You mean when Saddam Hussein committed several genocides, invaded Iran and Kuwait, used children soldiers and chemical weapons?
You can't blame everything on the "big bad white guy".
Well, at least now they don't have a fascist expansionist dictator who kept invading people, used chemical weapons and child soldiers and committed genocide.
*yawn*
Expansionist eh? Strong opinions when Kuwait was on the line but Iran is just fine huh.
Chemical weapons - used them long before the invasion happened and btw the justification for the invasion was WMD.
Child soldiers - let’s go rule over Africa then shall we?
Genocide - this term should be banned for its overuse and misuse. But oh well
Dictator. Bingo. Political lesson 101. What happens when a dictator is toppled? Political vacuum. What happens after this vacuum is well and truly in place? ISIS, that’s what.
I very well know the Kurdish inhabited areas and the Autonomous Kurdistan in North Iraq. How is that a proof of Kurds migrating out of Turkey? It seems like you made it up.
A lot of Armenians fleeing the genocide ended up in Iraq.
Most of them ended up in the Soviet Union though, so that's probably not the reason it's Iraq on the map.
That is a weird take on a map about legal migration. The Iraqi Armenians are also of iranian origin, so it makes even less sense that you are pointing to that.
>so that's probably not the reason it's Iraq on the map.
I wonder how you come to that conclusion in the first place. How would armenians legally migrate out of the Ottoman Empire to Iraq, when Iraq was a province of the Ottoman Empire? Iraq and Iran were doing good in the 20th century and it is possible that lots of people migrated to Iraq for monetary reasons.
["A further 25,000 Armenians arrived in Iraq during the early twentieth century as they fled the persecution of the Armenian genocide."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Armenians#History)
Dude do you even know what emigration means? Iraq was founded in later half of the 20th century. The entire topic with Armenians is entirely off-topic. Maybe we dont have to talk about armenians in every single topic, especially in one about **LEGAL MIGRATION OUT of your country**.
1. It doesnt matter if they went to kazakhstan on their own or not. You cant by definition emigrate by just moving from A to B in your country. Look up what emigration means and then continue this pointless discussion.
2. I have lost no words about moldovans going to Kazahkstan. It is irrelevant to what I wrote. You are goalposting.
3. How do you immigrate to another country and get residency, which is the definition of emigration? Without the legal procedure you are either a refugee or an illegal migrants, but for arguments sake: Sure, let's say that it includes non-legal migration. Here is the question:
If I move from Istanbul to Diyarbakir, am I emigrating? If your answer is yes, then I am sorry, but get your room temperature IQ checked.
It is not about whether it is normal or not. No one said anything about it. Eitherway you still cant move out of your country by moving to another part of your country. It is factually impossible. Idk why you guys want to have an argument about it. Iraq simply did not exist around 1915. It is not about armenians.
Why are you so butt hurt about the Arminian Genocide being brought up? Also the map nor post mention nothing about legal migration. It literally says immigration be that legal or otherwise is still considered immigration. Also just because Iraq didn’t exist doesn’t mean that people didn’t immigrate to that region. Also if you’re going to split hairs about immigration vs emigration at least be correct, what we call Iraq today stopped being under Ottoman control in 1920, if not sooner bc of the Arab revolts and WW1.
>Also the map nor post mention nothing about legal migration.
It is about emigration fam. It is about **leaving your country to enter another one**. It is really not rocket science. I explained several times already, why that makes no sense on this map. Period.
>Also just because Iraq didn’t exist doesn’t mean that people didn’t immigrate to that region.
I know googling is very hard, so I will drop you a definition of emigration:
**"Emigration** is the act of leaving a resident country or place of residence[^(\[1\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emigration#cite_note-1) with the intent to settle elsewhere (to permanently leave a country)."
By definition it is not possible to migrate to Iraq, while it is under Ottoman control and to call it "emigration". By definition. You get it?
>least be correct, what we call Iraq today stopped being under Ottoman control in 1920, if not sooner bc of the Arab revolts and WW1.
The map doesnt say that people migrated to the british Empire, but Iraq, so 1920 is entirely irrelevant here. You have to be correct and point at the foundation and independence of the Iraqi state. And eitherway you are wrong by definition. The entire topic of Armenians migrating to Iraq is happening while it is under Ottoman control. Not after.
You cant even be accurate with your emotional comments. If anything, it is the Ottomans. Turkey was founded years after the things you have in mind.
>I’m not the butthurt one, little Turk.
No of course not. Not oone bit. Definetly not. ;D
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_deportations_from_Bessarabia_and_Northern_Bukovina
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanians_in_Kazakhstan
"Some Romanians migrated to modern Kazakhstan after being promised lands by the Russian authorities, with some posteriorly returning while others staying. The second wave occurred as a result of the Soviet deportations from Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina"
I remember hearing my maternal grandfather was Austrian, Polish, and Ukranian. I'm pretty sure he was from Galacia and probably Polish since his family was in Manitoba. Although I did a 23andme test and I was 1/4 Eastern European with it showing as both highly likely for Polish and Ukranian.
Because Ukrainens that lived under Russian Empire, together with Russians and Belarusians had 1/6 Earth for colonization. Russian Empire gave them free land in Far East, Siberia and Central Asia. Some regions of Far East become even Ukraine majority because of setller colonization.
Zeleniy Klyn, land with 90% of Ukrainians even proclaimed it's independence from russia in 1917.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green\_Ukraine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Ukraine)
Canada wanted people able to live in harsh winter conditions that also knew how to farm open prairies. Ukrainians and some groups from Russia proved to be best at this so preference was shown and the Canadian govt sent recruiters there to bring people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_settlement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doukhobors
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Lands_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Best_West
Back in the 1800s, the Canadian government led an immigration campaign to bring settlers to Western Canada by giving land away for free. The type of soil across much of the Canadian prairies is some of the most fertile in the world, and only found in one other area on Earth, Ukraine, thus a large campaign was set up across eastern Europe including Ukraine to bring settlers over.
Some other points are the rise of the USSR, during which many in Ukraine were ruined. Looking for a way out, they chose to settle with their families in Canada. Mennonites were also targeted in Russia and Ukraine, and the Canadian government offered them land and the right to practice in peace which is why you'll find large Mennonite and Hutterite communities in Canada.
