Why is this forum so reductive about European ancestry in the US?

[hangh]

While other countries with more homogeneous European heritage like Brazil, Australia, etc, are often discussed in terms of their colorful ethnic diversity, it seems to be that whenever the USA is involved in an ethnographic discussion on the Internet, insecure Britons and Anglophiles come out of the woodwork to harangue people about the supposedly wildly underreported British ancestry in the US.

1) The fact that self-reported English ancestry declined post the 1980s is not an indication that people are lying about their ancestries - the most likely explanation for this trend is that:

- Other ancestries outbred whatever old English ancestral population that existed (itself already mixed with Pennsylvania Dutch, Delaware Swedish, Dutch, French/Huguenot, Swiss, and even Spanish ancestry), particularly the German element, which did number more immigrants over a broader time span than British immigration, which dried up in the 1810s

- Increasingly accessible genetic testing and digital records enabled people to more accurately track where their ancestors came from

- A significant proportion of people likely wanted to be associated with founding stock ancestry from the thirteen colonies and over-reported English and other British ancestries.

I think English ancestry is a relatively marginal undercount at best - I think reported populations of Scottish and Welsh ancestry are mostly accurate, but I think self-reported Irish ancestry is an overestimation

2) The USA received an incredibly diverse settlement pattern - there are over a million Tejanos in the US alone, and ancestral Spanish and Iberian elements account for a not insignificant ethnic element of California and the Southwest, Texas, much of Louisiana and the Gulf Coast, as well as Florida. French, Scandinavian, Dutch, and Russian colonial ancestry plays a not-insignificant role in forming the ethnic makeup and phenotype of Americans, depending on the region

3) The US was 20% Black in 1790, and plenty of intermixing occurred from very early in the country’s history - the thing is, the region in which British ancestries are most common, is also a rural region, and the region where a significant number of whites have some admixed African and/or Native element - tri-racial populations are common in many states of the South and Mid-Atlantic, including Florida, the Gulf Coast, and the Appalachians. The major cities of the south, particularly coastal port cities, Texas, Louisiana, the Gulf Coast and Florida all had the same mixed European immigration that much of the Northeast did.

4) All the actually heavily populated parts of the country are not very English or British at all. The most populated states are typically predominantly Hispanic, German, or Italian, with mixed settlement patterns and immigration that completely changes the phenotypes of most Americans.

5) The USA received the vast majority of the world’s European immigration, over a much longer time span, than places like Australia or Canada, which are much more ethnically homogeneous, with all of their states or provinces showing overwhelmingly British ancestry by massive majorities. Even Sydney and Toronto are majority British in ancestry, whereas New York has English as its 7th or 8th most common white American ancestry (Italian is most common).

6) European border changes and the collapse of various states has significantly muddied the extent to which Americans report Germanic, Benelux, Austro-Hungarian, Polish, Yugoslav, Slavic, Baltic, or even Ottoman (Arab, Greek, or Turkish) ancestry - considering all were significant sources of immigration to the US in the 19th century (meaning the US was the primary destination for immigrants from all of these regions), these elements are underestimated to varying degrees in the American ethnic composition/phenotype.

- Ergo, populations that “only make up 1% or less of the American population”, based on self-reported ancestry, are still significant in a global context, for one, because they inevitably count as the primary European ethnic diaspora outside a given European country, but because regionally, they have a significant impact - Czechs dominated entire townships in the American plains from North Dakota down to Texas and into the Great Lakes, while Ohio, a heavily populated state, has a significant amount of Central European heritage ranging from Hungarian to Slovakian to Austrian, Michigan has a heavy Arab presence (as does Southern California, again, very significantly populated regions), in addition to Dutch, Belgian, etc, and Greeks are sprinkled in various locations throughout the country, from Massachusetts to California to Chicago to Florida.

7) California, the most populous state, has had significant Asian immigration since the 19th century - from Chinese, to Japanese, to Korean. It has a significant Hapa and Quapa population in San Francisco, a significantly populated urban region

Also, British surnames rank so high in part because they’re most dominant among Black Americans - Forebears indicates quite clearly that at least a plurality of white Americans have European ethnic surnames that are mainly Italian, Scandinavian, Polish or other Central European, Dutch, Jewish, French, or Spanish in origin.

Comparisons to countries like Australia just aren’t apt because settlement patterns are far more homogeneously British in that country, obviously, and there was no African slavery. What’s more, they didn’t receive truly large waves of European immigration until the post-war period, and the immigration they did get was overall much less. Even when it comes to the oft quoted Lebanese and Greek populations of Australia, these populations are less prevalent, more recent, and much more concentrated than they are in the US - There are as many as 10 million Middle Eastern Americans - I would be willing to bet Greek and Arab physiognomy is much more “average” in the USA than it is in Australia, which is overwhelmingly British and Irish with a sprinkling of Aboriginal influence.

