Hello, I wanted to show this project I'm working on where I depict regions in the world where most of the population or admixture of a given region stems from outside the given region around the year 1450-1492.
Red represents what I'm more or less certain about, orange represent fringe/potential cases, urban regions or regions I'm investigating. Blue is areas that were empty in 1450
This is only partially a question of genetics, it's clear that the population of cities is mostly of external origin regardless of the genetic similarity to the countryside.
As you can see in the map the colonization of the Americas and Siberia represent a large scale discontinuity event in the last 500-600 years, but you can also see that the expulsion of Germans, the colonization of the European Steppe, Israel, Armenia and some other regions also likely experienced discontinuity.
Mind the language here, the map shows how much of the ancestry of the modern population stems from within the region, if there was a population X and population Y and one completely killed the other, the descendants of X can still be 1considered 100% local.
My question is what other regions should I investigate? What do you think about the map?
(America is a work in progress, there is plenty of data there but I just want to be thorough)
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
South Vietnam with the Chams being conquered and replaced by the Vietnamese
Was there assimilation involved in the process? Was it a brutal ethnic cleansing / (quasi)-genocide?
Ethnic cleansing in the 18th-19th centuries in Vietnam and genocide under Khmer Rouge's Cambodia.
I'm surprised how higland regions in Northern Vietnam have almost no ethnic Vietnamese(or at least fewer than 20%) but even highland regions in Southern Vietnam seem full of Vietnamese, are you sure there wasn't at least some assimilation in the inner highlands in Champa regions?
Samis aren’t the natives to Scandinavia. They arrived after the ancestors of the Norse by several thousand years. Also how far back do you want to go in terms of displacement? Cause Central Asia and Siberia had tons of their Iranic speakers genocided.
Learn to spell Iranian and stop getting brainwashed by Ziopedia.
They weren’t Iranian though. They were Iranic. An ancient Persian would slap you in the mouth for comparing him to an Alan or a Scythian.
Lmao you really thought you did something by repeating yourself here.
Just admit you don’t understand what he’s talking about smooth brain.
It’s okay, he’s confused too, cause OP is asking about 1450 onward
Technically the date should be when Madeira was first settled, I consider it the start of European oversea colonization which is more or less one of the main point of the map
It doesn't matter who's first, it only matters who was in the region in 1450.
>Also how far back do you want to go in terms of displacement?
1450
>Cause Central Asia and Siberia had tons of their Iranic speakers genocided.
By 1450 the process was mostly over, even Timur is gone. I put Xinjiang in orange because of the Dzungar, I have to separate that region given that it seems like the Uyghur Tarim Basin had more continuity.
You should put western Kazakhstan in red, in 1450 it was still populated by Nogai people. Their descendants now live in northern Dagestan, you could put it in orange maybe?
Why are you conflating genetics with language?
>referring to occupied Palestine as Israel
Ok moron
He means the state of Israel today is a result of ethnic replacement of the Palestinians
>Why are you conflating genetics with language?
Language doesn't matter, only ancestry.
Like I said genetics is only part of the equation, a region have 60% ancestry from a neighbouring similar region is functionally the same as having ancestry from the other side of the world, I care about local continuity not some "racial" continuity or whatever else.
>a region have
*a region having
to occupied Palestine as Israel
It's Israel now. Cope.
They have no legitimate claim to the name Israel.
An interesting example if Corsica, while I'm not fully sure the data I see from the region suggests most of the population is not native to the island and either comes from mainland France, Pied Noirs or other European and non-European immigrants, probably why the island is not a stronghold of regionalism as it could be.
Parts of Iberie were depopulated by the reconquista and the subsequent explosions. They were repopulated with northern settlers. Places like Valencia for examples got so wiped out it took centuries to recover their numbers.
By 1450 Valencia had at most 30% Muslim, I could put it as orange, I wanted to put the Granadan lands as red but I have to add the borders for them first.