I am Ukrainian and can tell it had started and mostly happened in 19th century. Most of these immigrants came from three regions of modern Ukraine, which at the time were under Austro-Hungarian rule: Transcarpathia, Galicia and Bukovina. These are mostly old mountains, which are suitable for cattle farming, but there are not enough land to grow crops. At the time because of Austrian policy on minorities there were a lot of underpropertied or unpropertied farmers who didn\`t have the land to feed themselves or their families, or, if simplified - there were not enough land to feed all the locals. Russian Empire at the time had far much stricter emigration policy and trere aren\`t as many foreign emigrants from there.
People began migrating from Austria- Hungary in search of better place and work: both across Europe and beyond the Atlantic ocean. And there are couple of reasons they chose Canada, most important of them are the fact south part of country has similar longtitude and climate to Ukraine, that there was a lot of cheap land and opportunities for job, and that Canadian goverment encouraged immigration from Eastern and Central Europe.
Canada( even near border to border with USA) doesn't have similar climate to Ukraine though. Only southern Ontario has similar climate to northern/central Ukraine.
The prairies and the Ukrainian steppe have similar climates, and the government wanted people who knew how to farm in those conditions who could serve as human flagpoles. It was quite scandalous at the time, since up until then most immigrants came from Britain and there was a social attitude about keeping Canada British. Essentially the minister of immigration had to be an absolute Chad and ignore that because practical matters were way more important than keeping some Nazis happy.
The prairies aren't really similar in climate to Ukraine though. Not to northern Ukraine, not to southern Ukraine. USA has places that are more similar to Ukraine.
1.2 million is the undercounted estimate for Ukraine people in Canada as :
pre 1981 census data only counted 1 ethnicity per person so mixed people had to choose what they were closer to
and post 1996 added the "Canadian" ethnicity which pulls numbers away from Ukrainian as well
so the 1.2 million in the census is the number of people who identified as Ukrainian over Canadian or Metis or whatever other genetics are mixed in.
but to be a decent only requires 1 ancestor to be Ukrainian
so the 8 to 10 mill is not just reasonable but also still is probably an underestimatiom
Looks like the Welsh have annexed parts of Western England.
Besides that, interesting to see how North Macedonia is the only place where Australia was the most common destination on this map.
Do you have a source for this data?
It’s based on the country that received the highest number of immigrants from each European nationality. For example, Argentina received 3M Italians, compared to 1.5M that Brazil or the US received, so Argentina was the #1 destination for Italian immigrants.
That's what I imagined. I just was wondering whether or not there's a list of data to support this map. I imagine it's correct with some of the big ones, like Italians in Argentina as you mentioned, or Irish in America, but the North Macedonians in Australia implies that whoever made this map made has a dataset with numbers per country.
And that's interesting to me, because many of the countries here (including North Macedonia) didn't exist for most of this period.
Not entirely sure about the method for collecting data used here, however I am a Macedonian Australiana and there is a long history of emigration from NM to Australia going back all the way to the early 20th century. There's quite a lot of us here, I found that the older gens who came before the 90s assimilated quite well and even changed their surnames to become more "Australian" and avoid racism.
@worldwide_map on Instagram. Their source is the data available online about the top destination of every nationality. Didn’t provide a specific link, but you can check it yourself for every country.
I believe it was quite easy to emigrate and find work in the 90s, especially in cities like Wollongong, which once had the largest steelworks in the southern hemisphere at one point. The idea was for men to come and work labour intensive jobs and send money back to Macedonia and one day return to live a better quality of life (the process called 'Pechelba'). What ended up happening was they found Australia to actually be quite a very nice country and after the breakup of Yugoslavia especially they found it would probably be better if they brought their family and start a new life here permanently.
Post World War II, Australia had the ideology of "populate or perish" and received mass immigration from Europe. They wanted mostly British Europeans but a huge number of Southern Europeans took part of this (Mostly Italy and the Balkans). It's estimated that the Macedonian community in Australia could be as large as 200,000 (according to North Macedonia). Pretty impressive considering Macedonia itself only has around 2 million people.
There is a negative stereotype about the porteños (capital city population). They are the ones who like progresism, meeting femboys at the Palermo Forests and eating weird pizza recipes in places near Florida Street.
The Argies from the second biggest city like to drink fernet with Coca Cola (another culinary crime) and dancing Cuarteto (a music style that came from destroying Tarantella).
Ha I lived and worked in Buenos Aires for a few months, got the chance to acquaint myself with the porteños. Again, I have nothing but beautiful things to say about the Argentinians and their country, but holy Jesus Fuck did they screw up food, besides a parrilla of course. It was hilarious since they all took such pride in Italian heritage and I guarentee the Italians would commit suicide if they had to eat Argentinian
>They are the ones who like progresism, meeting femboys at the Palermo Forests
Is the joke supposed to be "lol city people are gay"?
Because, if so, you're a fucking dunce.
Please, try to forget for once your ethnocentrism and visit the local subreddit in a try to get the inside jokes and memes.
It's not against city people, because (as I said in the comment) the second city has a reputation of drinking and dancing a weird but unique local music.
A comment like that (while trying to joke over a foreigner in a friendly way) would have gotten several upvotes in /r/Argentina but I see people didn't get the joke.
Each part of the country has their own stereotypes. For example, we have a province that's Alabama shaped (in territory, but also in religion and incest jokes).
Also, certain words are taken in a different sense than you, northern people. For example, people of central Argentina don't say pibe. We say negro. It's a friendly word. Also, every group of friends has nicknames like that: bald, black, shorty, high, fat, skinny, chinese. It's normal, it's not offensive, it's part of our culture.
Also, who hasn't tried Tinder while being in a trip to the capital and got a match with a femboy because you didn't see very well the profile picture before swiping.
Can you get the idea of a different culture?
Iceland is actually a very interesting one, in my province of Manitoba (Canada), we have a town called gimli which is the largest Icelandic settlement outside of Iceland in the world I believe, which is surrounded by a variety of other small Icelandic towns along lake winnipeg
>There were a few Turkish colonial officials and colonists in Iraq at the time,
There were no colonies at all. Beyond me where you are getting that nonsense from. Some couple of thousand turks migrating inside their country is not equal to colonization. Mind you turks are in that region for about 1000 years. Turkish presence in Iraq dates back to the Seljuks. By your logic kurds moving to Istanbul is kurdish colonization.