The UK has always remained the primary destination for immigrants to Australia, and it still is even to this day. Australia couldn’t be further from the USA in this respect.

[Universe]

While other countries with more homogeneous European heritage like Brazil, Australia, etc, are often discussed in terms of their colorful ethnic diversity, it seems to be that whenever the USA is involved in an ethnographic discussion on the Internet, insecure Britons and Anglophiles come out of the woodwork to harangue people about the supposedly wildly underreported British ancestry in the US.

Ok, if I'm an anglophile, can I accuse you of being anglophobe? This is silly.

1) The fact that self-reported English ancestry declined post the 1980s is not an indication that people are lying about their ancestries - the most likely explanation for this trend is that:

German and other continental ancestry is more recent in USA than English/British. When a person is half old stock Brit from 1700s + half German who migrated to America in 1900, he is more likely to report that he's German on the census.

According to 2015-2020 survey, 20 million Americans identified as "American", they're mostly White Americans of old British stock found in Southern states.

- Other ancestries outbred whatever old English ancestral population that existed particularly the German element

How do we know this?

which did number more immigrants over a broader time span than British immigration, which dried up in the 1810s

White American population was around 80% British (most of it English) in 1800. Between 1800 and 1850 USA received rather small amount of immigration. By 1850 there were 20 million White Americans mostly of English/British extraction. Not more than 6 million Germans migrated to USA (most migrated after 1850). So how could Germans outweigh Brits then?

- Increasingly accessible genetic testing and digital records enabled people to more accurately track where their ancestors came from

- A significant proportion of people likely wanted to be associated with founding stock ancestry from the thirteen colonies and over-reported English and other British ancestries.

Similarly, I can claim Whites nowadays don't want to be associated with colonials and with English/British + prefer to identify with their more recent ancestries.

2I think English ancestry is a relatively marginal undercount at best - I think reported populations of Scottish and Welsh ancestry are mostly accurate, but I think self-reported Irish ancestry is an overestimation
) The USA received an incredibly diverse settlement pattern - there are over a million Tejanos in the US alone, and ancestral Spanish and Iberian elements account for a not insignificant ethnic element of California and the Southwest, Texas, much of Louisiana and the Gulf Coast, as well as Florida. French, Scandinavian, Dutch, and Russian colonial ancestry plays a not-insignificant role in forming the ethnic makeup and phenotype of Americans, depending on the region

3) The US was 20% Black in 1790, and plenty of intermixing occurred from very early in the country’s history - the thing is, the region in which British ancestries are most common, is also a rural region, and the region where a significant number of whites have some admixed African and/or Native element - tri-racial populations are common in many states of the South and Mid-Atlantic, including Florida, the Gulf Coast, and the Appalachians. The major cities of the south, particularly coastal port cities, Texas, Louisiana, the Gulf Coast and Florida all had the same mixed European immigration that much of the Northeast did.

4) All the actually heavily populated parts of the country are not very English or British at all. The most populated states are typically predominantly Hispanic, German, or Italian, with mixed settlement patterns and immigration that completely changes the phenotypes of most Americans.

And they don't have English British DNA at all? People who report German, Italian, Irish, Polish etc ancestry are always purely German/Italian/Irish/Polish and never mixed with English/British?

5) The USA received the vast majority of the world’s European immigration, over a much longer time span, than places like Australia or Canada, which are much more ethnically homogeneous, with all of their states or provinces showing overwhelmingly British ancestry by massive majorities. Even Sydney and Toronto are majority British in ancestry, whereas New York has English as its 7th or 8th most common white American ancestry (Italian is most common).

6) European border changes and the collapse of various states has significantly muddied the extent to which Americans report Germanic, Benelux, Austro-Hungarian, Polish, Yugoslav, Slavic, Baltic, or even Ottoman (Arab, Greek, or Turkish) ancestry - considering all were significant sources of immigration to the US in the 19th century (meaning the US was the primary destination for immigrants from all of these regions), these elements are underestimated to varying degrees in the American ethnic composition/phenotype.

- Ergo, populations that “only make up 1% or less of the American population”, based on self-reported ancestry, are still significant in a global context, for one, because they inevitably count as the primary European ethnic diaspora outside a given European country, but because regionally, they have a significant impact - Czechs dominated entire townships in the American plains from North Dakota down to Texas and into the Great Lakes, while Ohio, a heavily populated state, has a significant amount of Central European heritage ranging from Hungarian to Slovakian to Austrian, Michigan has a heavy Arab presence (as does Southern California, again, very significantly populated regions), in addition to Dutch, Belgian, etc, and Greeks are sprinkled in various locations throughout the country, from Massachusetts to California to Chicago to Florida.