The most depopulated part were the Alpujarras mountains but aren't shown on this map due to the people there being killed or dispersed around the peninsula due to the two alpujarra revolts
I'd add Granada, Alicante and Valencia as orange, perhaps Almeria too
Basically all of the Emirate as red and Valencia, Murcia and Alicant as orange, I personally think they shouldn't apply at all by a relative wide margin(compared to other such cases) but I'll have to investigate more.
I wouldn't say red for all of the kingdom of Granada, in total they lost around 40% of their population, idk what your margin is
I'm pretty sure most Muslims(which was virtually all of the population outside of israelites) were either expelled or deported around Spain and israelites were obviously expelled or forcefully converted.
Most people converted back to christianity
21,000 moriscos died as a direct result of the war
80,000 moriscos were deported to Castille
The other 20,000~ went to the kingdom of Aragon
In total 120,000 people which was around 40% of the population of the kingdom of Granada
Jews had been deported a century before so I'm not counting them
But what if you compound the final conquest in 1492, the 2 revolts, the expulsion of Moriscos and their eventual slow re-patriation?
Surely only a minority of ancestry in most of Granada is pre-Reconquista?
Though the waters are muddied depending on how much inofficial back-migration happened.
>only a minority of ancestry
I wouldn't say so
The 60% of people that remained were mostly the nazari population but converted to christianity, they got some repopulation by other castilians and asturians but those were never more than 15% of the population, gypsies also moved to granada in that century but they were a very small minority until the 19th century. Some people overstate the genetic impact of these expulsions, truth is that most muslims in iberia were genetically the same as their pre islamic conquest population, with a bit of berber imput if that
There was a lot of movement throughout Spain, that's why I laugh at people who claim basque or catalonian purity since they have been mixing for centuries
It's a download url so idk how to link it
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://dialnet.unirioja.es/descarga/articulo/67689.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi0xaXTvs_4AhUtzoUKHXPFCaIQFnoECAQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2a53BsLK-EYfKtHYVwvcCP
South Africa had tons migration from Europe, South Asia and other parts of Africa especially. A huge chunk of South African blacks are non-native.
Province-wise it seems to me than only the Western Cape, Northern Cape and maybe Pretoria fit the criteria.
>South Africa had tons migration from other parts of Africa especially. A huge chunk of South African blacks are non-native.
That's untrue.
guyanas are mostly indian these days bro
You should probably just shade over all of Turkey except for the inner region.
That was assimilation, the expulsions and massacres in the 19th and 20th century would make only certain majority Greek regions red, not all of the coast.
You can include the Aegean and Black Sea coasts of Anatolia, if not all of it due to the Greco-Turkish population exchange, and the Ottoman Genocides. You could arguably include most pf the Balkans too but most Muhacir weren't ethnic Turks.
Your inclusion of Southern Cyprus is interesting as yes there were Turkish Cypriot communities in the south, but Turks weren't present until into the 1500s, and even still, were not a majority of the island. In fact, most 'Turkish' Cypriots were locals who'd converted to Islam and only began speaking Turkish when assimlatory policies began.
There's also parts of Sri Lanka where Indian Tamils have moved to.
In the Philippines, Tagalogs expanded into Mindoro during the Spanish period, and I can't quite remember but I believe Cebuanos expanded into Mindanao as late as the 30s.
Kurds have also expanded into the Nineveh Plains and other areas where Armenians and Assyrians were once dominant, if not at least intermixed.
Upper Egypt has become increasingly more Arab due to Mamluk assimilation and persecution policies aimed at the Copts.
Also anywhere the Fula Jihads were launched you could shade, as this occured as late as the 19th Century, with Fulani states being established throughout West Africa.
You could probably include the whole of the Cape Colony too.
And the Galapagos were uninhabited too, and the Mascarene (Mauritius, Reunion, Rodrigues, etc.) were uninhabited, as were the Chagos Archipelago, and Norfolk Island.
Might've missed a fair few but hope that helps.