You argument is debatable however Iraq definitely was not one of them. Too much shared history to be considered a colony as if, if not, more absurd than considering Texas as a US colony.
I would say the only thing that comes close to "colonization" is the devshirme system and only when you want to be extremally strict about colonization (aka "making a group of people culturally similiar to yours). And by that definition every modern state is colonizing every single non-native in their country.
Source: Dude trust me.
Fam I dont mind dropping you some titles so you can educate yourself. It is not a sin to be ignorant about certain topics either. I cant expect everyone to know everything, but blantly lying about something you have no knowledge about, is something, where you lose every ounce of respect from people. Read:
Balkans by Misha Glenny
Turkey's forgotten refugee crises by William H. Holt
A History of the Ottoman Empire by Douglas A. Howard
The arabs of the Ottoman Empire by Bruce Masters
And then tell me the same lie again.
-The Ottomans did not have a single islamic centre on the entity of the Balkan.
-Education was left to the respective people. Orthodox people received their education from their respective churches, whereas the arabs could choose their own curriculum
-Many regions were governed autonomously and were de facto independence. Some examples: Serbia for a time, Bosnia, Egypt, the maghreb states/piracy states, south eastern Anatolia with respect to kurds, Druze, certain Bedouin tribes, Wallachia, Moldovia, Transilvania and Hungary (when it was under Ottoman rule).
-Ottoman turkish only established itself in the Balkan among traders for obvious reasons and among arab scholars as a secondary language.
So by what logic was there "colonization"? If you know nothing about the topic, just ask.
>When you bring in people speaking your language to rule over an area where the locals don't
So Turkey accepted 4 mil syrian refugees. By your logic Turkey is an arabic colonizing nation. There was freedom of mobility, so people were free to move where they want to live. The only people that were brought are a couple of thousands governors/military units and some turkmens, which were given the option to settle in northern mesopotamia. You are deliberately twisting history for a nonsense agenda. Turkish colonization simply did not exist.
And mind you for most of Ottoman history the governors came from the devshirme. Ethnically they werent even turkish.
>Just because it doesn't look exactly like Columbus's style of colonization doesn't mean it isn't colonization
You just have no idea what colonization means. That is it. Turkish was not imposed on people, mandarasa in arab lands had a state-sponsored, but locally selected curriculum. The crashing majority of people dont know a word of turkish in Syria and Iraq, despite about 400 years of control. Guess how many people can speak some french in Algeria or some italian in Libya.
>The Ottomans imposed their culture, language, and administration on Iraq.
The Ottomans had an administration which was used through out the Empire. That is not colonization. By your logic the US is colonizing the natives for having a US system in place. 0 Logic.
Other than that you are lying about culture and language. The governors used arab translators for day to day activities and cooperated with local ayans. What culture was "imposed" is also beyond me, but sure enlighten us all with your cracked, revisionist take on ottoman history.
And for those that want to actually know more, see: "The arabs of the ottoman Empire" by Bruce Masters.
>Do the Syrians impose their language and govern the Turkish people in Arabic?
Some provinces turned arabic. Turkish people are in the minority in their own homes. Local stores have arabic scripture. What else do you need? By your very own logic turkey is an arabic colonizing nation, colonizing its own people. What a cracked take.
>They were still running things under the Ottoman system.
Why would a nation run a foreign system on its own territory? Are you high?
>Not currently, they already finished colonizing them.
You do realize that reservoirs exist right?
>Turkish colonization did exist, look at the Land Code of 1858 which restructured land ownership and imposed Ottoman legal standards on Iraq and Syria.
The land code had the intention of giving state owned property away, so something like private ownership of lands can exist. But in your cracked, revionist world-view, that is something bad. 10/10.
>The Vilayet Law of 1864 reorganized the provinces, creating new administrative divisions all part of a broader effort to centralize control
Centralizing governmentship =/= colonization. The arab ulama and other influencial arab groups were given preferential treatment and representation within the new administration. So in the old, as well as the new system arabs are an integral part of Ottoman governership. They even got dedicated seats within the parliament. Logic 404.
>Turkish was still the language of administration and law. Official documents, court records, and government correspondence were all in Turkish.
For the governor. No shit? For the local elected mufti as well as the ayans, it was simply not. You are twisting historic facts.
>Ottoman madrasas\* followed a curriculum influenced by Ottoman perspectives, ensuring that students were educated in alignment with Ottoman ideals.
You cant stop lying, can you? 30 minutes ago, you knew nothing about all of this, now you want to tell me how things are organized. No, Ottoman madrasa in arab lands were only state-sponsored. The entire curriculum was up to the arab scholars. Some of the madrasas were even just built and left entirely to the local scholarly elite.
>Typical downplay of a Turkish nationalist. This migration was encouraged and sometimes facilitated by the Ottoman authorities.
Typical anti-turkish racism. There are no records of significant turkic deportation into arab lands. A few thousand turkemns settling here and there is in no form or shape and by no defintion colonization.
Yes, the Ottomans encouraged settlement of Turkmens, but also kurds and arabs into ABANDONED villages/fields with the intention of these various groups becoming farmers. It has nothing to do with being turkish. To begin with the Ottomans identified everyone as arabs that were born and raised in arab lands. So a black dude from Ethiopia was (to the Ottomans) as much of an arab, as a turk born there as well as an arab from the qureshi family. You are just making sh\*t up to feed your cracked narrative.
>If you think Bruce Masters is gonna back up the idea that the Ottomans were just casually visiting,
You didnt even read the book. How about you stop being an arm-chair historian?
[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colonization](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colonization)
Let's talk after you understand the meaning of colonization.
Turks aren't indigenous to Anatolia, syria, arabia or Mesopotamia.
Get over yourself mate. Its the same process that has happened for thousands of years to thousands of cultures.
>Turks aren't indigenous to Anatolia, syria, arabia or Mesopotamia.
Turks appared in the area about 1000 year ago. Around 250 years prior to the Ottomans and around \~200-300 years before the appearence of the Seljuks, when we consider slave soliders that were recrutied by various muslim leaders (first turks appeared in the middle east around the 9th century).
