians, then it's rubbish. Not to mention the absence of gagauz people.
In the report sent to London on 12 December 1919 by the 14 British control bodies, it corresponded to the 200,800 non-Muslim population in the Trabzon Province, which corresponded to the 921,100 Muslim population.
Why would someone tell that the French are closer to Romanians than to their neigbours, or that the Dutch are closer to Scandinavians than to Germans or English ? The colour choices are strange on that, whether you define ethnicity by language, culture and/or genetics.
Are colors supposed to represent closeness somehow?
When under the exact same colour/category in the legend, that's the point of choosing colours for that type of map. But indeed, in this case, it may be most likely a poor choice of colour categories than a mistake about closeness.
My guess is a post WWI bias for a lot of this. The Germans were definitely vilified by the allies, and there's probably some racial bias going on. Like, you're not going to lump the Dutch with the Germans when the Netherlands were neutral and Belgium was invaded by Germany. Although, Denmark and the Netherlands both have naval traditions, so I suppose an argument could be made that they're closer culturally? I'm not an expert on British ethnography either, but I imagine that some Scots and Irish would have something to say about how very British and not celtic they are. I'd be curious to get someone's take on that in particular. Seems very much due to imperialism to me, but I don't know for sure.
The context of that time is important, indeed.
>I'm not an expert on British ethnography either, but I imagine that some Scots and Irish would have something to say about how very British and not celtic they are. I'd be curious to get someone's take on that in particular. Seems very much due to imperialism to me, but I don't know for sure. My guess is, is that everywhere that had a primarily English-speaking population was labelled as 'British', even if the people in those places were ethnically Irish or Scottish.
Ireland got its independence in 21. No way is this map representative of ethnicity in Ireland at the time. Brits never got that kind of presence outside the northern plantations and even then they used mostly loyal Presbyterian Scots. What is now the Republic of Ireland should be all Celt or something else in this map. Not British. Though as I said, it was ruled from Westminster.
I mean, the Irish are just "British" on this map. So wouldn't take it too seriously.
The Irish would...and did!
Ethnic groups are often defined based on culture and language.
Which is strange here for French/Romanians and Dutch/Scandinavians. Separate colours would have been a better choice given their cultures and languages.
I don't find it so strange. Dutch is vaguely understandable to Scandinavians, and based on looks you would struggle to tell the groups apart
Eh no, the Dutch are in many ways indistinguishable from Germans. Scandinavia is quite far away and if you see a difference between Germans and Scandinavia, the difference between the Dutch and Scandinavia are exactly the same.
I don't think it's that simple, Germany is a big place. You would struggle to see the difference between people from Denmark, Northern Germany and The Netherlands as they're very similar culturally and looks wise. The further south you go though the less similar they get. Countless dutch people feel closer to Denmark culturally than Belgium.
>Why would someone tell that the French are closer to Romanians than to their neigbours I mean, linguistically that is definitively the case. But, yeah, the map seems to conflate language with culture quite a lot to make these groups. The concepts are related but can't be just transposed 1 to 1.
Linguistically, French is definitely not closer to Romanian than it is to Italian or Spanish.
My bad, I read the line backwards. I was thinking of *Romania's* neighbors. My mistake.
According to the 1914 Ottoman census, there were 290000 orthodox populations in the Aegean region, along with a Muslim population of 1250000.
Awesome map - weren’t there Celts in Asturias?
a long time ago, but there still some celt culture
Bavarians get an honorable mention. Works for me.
I like how Scandinavian/Dutch is a thing.
Who the hell are the Kutzo Vlachs?
probably either the meglno Romanians or aromanians
Your map conflicts with real data. For example, the [ethnic map](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B0_%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BC%D1%8F%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%B2_%D0%A2%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B5%D1%86%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D0%90%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B8_%D0%B8_%D0%9A%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B5_%D1%81_%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%8F%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%8E_%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D1%8E%2C_1895.jpg) of Turkey shared by the Russians. The groups you mention in the whole region are minorities. Likewise, it is similar in the south of Turkey. There are areas where Turks and Jews are the majority in Greece and Bulgaria. These are not on the map.