>Your inclusion of Southern Cyprus is interesting as yes there were Turkish Cypriot communities in the south, but Turks weren't present until into the 1500s, and even still, were not a majority of the island. In fact, most 'Turkish' Cypriots were locals who'd converted to Islam
Under my definition, North Cypriot Greeks that moved to Southern Cyprus would not be locals, each region as defined there included only people inside it as locals.
Right, then yeah I suppose that's understandable as there was an exodus from the north.
Albania's changed relatively little, just because they converted, doesn't mean Turks lived there in great numbers.
>Arab due to Mamluk assimilation and persecution policies aimed at the Copts.
Persecution is categorically different from ethnic assimilation/replacement. Do you have good evidence to support the claim Arabs permanently changed the genetic makeup of Egyptians? And no, the Arab Slave trade isn't enough.
at least in the cape, between the coloured and the white population, it may be worth something
I suppose it's partially continuous given the coloured population, but if that much of latin america is shaded, it seems at least parts of south africa and a couple nearby regions should be
also, and I'm not an expert, but I'd suggest looking into resettlement of parts of transylvania following ottoman wars there
>resettlement of parts of transylvania following ottoman wars there
There was no resettlement there was just not that many outside of Szekelyland, not enough to constitute a majority thats for sure. Some parts maybe had a German majority though.
>Paris
based
btw I'm not sure silesia and west prussia were populated by german majorities in 1450
They don't need German majorities, the modern Poles do not come from the same region
you should also add Smyrna/Izmir area in turkey, probably the Cape cause the natives almost all died when the dutch arrived, definitely the Guyanas (at least the coast) cause native americans are just a very small minority there nowadays (mostly africans in french guyana and mix of africans and indians in the suriname and guyana I think)
Maybe also add some of the hungarian regions outside of Hungary
Also should look into adding places like Albania that got BLACKED by the karaboga as well as assyrian regions in northern iraq and the rest of armenia (it extended all the way down to Tarsus north of Cyprus)
Africa probably needs some more research done but the rest seems pretty good
Other than the cape the only area that should be added in Africa that comes to mind is Matabeleland in western Zimbabwe (they got there in the 1800s and replaced the Shona in that area)
This is an interesting endeavour, but frankly I fear there's just too much unknown to make anything realistic beyond generalities that you've already drawn.
Canada, Russia, and to a lesser extent brazil can definitely be made more granular, vast expenses of siberia is still majority native, even if the numbers are few.
There is also the problem of internal migration, migration to touristic areas (someone mentionned corsica and that's true), but also more simply urban areas that grew from rural exodus from various part of the country. For exemple a large part of the rhineland were, even before ww2, inhabited by germans (including poles) who came from the eastern part of the country, and that became worse after ww2.
Similarly pretty much all large cities and capitals outside of europe that grew over the past decades are inhabited by people from all over their countries that are unrelated to the people who lived there before, this is especially the case in Africa.
An exemple could be Namibia, half of the population comes from the fertile but ressource-poor, Ovambo-populated northern strip (very small compared to the rest of the country), meanwhile most of the country is sparsely populated but rich in mineral ressources, and to make it worse the german exterminated a majority of the (Herero and Nama) natives of the southern 4/5 of Namibia, this resulted in a labour demand during the colonial era and Ovambo were hired and settled in cities and farmland in the south, after indepdence in 1990 internal migration restriction were lifted and you have hundred of thousands of Ovambo moving to the wealthier south.
Picrel is the percentge of Ovambo speaker per region of namibia, they originally come from the 4 northern provinces with >80% but as you can see they are, or almost are a majority in the center (this is Windhoek, the capital, and Walvis bay, the largest port), when you consider the other migrant people, these region are demographically discontinous
Africa in general would be absolute hell for this, you'd be lucky to get even a half decent *qualitative* estimate of internal and international migration over the past centuries, let alone a quantitative one, or over multiple centuries. And Genetic studies are sparse there. Then war and civil wars make thing worse by moving population all over..