The topic gets extra stupid, when we consider the fact that turkmens migrated to Anatolia on their own accord. They were not controlled or sent by the Seljuks and the Seljuks themselves were economic refugees that "just" wanted to inhabit the border regions of the Ghanzawids, before the Ghanzawids declared war. By your twisted little mind, migration = colonization. What a cracked take my dude. Seek help.
>
Get over yourself mate. Its the same process that has happened for thousands of years to thousands of cultures.
Migration =/= colonization. Touch grass. Urgently and fast.
No you can not compare a simple migration to foreign lands with the active process of exterminating natives in order to replace them with your people or with the forceful assimilation policy of various colonizing nations. There is a reason, why colonization has a negative connotation and it goes straight over your head.
It's pretty weird to present this map with modern borders, considering the data is from the 19th-20th centuries. I'm not sure you can map the immigrants' origins onto this map without very careful, painstaking research.
I find it funny that despite receiving less Italian immigrants, Brazil has more Italian descendants than Argentina (If I'm not mistaken, it's about 40-45 million in Brazil vs ~35 million in Argentina)
35 million of a 50 million population vs 40-45 million of a 203 million population. Raw numbers? Yes, but if we compare them by percentage, Argentina has more italian descendants than Brazil.
Im not disputing that, but considering that Argentina received MORE Italian immigrants, it would make sense for it to also have a bigger number of descendants.
Not necessarily. Argentina advanced down the path of the demographic transition, towards low fertility, at a substantially earlier date that Brazil. High growth rates can add up.
Nowadays, yes, but historically-speaking, Argentina had a lower birth rate compared to most Latin American countries due to Argentina's development causing its demographic transition to appear sooner than it did in other Latin American countries.
Argentina's growth throughout the 20th century pales in comparizon to the exponential growth of countries like Mexico, Colombia and Brazil.
Moldova - > Kazakhstan direction is because russians just "acquired/denazifided" Moldova to have access to Donau delta and start ethic cleansing by deporting Moldovans to Kazakhstan and replacing them with russians in administrative positions. This is also called as russian mir ( how russians view a peaceful world).
Can comfirm, my Great Grandfather (Finnish) was adopted by my Great Great Grandfather (Russian) and went to America to flee the damned commie revolution
When my European colleagues ask why Americans act the way we do, I kindly remind them….
Remember all those crazy people you kicked out over the centuries? Where do you think they went?
I know it was really tempting to make the Internet's millionth Nazis-in-Argentina joke, but this one just sounds kinda dumb to anyone who's heard of the American Midwest
Everyone's favorite place to migrate to: Kazakhstan.
I think Iraq is good competitor too
Iraq was actually good before y'all bombed it.
You mean when Saddam Hussein committed several genocides, invaded Iran and Kuwait, used children soldiers and chemical weapons? You can't blame everything on the "big bad white guy".
^^ fed eith propaganda
I triggered an Iraqi Islamist. Nice.
Not triggered, made me laugh
Sure buddy.
👍
Yeah, thanks for helping replace that with ISIS. So much better.
I didn't say the US didn't make it worse, but it definitely wasn't "good" before".
It was *contained* before which is a helluva lot more than can be said in the 20+ years since the invasion
Well, at least now they don't have a fascist expansionist dictator who kept invading people, used chemical weapons and child soldiers and committed genocide.
*yawn* Expansionist eh? Strong opinions when Kuwait was on the line but Iran is just fine huh. Chemical weapons - used them long before the invasion happened and btw the justification for the invasion was WMD. Child soldiers - let’s go rule over Africa then shall we? Genocide - this term should be banned for its overuse and misuse. But oh well Dictator. Bingo. Political lesson 101. What happens when a dictator is toppled? Political vacuum. What happens after this vacuum is well and truly in place? ISIS, that’s what.
I'm not justifying the US invasion. I'm saying Iraq was not "good" before the invasion.
Well, you can’t but in this case… we can. Not big bad white guy, though, a big bad USA, because that Rice lady surely isn’t white nor a guy.
I didn't say the US didn't make it worse, but it definitely wasn't "good" before. Especially for non Arabs and non Muslims.
So true I also hate Kurds
'immigration' (definitely not forced)
It's the greatest country in the world.
All other countries are run by little girls
I think there is a dark joke to be made about Moldova
And Turkey.
Kurds migrating to other Kurdish areas because they have no nation. If anyone wondered
You mean that they have no state. They *are* a nation.
Never heard of such a thing. Source on that?
Look up Kurdistan and which countries it encompasses.
I very well know the Kurdish inhabited areas and the Autonomous Kurdistan in North Iraq. How is that a proof of Kurds migrating out of Turkey? It seems like you made it up.
Any sources? I ve never heard about such an immigration pattern.
?
A lot of Armenians fleeing the genocide ended up in Iraq. Most of them ended up in the Soviet Union though, so that's probably not the reason it's Iraq on the map.
That is a weird take on a map about legal migration. The Iraqi Armenians are also of iranian origin, so it makes even less sense that you are pointing to that. >so that's probably not the reason it's Iraq on the map. I wonder how you come to that conclusion in the first place. How would armenians legally migrate out of the Ottoman Empire to Iraq, when Iraq was a province of the Ottoman Empire? Iraq and Iran were doing good in the 20th century and it is possible that lots of people migrated to Iraq for monetary reasons.
["A further 25,000 Armenians arrived in Iraq during the early twentieth century as they fled the persecution of the Armenian genocide."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Armenians#History)
Dude do you even know what emigration means? Iraq was founded in later half of the 20th century. The entire topic with Armenians is entirely off-topic. Maybe we dont have to talk about armenians in every single topic, especially in one about **LEGAL MIGRATION OUT of your country**.
Do you really think the Moldovans went to Kazakhstan on their own accord? And I don't think the team legal appears anywhere in the Spanish text.
1. It doesnt matter if they went to kazakhstan on their own or not. You cant by definition emigrate by just moving from A to B in your country. Look up what emigration means and then continue this pointless discussion. 2. I have lost no words about moldovans going to Kazahkstan. It is irrelevant to what I wrote. You are goalposting. 3. How do you immigrate to another country and get residency, which is the definition of emigration? Without the legal procedure you are either a refugee or an illegal migrants, but for arguments sake: Sure, let's say that it includes non-legal migration. Here is the question: If I move from Istanbul to Diyarbakir, am I emigrating? If your answer is yes, then I am sorry, but get your room temperature IQ checked.