7) California, the most populous state, has had significant Asian immigration since the 19th century - from Chinese, to Japanese, to Korean. It has a significant Hapa and Quapa population in San Francisco, a significantly populated urban region

Also, British surnames rank so high in part because they’re most dominant among Black Americans - Forebears indicates quite clearly that at least a plurality of white Americans have European ethnic surnames that are mainly Italian, Scandinavian, Polish or other Central European, Dutch, Jewish, French, or Spanish in origin.

Comparisons to countries like Australia just aren’t apt because settlement patterns are far more homogeneously British in that country, obviously, and there was no African slavery. What’s more, they didn’t receive truly large waves of European immigration until the post-war period, and the immigration they did get was overall much less. Even when it comes to the oft quoted Lebanese and Greek populations of Australia, these populations are less prevalent, more recent, and much more concentrated than they are in the US - There are as many as 10 million Middle Eastern Americans - I would be willing to bet Greek and Arab physiognomy is much more “average” in the USA than it is in Australia, which is overwhelmingly British and Irish with a sprinkling of Aboriginal influence.

USA whites are more continental by DNA than Australia, I agree on that (although we have to consider the Irish as well, they're nor British neither continental and many settled in Australia). I'd put English and German ancestry on a similar level in USA. If we are talking about British vs German, then Brits "win" imo. You have to consider the 20 million Americans who report "American" on the census + the fact that Americans of British ancestry bred a lot by the time the bulk of German migration happened.

[hangh]

Ok, if I'm an anglophile, can I accuse you of being anglophobe? This is silly.

No, it’s fact, not silly. Why is this “Anglophobic”? Because I’m highlighting how tons of other ethnic groups comprise the US population? This is how you know the obsession with English ancestry in the US that this board has is irrational. It’s an obsession that comes at the expense of every other ethnic group.

German and other continental ancestry is more recent in USA than English/British. When a person is half old stock Brit from 1700s + half German who migrated to America in 1900, he is more likely to report that he's German on the census.

It’s not that recent in comparison. And yes, that is true.

According to 2015-2020 survey, 20 million Americans identified as "American", they're mostly White Americans of old British stock found in Southern states.

This is an assumption - it’s broadly true, but this also includes other ethnic mixes and bi- or tri-racial populations common to the region.

How do we know this?

Because other ethnic populations grew naturally and more exponentially than the English one did? In the case of German, it’s an assumption as valid as any of the one’s you make, based on self-reported census data.

White American population was around 80% British (most of it English) in 1800. Between 1800 and 1850 USA received rather small amount of immigration. By 1850 there were 20 million White Americans mostly of English/British extraction. Not more than 6 million Germans migrated to USA (most migrated after 1850). So how could Germans outweigh Brits then?

And the geopolitical nature of the US has changed drastically since the early 19th century.

6 million immigrants is a ton of immigrants. They settled in regions less populated at the time that became more populated in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

British immigration fell significantly in a relative sense by the 1810s. Only 4.5 million British immigrated to the US between 1820 and 1957. For perspective, over 3 million Italians migrated to the US in the 1900s-1910s alone. None of these populations suggest that the British would have outpaced the Germans by now.

In a global context, the US did not receive an at all “small amount” of immigration up to 1850 - that’s wrong. And in western regions yet to receive incorporation into the US, there were still hundreds of thousands to millions of people with French, Spanish, Native, and other ancestry. The USA was 20% black in the 1790s, again, and a portion of that population absorbed a portion of the white population - this contributes to the rough average of 20% European admixture in modern Black Americans.

Similarly, I can claim Whites nowadays don't want to be associated with colonials and with English/British + prefer to identify with their more recent ancestries.

But that’s nonsense. All European and even most Arab ancestors in the US today identify as white. In regards to Hispanics, they will still identify as “white Hispanics”.

And they don't have English British DNA at all? People who report German, Italian, Irish, Polish etc ancestry are always purely German/Italian/Irish/Polish and never mixed with English/British?

Many of them do have British DNA. Many of them don’t, particularly in the Midwest, the Northeast, and Louisiana

USA whites are more continental by DNA than Australia, I agree on that (although we have to consider the Irish as well, they're nor British neither continental and many settled in Australia). I'd put English and German ancestry on a similar level in USA. If we are talking about British vs German, then Brits "win" imo. You have to consider the 20 million Americans who report "American" on the census + the fact that Americans of British ancestry bred a lot by the time the bulk of German migration happened.