Say south africa, over the past 500 years you've had the continued westward expension of Sotho-Tswana and Ngunis, dutch then anglo immigration, Indian migration, the mfecane, rural exodus...
If I were you I'd put all of south africa in red lol, with the exception of Natal, Northern cape may be in orange maybe too, since Coloured are a plurality there and they are plurality Khoi-san in origin.
Lesotho could be entirely red for sure, it's very much the result of population migration during the mfecane, Swaziland is harder to say, Zimbabwe had large Ndebele migration in the 19th century, but again, purely qualitative. Zambia had migrations of people from all over the country to Lusaka and the copperbelt, particularly from the Bemba speaking north-east, then you had parts of the western border of zambia which was settled by angolan refugees... Mozambique, goddamn, you had the Nguni and Yao migration in the 19th century, then the colonial and civil war... Not even talking about the period before.
Angola had the Jaga migrations, then the Chokwe migration, pretty much the whole east of the country is unrecognisible from 1500, then you had the civil war resulting in population mixing and growth of luanda and coastal cities, I think you can safely put Cabinda as Red tho, it's an oil producing exclave that has had much immigration from mainland angola.
Madagascar has had continuous bantu slave import, migration of non-Merina to the merina highland and antananarivo as forced labour in the royal and colonial era that continued post independence, you had the sakalava migration (west->north west)
Oh forgot I guess, migration has inversed in the past decades in madagascar, now more from the center to the south and east iirc..
Also there's kind of the classic case of Burkinabe in ivory coast, they make up the majority of the population in part of north
Frick, so much stuff to track
>I think you can safely put Cabinda as Red tho, it's an oil producing exclave that has had much immigration from mainland angola.
Do you have a source for this?
I'll have to search a clear source explaining migration but the population growth seems clear
in 1960 (Oil was discovered in 1969) Cabinda had 55,919 blacks (for 2,600 whites and mestizo)*; in the 2014 census it had 716,076 inhabitants. An increase of x12.8
Meanwhile in the same period Angola went from 4,604,362 blacks* to 25,789,024 inhabitant (includes like 5% of whites, chinks and mestizo) for a roughly x5.5 increase
clearly Cabinda had a large ammount of migration.
*BRANCOS DE ANGOLA - Autonomismo e nacionalismo (1900-1961), based on 1960 census
2014 census also clearly shows that cabinda is 20% non-angolan...
And yeah, you can easily colour Luanda's region red lol, 40% foreigner, and the remaining 60% comes from all over the country
>40% foreigner
From where? Anyway for now I leave capitals/urban regions orange, most of them will be red though
>From where
in 2014, iirc there were 220k Portuguese in angola; 258,920 Chinese, 20k brazilians.
There also have been lots of migration of congolese to angola recently, Nigerian migrants, other yuros...
Do you have some good ethnic map for Africa? I tried searching for specific countries but I can't find anything a lot of the times.
>ethnic
well each countries classify ethnic groups differently. impossible to make on a continental scale
http://www.muturzikin.com/countries.htm
there's this for language, but it's very flawed.
If you're going more granular in large countries, there's picrel for siberia, top is 1900, bottom is 2010, source is Mapping Indigenous Siberia: Spatial Changes andEthnic Realities, 1900–2010 by Ivan Sablin & Maria Savelyeva
>there's this for language, but it's very flawed.
Yeah my first thought was to go there but then I saw how Botswana seemed quite off from how other sources describe it.
I guess it's a better source for Asia at least.
>If you're going more granular in large countries, there's picrel for siberia, top is 1900, bottom is 2010, source is Mapping Indigenous Siberia: Spatial Changes andEthnic Realities, 1900–2010 by Ivan Sablin & Maria Savelyeva
A question I have is whether Tungusic people and Yakut Turkic people expanded as well in this time period.
>l in this time period.