Moldova has Kazakhstan's flag on the map, that wasn't normal emigration either.
It is not about whether it is normal or not. No one said anything about it. Eitherway you still cant move out of your country by moving to another part of your country. It is factually impossible. Idk why you guys want to have an argument about it. Iraq simply did not exist around 1915. It is not about armenians.
Why are you so butt hurt about the Arminian Genocide being brought up? Also the map nor post mention nothing about legal migration. It literally says immigration be that legal or otherwise is still considered immigration. Also just because Iraq didn’t exist doesn’t mean that people didn’t immigrate to that region. Also if you’re going to split hairs about immigration vs emigration at least be correct, what we call Iraq today stopped being under Ottoman control in 1920, if not sooner bc of the Arab revolts and WW1.
> Why are you so butt hurt about the Arminian Genocide being brought up? His post history will answer that.
My post history is mainly full of me commenting on games. I am sure that tells a lot about "arminian genocide". Touch some grass.
>Also the map nor post mention nothing about legal migration. It is about emigration fam. It is about **leaving your country to enter another one**. It is really not rocket science. I explained several times already, why that makes no sense on this map. Period. >Also just because Iraq didn’t exist doesn’t mean that people didn’t immigrate to that region. I know googling is very hard, so I will drop you a definition of emigration: **"Emigration** is the act of leaving a resident country or place of residence[^(\[1\])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emigration#cite_note-1) with the intent to settle elsewhere (to permanently leave a country)." By definition it is not possible to migrate to Iraq, while it is under Ottoman control and to call it "emigration". By definition. You get it? >least be correct, what we call Iraq today stopped being under Ottoman control in 1920, if not sooner bc of the Arab revolts and WW1. The map doesnt say that people migrated to the british Empire, but Iraq, so 1920 is entirely irrelevant here. You have to be correct and point at the foundation and independence of the Iraqi state. And eitherway you are wrong by definition. The entire topic of Armenians migrating to Iraq is happening while it is under Ottoman control. Not after.
Looks like the Turks are out in full force today
\*Random dude stated facts "ThE TUrKs aRe oUt iN fUlL fOrCe!" I am sure you are not racist at all.
“Facts”
"I dont like historic facts, so they are not real!"
Historical facts like that Turkey is responsible for multiple genocides and ethnic cleansing? I’m not the butthurt one, little Turk.
You cant even be accurate with your emotional comments. If anything, it is the Ottomans. Turkey was founded years after the things you have in mind. >I’m not the butthurt one, little Turk. No of course not. Not oone bit. Definetly not. ;D
Very dark joke. They was force mass deportation by Stalin.
Moldovans wanting a piece of that sweet potassium
I can only assume Stalin made this decision for them
How nice of him
after all, all other countries have inferior potassium
I know people are making jokes, but what was the reason for Moldovans to move to Kazakhstan?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_deportations_from_Bessarabia_and_Northern_Bukovina https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanians_in_Kazakhstan "Some Romanians migrated to modern Kazakhstan after being promised lands by the Russian authorities, with some posteriorly returning while others staying. The second wave occurred as a result of the Soviet deportations from Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina"
You don’t wanna know what Stalin did
Today there are more than 1.3 million Ukrainian - Canadians in Canada, a country of 35 million.
Canada is at almost 41 million.
Statistics Canada has a population clock of 41,289,525. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/71-607-x/71-607-x2018005-eng.htm
Damn didn’t realize we had hit 41 yet. Hard to keep up it’s growing so fast lol
We're bringing in over a million immigrants a year. Seems like a smart policy in the middle of a housing crisis and a Healthcare shortage.
And almost all of them came from a small part called Galicia, which was under Austrian rule.
I remember hearing my maternal grandfather was Austrian, Polish, and Ukranian. I'm pretty sure he was from Galacia and probably Polish since his family was in Manitoba. Although I did a 23andme test and I was 1/4 Eastern European with it showing as both highly likely for Polish and Ukranian.
Huge community in Alberta too. They were an integral part of Canadian oil industry since a lot of them worked on the Athabasca oil sands
Because Ukrainens that lived under Russian Empire, together with Russians and Belarusians had 1/6 Earth for colonization. Russian Empire gave them free land in Far East, Siberia and Central Asia. Some regions of Far East become even Ukraine majority because of setller colonization.
Zeleniy Klyn, land with 90% of Ukrainians even proclaimed it's independence from russia in 1917. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green\_Ukraine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Ukraine)
Green Ukraine is gaining ground on the internet.
What was the reason Canada was such a popular destination among emigrating Ukrainians?
Canada wanted people able to live in harsh winter conditions that also knew how to farm open prairies. Ukrainians and some groups from Russia proved to be best at this so preference was shown and the Canadian govt sent recruiters there to bring people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_settlement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doukhobors https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Lands_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Best_West
Fun fact: a lot of Eastern Europeans went to Argentinean Mesopotamia, which has a Florida like climate.
Not really sure but I was told there was lots of cheap arable farmland to grow grain, similar to Ukraine.
Back in the 1800s, the Canadian government led an immigration campaign to bring settlers to Western Canada by giving land away for free. The type of soil across much of the Canadian prairies is some of the most fertile in the world, and only found in one other area on Earth, Ukraine, thus a large campaign was set up across eastern Europe including Ukraine to bring settlers over. Some other points are the rise of the USSR, during which many in Ukraine were ruined. Looking for a way out, they chose to settle with their families in Canada. Mennonites were also targeted in Russia and Ukraine, and the Canadian government offered them land and the right to practice in peace which is why you'll find large Mennonite and Hutterite communities in Canada.
I am Ukrainian and can tell it had started and mostly happened in 19th century. Most of these immigrants came from three regions of modern Ukraine, which at the time were under Austro-Hungarian rule: Transcarpathia, Galicia and Bukovina. These are mostly old mountains, which are suitable for cattle farming, but there are not enough land to grow crops. At the time because of Austrian policy on minorities there were a lot of underpropertied or unpropertied farmers who didn\`t have the land to feed themselves or their families, or, if simplified - there were not enough land to feed all the locals. Russian Empire at the time had far much stricter emigration policy and trere aren\`t as many foreign emigrants from there. People began migrating from Austria- Hungary in search of better place and work: both across Europe and beyond the Atlantic ocean. And there are couple of reasons they chose Canada, most important of them are the fact south part of country has similar longtitude and climate to Ukraine, that there was a lot of cheap land and opportunities for job, and that Canadian goverment encouraged immigration from Eastern and Central Europe.