I said British and Irish. More settled in the USA, and it can be argued that the US population is more Irish as opposed to English than Australia is.

British Isles ancestry as an agglomeration is greater, but this means nothing because it’s fairly negligible in anyone who has it outside of the rural south and mountain states. German ancestry is objectively the most common and notable ethnicity among white Americans, who are typically mixed between 2, 3, or more European heritages.

The 20 million Americans that mark American are not just British, and the ones that are are the product of multiracial heritages often. Melungeons and other southern bi- and tri-racial people frequently mark that option. People who report American out west have a different ethnic heritage to those who do in the mid-south vs those in Maine. In Maine, there’s significant crossover with French, Dutch, and British ancestry from Canada in that population. In the Mid-South, you’re bound to get some French, and traces of African and/or Native. In California and the Southwest, genetic testing reveals some Iberian DNA in addition to Native elements and other European ancestries that initially migrated to eastern cities before moving West.

German immigration eclipses English by a good amount. Almost no American is actually of full English ancestry. Whereas plenty of Americans are going to be actually of full German. People who appear on DNA tests as 80-100% B & I on 23andMe, for example, often hail from very rural regions of the country, often have trace SSA and Native DNA, have most of their DNA from Ireland and the Celtic fringe, or they have other Northern/Western/NW European ancestry being mislabeled as British and Irish.

[Smeagol]

The majority of white Southerners report their ancestry as "American" so there is a clear and significant undercount of British ancestry.

The 20 million Americans that mark American are not just British, and the ones that are are the product of multiracial heritages often

It's a plurality or majority of whites in nearly every county in the South. Their ancestry is overwhelmingly British.

[hangh]

The majority of white Southerners report their ancestry as "American" so there is a clear and significant undercount of British ancestry.

And many of those people are not just British.

And no, it doesn’t amount to a significant undercount. Polish ancestry, or Czech, or Austrian-Hungarian, or Spanish ancestries, or Arab ancestry from the old Ottoman Empire, are “significantly undercounted” in the US due to poor tracking of immigration sources and changing borders in Europe. British ancestry is (or was) taken for granted and therefore somewhat over-counted, not undercounted.

[Smeagol]

And many of those people are not just British.

In the South, the vast majority are of British origin.

And no, it doesn’t amount to a significant undercount.

It obviously does. That's tens of millions of people.

[hangh]

The vast majority are of multiple origins, even in the south. You are not “of British origin” if you have a mix of British and French ancestry, or British with substantial distant Black, or British and German.

That’s why English ancestry is not a substantial undercount.

Britcels just desperately want to be associated with a nationality more attractive and genetically diverse than their own.

[Smeagol]

Yeah, sure if you're 95%+ of British origin, you can't say you're of British origin, but half British, half German = it's fine to mark your ancestry as German. I don't really care that much about the Yankee states, but it's clear just from looking at phenotypes that white Southerners are mostly British.

[hangh]

Yeah, sure if you're 95%+ of British origin, you can't say you're of British origin, but half British, half German = it's fine to mark your ancestry as German. I don't really care that much about the Yankee states, but it's clear just from looking at phenotypes that white Southerners are mostly British.

Uh, no, it’s not, as the phenotype board has highlighted when trying to explain the differences between British and Australian or American phenotypes

1) Phenotypes are influenced heavily by environment, let alone specific ethnic combinations common to different countries. After 100s of years, influence from other European groups, as well as African and Native populations, the phenotype of Americans from the South doesn’t look that similar to the ones found in the UK.

2) Notice how you hyper-focus on the south, the most racially mixed and rural part of the country? It’s a little silly. It totally defeats your point.

[Smeagol]

Uh, no, it’s not, as the phenotype board has highlighted when trying to explain the differences between British and Australian or American phenotypes

1) Phenotypes are influenced heavily by environment, let alone specific ethnic combinations common to different countries. After 100s of years, influence from other European groups, as well as African and Native populations, the phenotype of Americans from the South doesn’t look that similar to the ones found in the UK.

2) Notice how you hyper-focus on the south, the most racially mixed and rural part of the country? It’s a little silly. It totally defeats your point.

Southerners tend to look more like British and Australians than swarthy Yankees from New Jersey and states like that. The dominant European group here has always been British. Also, 23andMe already released maps showing that African or Indian ancestry in most southern whites is negligible. South Carolina and Louisiana have the most of it, and even there, only 12% of whites score African at levels above 1% and the amount of injun is even lower. The products of race mixing were always considered part of the non-white group which is why blacks are so much more mixed than whites.