*1450-2022
(me)
I guess Tungusic Evenkis expanded before 1450 but then they got displaced by Yakuts, but the exact timeline of the expansion is important here.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16845541/
). Dating
the age of this expansion in Yakut-speaking men
using the average mutation rate estimated by Kayser
et al. (2000b) provides a maximum age of approxi-
mately 880 years (§ 440 years) BP . This would place
the onset of the founder eVect in the twelfth century,
very close to the reign of Genghis Khan, who started
his conquests at the turn of the twelfth to thirteenth
century (Kämpfe 1986).
Seems it likely was well underway or finished by 1492
In some sense the Mongols and their Turkic allies conquered this part of Siberia as well, just indirectly...
Interestingly Y-dna diversity is low and stemming from more recent ancestors:
"The genetic legacy of legendary and historical Siberian chieftains"
on nature(go frick yourself, is nature really blacklisted?)
*go frick yourself, spam filter
Flevoland (NL) should be colored in, because that place was mostly water in 1450. It wasn't settled until the 20th century.
Also, what's that red spot in India, near Bangladesh?
Tripuri, it's majority Bengali today but it seems a product of the last 2 centuries, I put it red because I think I have data to prove last time I checked.
I'm less sure for the Babak valley, anything I search leads me to random modern Assamese vs Bengali shitflinging
interesting
While i'm onto africa, two cases of important migrations that happened since the 15th century
Pretty much all Fulas (in yellow on the map) living outside of Guinea and the Senegal river valley (Senega, gambia, mauritania, western mali) migrated there over the past ~500 years, they're pastoralist so they historically don't mix much with local sedentary people (they've kept about~25% of Mediterranean admixture for over 2,000 years). The Fula jihads also resulted in immense population migration across the sahel but that's almost impossible to track.
The various Beti peoples which make up the majority of southern cameroon, Equatorial guinea and Northern Gabon only came in the region over the past ~200 years, now it's unknown how much admixture of previous population there are, but they entirely linguistically replaced them (there isn't any sign of substrate) and the region was previously sparsely populated rainforest, so I'd say it's a safe bet to put all of Equatorial guinea as red (and yes that includes the Island of Bioko, since the natives Bubi peoples are getting quickly replaced, they were 50% of the population 20 years ago and decreasing)
Sao tomé should be blue too
And Principe and Annobon should be blue.
>Pretty much all Fulas (in yellow on the map) living outside of Guinea and the Senegal river valley (Senega, gambia, mauritania, western mali) migrated there over the past ~500 years, they're pastoralist so they historically don't mix much with local sedentary people (they've kept about~25% of Mediterranean admixture for over 2,000 years). The Fula jihads also resulted in immense population migration across the sahel but that's almost impossible to track.
Yeah I can't tell where Fulani are majority and where they aren't, need more work there.
Do you have some scholarly source on the Beti? Wikipedia like always on some fringe topic is self-contradicting and just off with some dates
As personal estimate, considering region east of the Senegal river, I’d say the Mopti region of Mali, Sahel region of Burkina Faso and Adamaoua region of Cameroon have a clear Fula majority that migrated there over the past centuries, in much of mopti they displaced the dogon people, Sahel Refion of Burkina is not good for sedentary people and beside fulas the other main group are Tuaregs, who are nomadic and wouldn’t really be from there, and in Adamaoua fulas came and created an emirate in the 19th century and dominated it.
East of Cameroon there are pockets of Fula but they’re too small
Now there were also migrations of fulas in guinea/western Mali/Senegal but it’s hard to quantify, for exemple the futa jallon was progressively settled by fulas from 1200 to 1900 and while they did displace people it’s hard to really put a number on it and compare how it was in the 15th century vs how it is now
Also there’s been a general southward migration of Mauritanian Arabs and fulas due to désertification since independence
> Do you have some scholarly source on the Beti?