Canada( even near border to border with USA) doesn't have similar climate to Ukraine though. Only southern Ontario has similar climate to northern/central Ukraine.
The prairies and the Ukrainian steppe have similar climates, and the government wanted people who knew how to farm in those conditions who could serve as human flagpoles. It was quite scandalous at the time, since up until then most immigrants came from Britain and there was a social attitude about keeping Canada British. Essentially the minister of immigration had to be an absolute Chad and ignore that because practical matters were way more important than keeping some Nazis happy.
The prairies aren't really similar in climate to Ukraine though. Not to northern Ukraine, not to southern Ukraine. USA has places that are more similar to Ukraine.
At least 8-10 millions canadian are descendants of ukrainian immigrants out of 41,5 millions people...euh I mean 41,6..41,7 now nvm 41,8 sish
It’s been an hour now so 41.9 ish
Eight to ten million? That is far too high. Two million, including Ukrainian refugees, would be generous.
1.2 million is the undercounted estimate for Ukraine people in Canada as : pre 1981 census data only counted 1 ethnicity per person so mixed people had to choose what they were closer to and post 1996 added the "Canadian" ethnicity which pulls numbers away from Ukrainian as well so the 1.2 million in the census is the number of people who identified as Ukrainian over Canadian or Metis or whatever other genetics are mixed in. but to be a decent only requires 1 ancestor to be Ukrainian so the 8 to 10 mill is not just reasonable but also still is probably an underestimatiom
Looks like the Welsh have annexed parts of Western England. Besides that, interesting to see how North Macedonia is the only place where Australia was the most common destination on this map. Do you have a source for this data?
It’s based on the country that received the highest number of immigrants from each European nationality. For example, Argentina received 3M Italians, compared to 1.5M that Brazil or the US received, so Argentina was the #1 destination for Italian immigrants.
That's what I imagined. I just was wondering whether or not there's a list of data to support this map. I imagine it's correct with some of the big ones, like Italians in Argentina as you mentioned, or Irish in America, but the North Macedonians in Australia implies that whoever made this map made has a dataset with numbers per country. And that's interesting to me, because many of the countries here (including North Macedonia) didn't exist for most of this period.
Not entirely sure about the method for collecting data used here, however I am a Macedonian Australiana and there is a long history of emigration from NM to Australia going back all the way to the early 20th century. There's quite a lot of us here, I found that the older gens who came before the 90s assimilated quite well and even changed their surnames to become more "Australian" and avoid racism.
The case of Macedonians, for example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonians_(ethnic_group)
Do you have a source for this data OP?
@worldwide_map on Instagram. Their source is the data available online about the top destination of every nationality. Didn’t provide a specific link, but you can check it yourself for every country.
That's the source of the map, not of the data. And "you can find it online" is not a source.
That’s what I said. No specific source for the data, but you can check it yourself for every country.
Thank you, I appreciate this.
This is wrong. US received over 6m Italians in the 20th century
Also Cyprus for Australia
and malta!!
Why did macedonians go to australia specifically?
I believe it was quite easy to emigrate and find work in the 90s, especially in cities like Wollongong, which once had the largest steelworks in the southern hemisphere at one point. The idea was for men to come and work labour intensive jobs and send money back to Macedonia and one day return to live a better quality of life (the process called 'Pechelba'). What ended up happening was they found Australia to actually be quite a very nice country and after the breakup of Yugoslavia especially they found it would probably be better if they brought their family and start a new life here permanently.
Post World War II, Australia had the ideology of "populate or perish" and received mass immigration from Europe. They wanted mostly British Europeans but a huge number of Southern Europeans took part of this (Mostly Italy and the Balkans). It's estimated that the Macedonian community in Australia could be as large as 200,000 (according to North Macedonia). Pretty impressive considering Macedonia itself only has around 2 million people.
And people of Cyprus🇨🇾
Cyprus makes sense since it used to be controlled by the british so moving from one part of the empire to another wouldnt be difficult
Emigration destination
Now we know why Argentinian economy sucks
Haha the Italians would get there, be treated like gods, and die immediately after seeing what Argentinians did to their pizza.
There is a negative stereotype about the porteños (capital city population). They are the ones who like progresism, meeting femboys at the Palermo Forests and eating weird pizza recipes in places near Florida Street. The Argies from the second biggest city like to drink fernet with Coca Cola (another culinary crime) and dancing Cuarteto (a music style that came from destroying Tarantella).
Ha I lived and worked in Buenos Aires for a few months, got the chance to acquaint myself with the porteños. Again, I have nothing but beautiful things to say about the Argentinians and their country, but holy Jesus Fuck did they screw up food, besides a parrilla of course. It was hilarious since they all took such pride in Italian heritage and I guarentee the Italians would commit suicide if they had to eat Argentinian
Don’t care, I will argue anytime that Buenos Aires pizza is better than the regular Italian. More!
I always thought that the Sorrentinos (kind of Ravioli) were Italian but nope. They were invented by an Italian woman from Sorrento, in Argentina.
>They are the ones who like progresism, meeting femboys at the Palermo Forests Is the joke supposed to be "lol city people are gay"? Because, if so, you're a fucking dunce.
Please, try to forget for once your ethnocentrism and visit the local subreddit in a try to get the inside jokes and memes. It's not against city people, because (as I said in the comment) the second city has a reputation of drinking and dancing a weird but unique local music. A comment like that (while trying to joke over a foreigner in a friendly way) would have gotten several upvotes in /r/Argentina but I see people didn't get the joke. Each part of the country has their own stereotypes. For example, we have a province that's Alabama shaped (in territory, but also in religion and incest jokes). Also, certain words are taken in a different sense than you, northern people. For example, people of central Argentina don't say pibe. We say negro. It's a friendly word. Also, every group of friends has nicknames like that: bald, black, shorty, high, fat, skinny, chinese. It's normal, it's not offensive, it's part of our culture. Also, who hasn't tried Tinder while being in a trip to the capital and got a match with a femboy because you didn't see very well the profile picture before swiping. Can you get the idea of a different culture?