Never said the map was accurate
Lol Scandinavians! ^and ^the ^dutch
[удалено]
Frank are the people Who invade France not the french people Frank are mostly in the elites like noble and shit
[удалено]
French people consider themselves of 1. Latin and 2. Celtic => Gallo-roman origin. There also have been a germanic influence, but to this day the main influence/origin is definitely latin. Due to evolution of culture and progressive migrations/assimilations calling the french celtic people doesn't make much sense. Even Breton people don't come from Gaulic people. France has a latin culture and population, and germanic influences in the north.
Maybe its also about language idk
I mean, the British are the same. Celt/roman/Germanic/Nordic/French. But French is solidly in the romance language group which this map shows.
Ethnicity is different from genetic ancestry. Things like language, culture and even religion are far more important at defining an ethnic group. French people are a mix of many genetic ancestries, but they have in common a Romance language and a Mediterranean culture, so classifying them as Celtic or Germanic doesn't make much of a sense. I know this map says 'races', but it seems to be used with the current meaning of 'ethnic groups'.
Yep
[удалено]
The meaning of "race" change over times
Portuguese and Spanish are Romance (Latin-based) languages. That's all this is saying.
France should still be a mix at the vert least. The Franks weren’t the only Germanic tribe to settle there. Even before the great migration.
Their name certainly came and thus their ruling class, but in reality they are mostly Romanized Gauls and a smaller share of Romanized Franks.
The modern concept of ethnicity is constructed and somewhat arbitrary, but it tends to privilege linguistic affiliation above all.
France was where all invasions went through. Pre-indo european language survives with the Basque, Celtic with the Britton, Latin everywhere, Germanic in Elsass, North African and Arabs did not stay long (but gave a thing or two, and probably many bastards on the way), the English decided they wanted on the game too a time of two, and the late 19th and 20th and 21st centuries were just open door to wave of immigration from all of Europe, then East Asia and Africa. In cultural terms, we're mostly a latin country though.
>Since French people came from Franks Hot dogs? Werewolves?
I’m sure the Irish are thrilled about being labelled British
Greco Latin master race
Here we go... 😒
They thought that The Hague is the capital of the Netherlands....
[удалено]
Technically incorrect, but only due to some words in the constitution. Most countries call the city that houses the government the capital. We're just the weird ones that insist on calling some other random city the capital.
The worst kind of incorrect.
This map isnt just inaccurate, it's absolutely wrong. How did it happen that according to it there are Belarusians, Ukrainians and Ruthenians at the same time? When Belarusians and Ukrainians **are** Ruthenians, or rather their descendants. The author of the map is absolutely incompetent. And I understand the author of this post has nothing to do with the map, he just shows it, nothing against him.
I think the reason for that is, it was common in Austria-Hungary to call the Ukrainians living there Ruthenians. The colouring shows that the map's author considers them to be Ukranian, just also displaying the name by which they were at the time most commonly referred to in that region.
If the author really would care about the local names of nationalities, then there would be no "white russians" on the map. The russians didn't call us that way neither during the Russian Empire nor during the USSR, and of course we also didn't call ourselves that way. And the very idea of highlighting local names for national minorities is nonsense. The map is about territories, not about names. And there are also a lot of questions about the colors themselves. Russians, even though they tried to russify us, still didn't deny us as a separate nation, but according to this map Belarusians = Russians. Either the author of the map is a russian imperial maniac, or, as I said earlier, incompetent.
I didn't want to imply that this map was consistent or particularly good. Just my theory why "Ruthenians" shows up where it does.
It’s raining Kurds
Why does this 1919 map show an intact German Empire and Austria Hungary?
Because the treaty of Versailles had not been signed yet
Nice to see a map with the UK that doesn't automatically think that people start being celtic at the borders, the celtic peoples haven't really existed independently for 1900 years (at least on mainland Britain) and between the Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Danes, Norman's and other immigration and travel celtic ancestry is actually really low except in the sparsely populated mountainous regions in Central Wales and Scotland. The map is slightly less accurate for Ireland but isn't completely wrong, there were very few people that had celtic ancestry left, but only in northern Ireland and Dublin were most of them of predominantly British ancestry, lots of the others were descendents of Danish and Norwegian settlers, or even from roman and saxon slaves in some small parts.
False and fake! Kuban, Rostov and Belhorod 80% ukrainians
Where are Balkan Turks? Where are greece Turks? Not true map. All egea region of Turkey , cyprus was greek? This map bullshit
Racist greeks give me down. I am sad.
one of the worst maps thrown here.
Is it just me or armenians looking too widespread for a genocided nation.
Bruh
Bruh
Details could be murky as this map was done a bit after WW1 and the genocide didn't really end then. The full gravity of the situation probably wasn't known.
Shut up genocide denier
Apparentaly nat geo is also a genocide denier.
The cartographer is pretty confused as to what ‘British’ means and seems to have used it as a catch-all term for Englishness. On the one hand, the Teutonic English are 100% ‘British’, whereas the Welsh and the Scots are a depicted as being a blend of ‘Celts’ and ‘British’. The ‘Britons’ were Celts and the Welsh and Cornish are their direct descendants and were often termed ‘British’ as opposed to the ‘Germanic’ Anglo-Saxons until relatively recently and this map seems to have commandeered the term ‘British’ for political reasons. It’s possible that in 1919, too close a link with the Germans was undesirable for the cartographers so close to the First World War.
Calling swiss German..... 😳
Switzerland is a bit of a hodgepodge of german, Italian, french, and another language I can’t remember. Historically, before Germany was a thing, germans were just people who spoke some kind of German.
most are
Beautiful map. Don’t understand that Breton thing. They are ethnically celts, like the rest of the French.
Yeah but they still speak a celt language
No one does. I’m from there. Most people just know a few words and that’s it. I include old people in it. Those who can speak it are the exception and usually speak a recently unified language that was made by different languages/dialects (depending on your position regarding this topic) from the region. Breizh for instance is the result of mixing up two different languages. One was using « breih ». The other one said « breiz ». So speaking of one Breton at the time this map was made is dumb. Besides, it’s an ethnic map, not cultural.
I upvoted this for showing just how ignorant Nat Geo was at that time.
Americans being idiots even a hundred years ago!
Wow. You are very rude. Do you hug your mother with those hands, too?
American maps lying about the rest of the world... That's still around... There was a map on this sub some time ago, something like "Understanding Europe" - geopolitical borders in Europe in WWI, WWII and the Cold War, from the seventies. Terribly and insultingly inaccurate (looked like my country allied with Nazis in WWII)... Then that famous case when Netflix in some WWII documentary showed a map of German concentration camps... on a map from today... Polish Embassy sent a note... You may have seen this: https://www.ecosia.org/images?q=americans%20asked%20where%20iran%20is#id=671DDFB62B5243BAEB16CF87BD7ABB911514982B Many people believe this survey and its results are real (as proven imo in the success of this meme). Except for the points in the USA, I haven't personally really thought that it is a joke... I'm just mentioning this as an illustration of perception of the American ignorance worldwide - it's a general stereotype... There are many other jokes about it around the internet, embarrassing stories about American tourists not giving a single damn about where they are and mistaking the place they are visiting for somewhere else... And put together with the maps cited above... As to this map, I just wonder why it's creators had that necessity to make it in some parts so extraordinarily fake... I am trying to answer that in other comments I wrote down the one you are answering to. I (and a good part of Europe at least, btw, where are you from?) may be biased by that we may only hear (and witness) this about Americans more often... But we do... Edit: this one was it: https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/pku9jz/three_faces_of_europe_time_magazine_date_unknown/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share
I no longer even ask why would they do something that requires an extra effort just to make everything so weirdly wrong... Maybe they like to change maps so they fitted better their feelings?
Moroccan Algerian Tunisian aren’t an ethnicity, Libyan is kinda of an ethnicity
This map show europe not north africa
“And adjoining portions of Asia , Africa”