https://www.persee.fr/doc/cea_0008-0055_1965_num_5_20_3049
It’s well attested, particularly in Gabon where the french noticed the migration from 1850 and through the colonial era
>French
Me notto understando
I will look up something in English I guess
https://www.academia.edu/7688040/Borders_of_SE_Bantu_400_1900
Also interesting paper I remember bookmarking summarising current theories on Mozambican (and neighbors) population movement over the past 1,500 years
also If you understand Portuguese, this for a more detailled summary of Pre-Nguni migration southern mozambique
https://www.academia.edu/7824191/O_sul_de_Mo%C3%A7ambique_Revisto
ngmi in west african history if you don't understand french, legitimately harder than studying french history without knowing french
the americas and europe are literally the easiest place to map for your project, really good luck.
a "Population replacement 1900-2020" would be interesting (even in the americas) and more easily doable IMO
Northern Brazil should be grey. Specially the Amazon.
Cananagem+Rubber boom really replaced former Amerindian
Also the anon is using first level subdivisions as the lowest level, that’s not granular enough to have Amerindian or mixed-race mestizo majority regions
Say Amazonas state:
The last PNAD (National Research for Sample of Domiciles) census revealed the following numbers: Pardo (Multiracial) people (68.98%), White people (21.21%), Indigenous people (4.80%), Black people (4.09%), and Asian people (0.91%).[26]
According to a 2013 genetic study, the ancestry of the inhabitants of Manaus (2/3 of Manaus) is 45.9% European, 37.8% Native American and 16.3% African.[27]
This gives only 30% Amerindian ancestry, and probably part of that ancestry is from non-Amazonian natives.
Some of the municipalities of Amazonas and Para may fit the bill but not as whole states
Sorry, this gives more like ~40-45% lol, hadn’t woken up well
Still a minority
>Also the anon is using first level subdivisions as the lowest level, that’s not granular enough to have Amerindian or mixed-race mestizo majority regions
I'm open to add smaller regions, I know it's not consistent but the consistency for me is not using first level administrative divisions, rather it's about subdividing as much as it makes sense to, in some regions first administrative divisions are fine, in others I can recreate more historical regions or even more granular regions.
You have to consider than in such edge cases even if natives are 55% that some of that native ancestry is surely not local, this is why I was so generous with the red in Mexico, although I should put some orange there instead.
Oh I just remembered the Oromo migration, that's important
What would be helpful is to know the exact border between Steppe populations and Eastern Slavs around 1400.
Genetic admixture patterns in Argentinian Patagonia
María Laura Parolin
That map is contradicted by other studies, at least for Chile.
Look more into Upper assam, Ahom (a Tai people) used to rule the place until they got replaced by Assamese
idk about the genetics, just something worth investigating
>Svalbard
>not blue
I know, just didn't come around to do it, I'd like to do paint some of Canadian islands blue but some of them had people in the past but not today so it's going to take a while to look for each island.
some greenlandic norse were still around in the 15th century
Maybe I can paint parts of Greenland red or blue.
West Papua province is currently getting colonised
Picrel is from McNamee, Lachlan, Indonesian Settler Colonialism in West Papua (May 15, 2020)
by 2,000 it was assuredly Settler majority; and that's not counting administrators and military personel or non-official settlement.
It seems to have slowed down after the 1997 crisis, official data show 50/50 native/settler split in 2016, but the +30% growth between 2015 and 2020 seems to indicate settlement picked up again.
Look into the Transmigrasi, the official migration programs of the dutch and indonesian governments in indonesia, millions of people were moved
"At its peak between 1979 and 1984, 535,000 families (almost 2.5 million people) moved under the program"
I added non-Bumiputras in Malaysia proper, I'm unsure how non-native the Malaysians are in Borneo island.
Should I just follow the religious map here for Papua?
https://brilliantmaps.com/religion-world-map/
I'd be cautious, Islam has been there for 500 years, while I'm sure the majority of muslims in west papua are transmigrasi settler, there definitely was a part of local converts, either historical or more recent
Your source say this:
>Between 1972 and 1999, the proportion of the Indonesian province
of West Papua that was Muslim rose from 6 to 21%.
At this point I don't think it's crazy assumption to say that the amount of Muslims in 1420 Papua was virtually 0 and that the amount of converts among them is most likely less than 33% based solely on their disproportionate increase in the time period of the quote.
I have no other source anyway...
>My main outcomes of interest are the number of transmigrants and the proportion of the population that is Muslim in each year. As indigenous Papuans are 96% Christian (McGibbon, 2004) and over 95% percent of transmigrants to Papua were Muslim,126 the percentage of the population that is Muslim is a useful proxy for the demographic predominance of settlers relative to indigenous Papuans.127
thanks, interesting
>Christian ... and Catholic
Cathbros... not like this...
I didn't notice, kek.
Funnily enough some Chinese people first thought Jesuits were polytheist that worshiped Mary as a Goddess and that only Protestant were Monotheist.
In indonesia i'd also look at North Kalimantan, some of the data i've seen look like it's easy 40%+ Javanese due to the transmigrasi.
Also part of Sumatra are easily 40%+ Javanese+Chinese
https://horizon.documentation.ird.fr/exl-doc/pleins_textes/doc34-05/36036.pdf
https://lingdy.aa-ken.jp/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/191130-jrp-meetings-handout-09.pdf
I'd argue you should look into the guyanas,at least in guyana the country, most inhabitant are either indian (from india) or african, while natives make the lesser percent.
Maybe also suriname though that's less clear, it depends on what you stance on maroons is.
Don't worry, the Americas is very easy land in terms of information
The only issue is intra-native changes, for example while obviously the natives in Oklahoma are not actually native to Oklahoma, I'm not sure how native the Lakota or Navajo are to their respective regions.
Here genetics play a role.
After a quick look the navajo seem to have been relocated into their current location, before this they lived in arizona.
...they still live in Arizona
Guiana too lol, it's like one of the least native part of continental south america, <8k natives for 300k people, and there's barely any mixing
I left the Americas for later, while for some regions like Panama I have issue at the regional level, for most others the general situation is clear to me through extensive genetic research but like I said not all latin American countries have accurate regional data.
Becoming French citizens made them horny?
Also GODDAMN, Coastal Arawak and Galibi natives of French guyana had a 11.7 TFR in the 60s/70s jesus christ, that's the highest I've seen, a few papers I've seen talk about 4.3% annual natural growth rate at the time
I guess that makes sense, It's pretty much an ideal case, a hunter gatherer population without any taboo or cultural restriction on pregnancy, without any education, that lives in a clean place (coastal french guyana doesn't have any yellow fever or Malaria) with low population density (only 25,000 people across a 300 km coastal strip, <1 hab/km2) , that then suddenly gets access to modern healthcare and guaranteed food since they became french citizen like any french from Paris.
In Portugal you can add Porto
Algarve isn't quite there yet.
In spain hmm, Catalonia and Basque country have had huge ammount of 20th century internal migration from their industrialisation, and continue to get it, they're definitely at least 30%+ non native, idk if they reach the treshold
Murcia also has much recent immigration but I don't think it reaches 50% non native yet.
New Caledonia’s south province should be red
More of Argentina should be red. Except the northernmost provinces, which still have a relatively significant native admixture, most of the people there are ethnically a result of colonization and 19th/20th century immigration
In Argentina the provinces of Cordoba, Entre Rios, Mendoza and Misiones should be red. The first 3 are mostly European, and the last one is like Southern Brazil.
the rest should be orange like Chile or Paraguay, except Santiago del Estero, Catamarca, Formosa, Chaco, Salta and Jujuy, that should be left gray
Switzerland has had a lot of immigration through the past 80 years, Geneva's canton is 40% foreigner now, and that's not counting internal migration or children of foreigners, half of all marriage in switzerland involve a foreigner. I think a lot of hte country could be red
Switzerland also had immigration of many Hugenots.
Sichuan was severely depopulated during the Ming-Qing transition and resettled with outsiders. That's why they speak Mandarin Chinese today instead of some more divergent dialect.
The death of ShuBa dialects and takeover of Mandarin happened during the early Ming phase AFAIK