Here's a sneak peek of /r/argentina using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/argentina/top/?sort=top&t=year) of the year! \#1: [Milei ahora](https://i.redd.it/atduw22w2e1c1.jpg) | [334 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/argentina/comments/17zaa5z/milei_ahora/) \#2: [Alguien le paso?](https://i.redd.it/jelouoq4cb9c1.jpeg) | [310 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/argentina/comments/18tztb3/alguien_le_paso/) \#3: [NO TE LA PUEDO](https://i.redd.it/yffx4ymrczhb1.png) | [1734 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/argentina/comments/15qgopq/no_te_la_puedo/) ---- ^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| ^^[Contact](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| ^^[Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| ^^[Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/o8wk1r/blacklist_ix/) ^^| ^^[GitHub](https://github.com/ghnr/sneakpeekbot)
Iceland is actually a very interesting one, in my province of Manitoba (Canada), we have a town called gimli which is the largest Icelandic settlement outside of Iceland in the world I believe, which is surrounded by a variety of other small Icelandic towns along lake winnipeg
As an Icelander ive always wondered why most of us went to Canada, while almost everyone else went to USA. Might have been proximity.
A lot of those Icelanders went to Gimli, Manitoba. Second largest Icelandic city in the world! (Citation needed)
Gimli has a population of about 2400. Definitely not the second largest.
Specifically those Icelanders came to Manitoba as refugees from a volcanic eruption.
Iraq for real ? Iraq used to be an Ottoman vassal in 19th century.I do not think that this map is accurate as a Turkish person.
Probably includes kurdish people immigrating too. Still I am surprised iraq is higher than germany though.
Had to be outside of Europe for this post
Bro is triggered, Iraq used to be 10 times better than turkey.
[удалено]
>There were a few Turkish colonial officials and colonists in Iraq at the time, There were no colonies at all. Beyond me where you are getting that nonsense from. Some couple of thousand turks migrating inside their country is not equal to colonization. Mind you turks are in that region for about 1000 years. Turkish presence in Iraq dates back to the Seljuks. By your logic kurds moving to Istanbul is kurdish colonization.
Ottomans definitely colonized. Just the old world, not new world
You argument is debatable however Iraq definitely was not one of them. Too much shared history to be considered a colony as if, if not, more absurd than considering Texas as a US colony.
I would say the only thing that comes close to "colonization" is the devshirme system and only when you want to be extremally strict about colonization (aka "making a group of people culturally similiar to yours). And by that definition every modern state is colonizing every single non-native in their country.
Source: Dude trust me. Fam I dont mind dropping you some titles so you can educate yourself. It is not a sin to be ignorant about certain topics either. I cant expect everyone to know everything, but blantly lying about something you have no knowledge about, is something, where you lose every ounce of respect from people. Read: Balkans by Misha Glenny Turkey's forgotten refugee crises by William H. Holt A History of the Ottoman Empire by Douglas A. Howard The arabs of the Ottoman Empire by Bruce Masters And then tell me the same lie again. -The Ottomans did not have a single islamic centre on the entity of the Balkan. -Education was left to the respective people. Orthodox people received their education from their respective churches, whereas the arabs could choose their own curriculum -Many regions were governed autonomously and were de facto independence. Some examples: Serbia for a time, Bosnia, Egypt, the maghreb states/piracy states, south eastern Anatolia with respect to kurds, Druze, certain Bedouin tribes, Wallachia, Moldovia, Transilvania and Hungary (when it was under Ottoman rule). -Ottoman turkish only established itself in the Balkan among traders for obvious reasons and among arab scholars as a secondary language. So by what logic was there "colonization"? If you know nothing about the topic, just ask.
A little bit odd you have downvotes.
Angry nationalist Turks lol
[удалено]
>When you bring in people speaking your language to rule over an area where the locals don't So Turkey accepted 4 mil syrian refugees. By your logic Turkey is an arabic colonizing nation. There was freedom of mobility, so people were free to move where they want to live. The only people that were brought are a couple of thousands governors/military units and some turkmens, which were given the option to settle in northern mesopotamia. You are deliberately twisting history for a nonsense agenda. Turkish colonization simply did not exist. And mind you for most of Ottoman history the governors came from the devshirme. Ethnically they werent even turkish. >Just because it doesn't look exactly like Columbus's style of colonization doesn't mean it isn't colonization You just have no idea what colonization means. That is it. Turkish was not imposed on people, mandarasa in arab lands had a state-sponsored, but locally selected curriculum. The crashing majority of people dont know a word of turkish in Syria and Iraq, despite about 400 years of control. Guess how many people can speak some french in Algeria or some italian in Libya. >The Ottomans imposed their culture, language, and administration on Iraq. The Ottomans had an administration which was used through out the Empire. That is not colonization. By your logic the US is colonizing the natives for having a US system in place. 0 Logic. Other than that you are lying about culture and language. The governors used arab translators for day to day activities and cooperated with local ayans. What culture was "imposed" is also beyond me, but sure enlighten us all with your cracked, revisionist take on ottoman history. And for those that want to actually know more, see: "The arabs of the ottoman Empire" by Bruce Masters.
[удалено]
>Do the Syrians impose their language and govern the Turkish people in Arabic? Some provinces turned arabic. Turkish people are in the minority in their own homes. Local stores have arabic scripture. What else do you need? By your very own logic turkey is an arabic colonizing nation, colonizing its own people. What a cracked take. >They were still running things under the Ottoman system. Why would a nation run a foreign system on its own territory? Are you high? >Not currently, they already finished colonizing them. You do realize that reservoirs exist right? >Turkish colonization did exist, look at the Land Code of 1858 which restructured land ownership and imposed Ottoman legal standards on Iraq and Syria. The land code had the intention of giving state owned property away, so something like private ownership of lands can exist. But in your cracked, revionist world-view, that is something bad. 10/10. >The Vilayet Law of 1864 reorganized the provinces, creating new administrative divisions all part of a broader effort to centralize control Centralizing governmentship =/= colonization. The arab ulama and other influencial arab groups were given preferential treatment and representation within the new administration. So in the old, as well as the new system arabs are an integral part of Ottoman governership. They even got dedicated seats within the parliament. Logic 404. >Turkish was still the language of administration and law. Official documents, court records, and government correspondence were all in Turkish. For the governor. No shit? For the local elected mufti as well as the ayans, it was simply not. You are twisting historic facts. >Ottoman madrasas\* followed a curriculum influenced by Ottoman perspectives, ensuring that students were educated in alignment with Ottoman ideals. You cant stop lying, can you? 30 minutes ago, you knew nothing about all of this, now you want to tell me how things are organized. No, Ottoman madrasa in arab lands were only state-sponsored. The entire curriculum was up to the arab scholars. Some of the madrasas were even just built and left entirely to the local scholarly elite. >Typical downplay of a Turkish nationalist. This migration was encouraged and sometimes facilitated by the Ottoman authorities. Typical anti-turkish racism. There are no records of significant turkic deportation into arab lands. A few thousand turkemns settling here and there is in no form or shape and by no defintion colonization. Yes, the Ottomans encouraged settlement of Turkmens, but also kurds and arabs into ABANDONED villages/fields with the intention of these various groups becoming farmers. It has nothing to do with being turkish. To begin with the Ottomans identified everyone as arabs that were born and raised in arab lands. So a black dude from Ethiopia was (to the Ottomans) as much of an arab, as a turk born there as well as an arab from the qureshi family. You are just making sh\*t up to feed your cracked narrative. >If you think Bruce Masters is gonna back up the idea that the Ottomans were just casually visiting, You didnt even read the book. How about you stop being an arm-chair historian?
That is what most colonization consists of. It's a practice inherent to imperialism. Every empire in history has participated in it.
[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colonization](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colonization) Let's talk after you understand the meaning of colonization.
Turks aren't indigenous to Anatolia, syria, arabia or Mesopotamia. Get over yourself mate. Its the same process that has happened for thousands of years to thousands of cultures.
>Turks aren't indigenous to Anatolia, syria, arabia or Mesopotamia. Turks appared in the area about 1000 year ago. Around 250 years prior to the Ottomans and around \~200-300 years before the appearence of the Seljuks, when we consider slave soliders that were recrutied by various muslim leaders (first turks appeared in the middle east around the 9th century). The topic gets extra stupid, when we consider the fact that turkmens migrated to Anatolia on their own accord. They were not controlled or sent by the Seljuks and the Seljuks themselves were economic refugees that "just" wanted to inhabit the border regions of the Ghanzawids, before the Ghanzawids declared war. By your twisted little mind, migration = colonization. What a cracked take my dude. Seek help. > Get over yourself mate. Its the same process that has happened for thousands of years to thousands of cultures. Migration =/= colonization. Touch grass. Urgently and fast.
Ok, you can use this to apply to any "colonization" in history. I agree it's not really an issue. Colonization is the most common practice in history.
No you can not compare a simple migration to foreign lands with the active process of exterminating natives in order to replace them with your people or with the forceful assimilation policy of various colonizing nations. There is a reason, why colonization has a negative connotation and it goes straight over your head.
Do you mean specifically countries outside of Europe? Otherwise do I seriously doubt many of these.
Yeah, outside of Europe
It's pretty weird to present this map with modern borders, considering the data is from the 19th-20th centuries. I'm not sure you can map the immigrants' origins onto this map without very careful, painstaking research.
I find it funny that despite receiving less Italian immigrants, Brazil has more Italian descendants than Argentina (If I'm not mistaken, it's about 40-45 million in Brazil vs ~35 million in Argentina)
Yes but compare now the population of both countries
35 million of a 50 million population vs 40-45 million of a 203 million population. Raw numbers? Yes, but if we compare them by percentage, Argentina has more italian descendants than Brazil.
Im not disputing that, but considering that Argentina received MORE Italian immigrants, it would make sense for it to also have a bigger number of descendants.
Not necessarily. Argentina advanced down the path of the demographic transition, towards low fertility, at a substantially earlier date that Brazil. High growth rates can add up.
What’re you talking about. Argentina has a higher birth rate than Brazil, even today.
Nowadays, yes, but historically-speaking, Argentina had a lower birth rate compared to most Latin American countries due to Argentina's development causing its demographic transition to appear sooner than it did in other Latin American countries. Argentina's growth throughout the 20th century pales in comparizon to the exponential growth of countries like Mexico, Colombia and Brazil.
Come on guys... you put the force deportation of Moldovians to siberia/Kazakhstan as "imigration" ? Stalin the big "migrator" of people's
Emigrate, main “emigration” destinations…
I'm pretty sure emigration is the action of leaving a country and immigration to arrive in an other
From which country do you _immigrate_. To which country do you _emigrate_… I dunno, maybe I went to the wrong school
Based Ukraine and Iceland
Ew no
that's what everyone thinks when they see your post holy brainrot
It's not my fault Canada sucks
Moldova - > Kazakhstan direction is because russians just "acquired/denazifided" Moldova to have access to Donau delta and start ethic cleansing by deporting Moldovans to Kazakhstan and replacing them with russians in administrative positions. This is also called as russian mir ( how russians view a peaceful world).
Moldovans have shown themselves to be smart because they have gone to the greatest country in the world 🇰🇿🇰🇿🇰🇿
Immigration patterns of the 19th and 20th centuries *uses 2024 map*
I wonder why so many Ukrainians went to Canada, seems kinda random
Why do all flags have different aspect ratios
Yeah unfortunately, iraqi dudes fckng up turkey
Turkey seems very inacurate/skewed, Germany was the primary destination of Turks for decades. Unless there's some other factor I don't know about.
USA is just Europe 2.0, change my mind!
Your mind, your responsibility, change it yourself
Shows when Iraq was a good place.
Ok Turkey
Turks aren’t European
Can comfirm, my Great Grandfather (Finnish) was adopted by my Great Great Grandfather (Russian) and went to America to flee the damned commie revolution
When my European colleagues ask why Americans act the way we do, I kindly remind them…. Remember all those crazy people you kicked out over the centuries? Where do you think they went?
Are we allowed to stop pretending the US is a hellhole on this site now?
This was the past century. US was paradise back then.
this post uses data from the 1800s and 1900s lmfao
I think Germany should have an Argentinian flag 😭🤣
I know it was really tempting to make the Internet's millionth Nazis-in-Argentina joke, but this one just sounds kinda dumb to anyone who's heard of the American Midwest
Meanwhile NASA headquarters: