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

[AA_Excellence]

South Louisiana is an outlier in the South. And trace ancestry is generally not going to show up in phenotype, much less "massively distinguish" a population. White Southerners look (and usually are) 100% Caucasian. Obviously blacks are much more mixed than whites. That's not even arguable, and any mulattoes were always considered black and married into the black community.

That was not always the case, and you know it.

[hangh]

Most Hispanics in Florida are not descendants of those people.

This is kind of an empty statement because all Spanish ancestry in the USA of this nature is so thoroughly elided by the Hispanic and Latino category. It's easily way more underreported than English ancestry.

Most of Mississippi is not part of the coastal region. And Alabama's Gulf Coast is similar but I don't see you categorizing the whole state as "Gulf coastal."

...It borders the Gulf Coast. Birmingham doesn't really have a Southern ethnic makeup either. English ancestry is probably paramount in the city by a plurality, but it was one of the few inland Southern cities that saw actual immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe.

You don't know anything about Mississippi. I've lived there. I can tell.

The state is the most Black state in the country by far and has Creole and other New Orleanian elements in it's ethnic makeup.

Uh, I asked for white people. All of these people are/were mixed race, and considered as such. They don't just have trace admixture, they have significant recent black ancestry.

Uh, no, most of them are or were not considered mixed. The historical pictures are considered mixed now, but weren't catalogued as such then. Johnny Depp, Troian Bellisario, Fiona Apple, are absolutely categorized as "white" and not mixed. Kind of silly of you to say that.

[hangh]

This is true. The Neapolitan ice cream Southerner is a myth. Few White Southerners have Black ancestry, and next to none have Red ancestry

Certain amounts of Native ancestry is common among white people in the South Central region of the country, whereas certain amounts of Black ancestry is somewhat more common among Southerners, particularly from the Coastal Plain. It is not a myth.

In comparison to, say, Brazil, few *White Americans* have Black ancestry (because we have categorized race differently, and considered our mixed population - many of whom can look very light-skinned - to be black), but it's absolutely wrong to say this about White Southerners, who often do, in trace amounts.

As for English forebears being relegated to just the Appalachians and the South, New England, Utah, and parts of California "out-WASP" those regions when it comes to limey blood.

Cope. This is tremendous cope.

The ONLY states in which English ancestry predominates are Utah and Maine. Notice how you have to say *parts of California*, which is so ethnically mixed, that almost nowhere in the state does English ancestry predominate - it's the third most common white ancestry in the state (not accounting for the Iberian genetics identified very broadly in the state's white population), and clocks in barely above Italian, at 6.5% in 2023 - single digit percentages. Now compare that to English ancestry in Australia's most populous and urban state - it comprises 29.8% of the population of New South Wales, a much larger % than in any American state.

Essentially, nothing that you said is new - English ancestry is not at all very common in the US relative to elsewhere in the New World. This is a fact. Smeagol had to partially agree with me just to argue back and forth about "the south" because he lost every argument about the US being dominated by pure English ancestry, like so many delusional people on this board want to believe. In literally any significantly populated region of the country, English isn't the primary ethnicity of the population, and in the people who have it, it's mixed with 2 or more European ethnicities, and/or it doesn't play a primary role in their family tree.

Whereas take a genetic sample from any Australian in any state or city, and aside from the very occasional Aboriginal result, they are overwhelmingly, almost entirely English, the rest being other British or Irish. For this reason, it's kind of laughable how America is talked about as if it's ethnically and phenotypically similar to Australia so frequently - when there was a thread asking why white Americans looked different from white Australians, every time someone pointed out that white Americans had way more diverse, pan-European phenotypes, you'd get some angry Brit or Teaboo posting repetitively about "English being the primary ethnicity, English, English, English" because they're mad about Americans being more genetically diverse and not looking like todays u*gly British people.

[hangh]

Melungeons are genetic outliers, and they represent extremely few individuals

This statement is based off nothing - they don't represent "extremely few individuals", as there are tons of tri-racial populations identified in the South, and no one has any kind of specific population estimate for any

most of whom are descended from ancestors who lived in northeastern Tennessee and southwestern Virginia. We just have a bit of Black ancestry, but we represent an extremely small percentage of White Southerners, *and* the exotic origins claims tend to be myths, but it's fun to have "mysteries" that need to be solved (caveat: *some* Melungeons probably do have more exotic origins than just Black slaves)

The idea that it's an "Extremely small percentage of white Southerners" is baseless and silly - with a region having such a long population of Black habitation, I don't know how anyone believes the constant attempt to erase and downplay any amount of racial admixture in a white population that's been as large, and living alongside black people for hundreds of years.

There is no accurate estimate for the amount of people with tri-racial ancestry, let alone mixed ancestry, in the south, but since Indigenous AND/OR SSA ancestry appears at least in trace amounts among more than a plurality of white southerners using the DNA packages that will identify such ancestry, it cannot be called "extremely rare" for white people to have black ancestry in the south - the "Afro-European" element is one of the definitive elements of the region's ethnography in any case, you have to account for the massive SSA presence, and that includes accounting for mixed individuals, which we do largely by studying the black population and neglecting the white - because Blacks have to maintain their status as the oppressed and whites have to maintain their status as the oppressors, and people, like you, want the country to be balkanized along racial lines. This kind of ethno-racial denialism in the USA is really rooted in marxist racism. If I'm able to cherry-pick celebrities with notable tri-racial melungeon ancestry, it cannot be called rare in the region, or an "extremely small percentage of individuals" - that would be correct about Melungeon ancestry in England, a country where it's not native (Rebecca Hall is a British actress with Melungeon ancestry from America). The amount of white southerners with notable Black or Native ancestry that appears in DNA tests might be small in a relative sense, but the amount of them with trace ancestry of both groups is not, and it's this ethnic heritage that helps to distinguish the Southern ethnic makeup and phenotype from that of the Australians, who have zero ethnic relationship to SSA people - same with Canadians or British people.

[hangh]

The northern states are not majority British?

Nope, not at all. A small handful might be majority of British Isles ancestry, but many aren't even majority British, and none are majority English apart from Maine.

[Anglo-Celtic]

Certain amounts of Native ancestry is common among white people in the South Central region of the country, whereas certain amounts of Black ancestry is somewhat more common among Southerners, particularly from the Coastal Plain. It is not a myth.

In comparison to, say, Brazil, few *White Americans* have Black ancestry (because we have categorized race differently, and considered our mixed population - many of whom can look very light-skinned - to be black), but it's absolutely wrong to say this about White Southerners, who often do, in trace amounts.



Cope. This is tremendous cope.

The ONLY states in which English ancestry predominates are Utah and Maine. Notice how you have to say *parts of California*, which is so ethnically mixed, that almost nowhere in the state does English ancestry predominate - it's the third most common white ancestry in the state (not accounting for the Iberian genetics identified very broadly in the state's white population), and clocks in barely above Italian, at 6.5% in 2023 - single digit percentages. Now compare that to English ancestry in Australia's most populous and urban state - it comprises 29.8% of the population of New South Wales, a much larger % than in any American state.

Essentially, nothing that you said is new - English ancestry is not at all very common in the US relative to elsewhere in the New World. This is a fact. Smeagol had to partially agree with me just to argue back and forth about "the south" because he lost every argument about the US being dominated by pure English ancestry, like so many delusional people on this board want to believe. In literally any significantly populated region of the country, English isn't the primary ethnicity of the population, and in the people who have it, it's mixed with 2 or more European ethnicities, and/or it doesn't play a primary role in their family tree.

Whereas take a genetic sample from any Australian in any state or city, and aside from the very occasional Aboriginal result, they are overwhelmingly, almost entirely English, the rest being other British or Irish. For this reason, it's kind of laughable how America is talked about as if it's ethnically and phenotypically similar to Australia so frequently - when there was a thread asking why white Americans looked different from white Australians, every time someone pointed out that white Americans had way more diverse, pan-European phenotypes, you'd get some angry Brit or Teaboo posting repetitively about "English being the primary ethnicity, English, English, English" because they're mad about Americans being more genetically diverse and not looking like todays u*gly British people.

Ah, now you narrow it down to a region within a region (changing the goalposts). I'll just say "nope" to your claim of cope by repeating that Red ancestry is uncommon in White Southerners, and a lot of Black Southerners *and* White Southerners have the Cherokee grandmother *myth* in their families. I also never relegated English blood to just particular states, which is why I brought up New England, as well as parts of California (I don't recall the exact locales). English blood is *very* common in the South, and likely is at the top of the list in eastern sections of the region, and, before you change the goalpost again, I never once said that any place is purely English, so try some other tactic.

[Anglo-Celtic]

This statement is based off nothing - they don't represent "extremely few individuals", as there are tons of tri-racial populations identified in the South, and no one has any kind of specific population estimate for any



The idea that it's an "Extremely small percentage of white Southerners" is baseless and silly - with a region having such a long population of Black habitation, I don't know how anyone believes the constant attempt to erase and downplay any amount of racial admixture in a white population that's been as large, and living alongside black people for hundreds of years.

There is no accurate estimate for the amount of people with tri-racial ancestry, let alone mixed ancestry, in the south, but since Indigenous AND/OR SSA ancestry appears at least in trace amounts among more than a plurality of white southerners using the DNA packages that will identify such ancestry, it cannot be called "extremely rare" for white people to have black ancestry in the south - the "Afro-European" element is one of the definitive elements of the region's ethnography in any case, you have to account for the massive SSA presence, and that includes accounting for mixed individuals, which we do largely by studying the black population and neglecting the white - because Blacks have to maintain their status as the oppressed and whites have to maintain their status as the oppressors, and people, like you, want the country to be balkanized along racial lines. This kind of ethno-racial denialism in the USA is really rooted in marxist racism. If I'm able to cherry-pick celebrities with notable tri-racial melungeon ancestry, it cannot be called rare in the region, or an "extremely small percentage of individuals" - that would be correct about Melungeon ancestry in England, a country where it's not native (Rebecca Hall is a British actress with Melungeon ancestry from America). The amount of white southerners with notable Black or Native ancestry that appears in DNA tests might be small in a relative sense, but the amount of them with trace ancestry of both groups is not, and it's this ethnic heritage that helps to distinguish the Southern ethnic makeup and phenotype from that of the Australians, who have zero ethnic relationship to SSA people - same with Canadians or British people.

Oh, please. I'm descended from actual Melungeons, so why would I minimize their P.O.P.? Most White Southerners don't have Black ancestry, period, and the "mulattos" that you emphasize have 5% at the most on DNA tests, so BFD. Our Down Under friends are quite like White people from the South who have both English and Irish forebears, and the negligible traces of this and that (when there really are some) mean squat.

[billErobreren]

Can't say I care one way or the other.

The northern states are not majority British?

Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire should still be, I guess. The rest of New England has more Irish blended with Italian, French Canadian and some Portuguese sprinkled in. I grew up in the upper Midwest and at most a third had British names, but we're a different story. The south is mostly Anglo-Scottish and Welsh by stock, to claim otherwise is to be disingenuous.

[Creoda]

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.

Really? Besides a few people on this forum (myself included) I've rarely seen people make this point, most will accept the ethnic census figures uncritically. You seem more insecure to make a mini-essay about it out of the blue.

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

This outbreeding would have had to mostly occur between 1980 (when English was the largest reported ancestry) and 1990/2000. This is impossible. The major difference between those dates is the inclusion of the 'American' option in self-reported ancestry, which has siphoned off those identifying as English and Scottish origin.

And the idea that British immigration to the US dried up in the 1810s is stupid, the number of immigrants from Britain to the US between 1820 and 1978 was 4.9 million, only behind Italy (5.3 million) and Germany (6.9 million). Add the 4.7 million immigrants from Ireland (many of whom would be Protestant Scottish/English stock) during that time and the number of immigrants from the British Isles is 9.6 million. And that's just on top of the mostly British founding stock.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...pean_migration

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

As it happens this has been the smoking gun in dispelling the ethnic estimates of recent US censuses, and proving that White Americans are more British (or at least Anglo-Celtic) than anything else. The 23andme-based academic paper on US genetic origins showed that the British & Irish genetic category dwarfs all others in frequency for Americans identifying as White.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/bior...2/009340-1.pdf

- 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.

And Americans after 1980 can be trusted to more accurately report their ancestry why?

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.

The aforementioned study also showed that to be a myth. White Southerners have remarkably little non-white ancestry for people who've been living alongside large numbers of blacks for centuries, less than 1% on average.

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.

British surnames are also by far the most common amongst Whites.

The 100 most common surnames amongst those identifying as White in the 2010 US census

SMITH	2,442,977	1,732,071	70.90%	1	1
JOHNSON	1,932,812	1,139,779	58.97%	2	2
MILLER	1,161,437	976,885	84.11%	3	7
BROWN	1,437,026	832,757	57.95%	4	4
JONES	1,425,470	786,717	55.19%	5	5
WILLIAMS	1,625,252	743,553	45.75%	6	3
DAVIS	1,116,357	694,374	62.20%	7	8
ANDERSON	784,404	589,636	75.17%	8	15
WILSON	801,882	540,148	67.36%	9	14
MARTIN	702,625	525,564	74.80%	10	20
TAYLOR	751,209	491,140	65.38%	11	17
MOORE	724,374	481,057	66.41%	12	18
THOMPSON	664,644	463,789	69.78%	13	23
WHITE	660,491	432,688	65.51%	14	24
CLARK	562,679	420,040	74.65%	15	27
THOMAS	756,142	397,958	52.63%	16	16
BAKER	419,586	334,956	79.83%	17	44
NELSON	424,958	330,022	77.66%	18	43
KING	465,422	326,540	70.16%	19	34
ALLEN	482,607	326,194	67.59%	20	33
YOUNG	484,447	320,995	66.26%	21	32
HARRIS	624,252	320,866	51.40%	22	25
ADAMS	427,865	316,706	74.02%	23	42
LEWIS	531,781	309,656	58.23%	24	29
WALKER	523,129	306,867	58.66%	25	31
WRIGHT	458,980	302,009	65.80%	26	35
HALL	407,076	295,741	72.65%	27	45
ROBERTS	376,774	291,133	77.27%	28	50
CAMPBELL	386,157	284,443	73.66%	29	47
JACKSON	708,099	282,461	39.89%	30	19
HILL	434,827	279,855	64.36%	31	39
PHILLIPS	360,802	276,699	76.69%	32	52
SCOTT	439,530	264,641	60.21%	33	36
ROBINSON	529,821	258,023	48.70%	34	30
MURPHY	308,417	256,325	83.11%	35	64
LEE	693,023	249,142	35.95%	36	21
COOK	302,589	247,518	81.80%	37	65
GREEN	430,182	244,515	56.84%	38	41
EVANS	355,593	243,190	68.39%	39	53
COLLINS	329,770	236,148	71.61%	40	59
PETERSON	278,297	234,855	84.39%	41	71
MORRIS	318,884	234,667	73.59%	42	62
MITCHELL	384,486	234,613	61.02%	43	48
PARKER	336,221	232,564	69.17%	44	56
ROGERS	302,261	227,905	75.40%	45	66
STEWART	324,957	224,773	69.17%	46	61
TURNER	348,627	223,993	64.25%	47	54
WOOD	250,715	222,434	88.72%	48	84
CARTER	376,966	219,394	58.20%	49	49
MORGAN	286,280	217,773	76.07%	50	69
COX	261,231	215,829	82.62%	51	78
KELLY	267,394	208,808	78.09%	52	74
EDWARDS	332,423	206,534	62.13%	53	58
BAILEY	277,845	201,299	72.45%	54	72
REED	277,030	197,495	71.29%	55	73
WARD	260,464	196,859	75.58%	56	79
MYERS	229,895	194,261	84.50%	57	96
SULLIVAN	220,990	193,875	87.73%	58	105
COOPER	280,791	190,741	67.93%	59	70
BENNETT	247,599	189,562	76.56%	60	86
HUGHES	236,271	185,213	78.39%	61	90
LONG	229,374	183,224	79.88%	62	97
FISHER	214,703	177,302	82.58%	63	112
PRICE	235,251	173,921	73.93%	64	91
RUSSELL	221,558	170,710	77.05%	65	104
HOWARD	264,826	170,310	64.31%	66	75
GRAY	246,116	169,032	68.68%	67	87
WATSON	252,579	166,778	66.03%	68	81
REYNOLDS	200,247	162,360	81.08%	69	121
FOSTER	227,764	158,638	69.65%	70	99
ROSS	229,368	158,172	68.96%	71	98
OLSON	164,035	155,440	94.76%	72	157
RICHARDSON	259,798	155,099	59.70%	73	80
BROOKS	251,663	151,551	60.22%	74	82
PERRY	221,741	151,493	68.32%	75	103
STEVENS	185,674	151,213	81.44%	76	135
POWELL	224,874	151,115	67.20%	77	101
SNYDER	160,262	150,758	94.07%	78	165
WEST	195,818	147,803	75.48%	79	125
COLE	195,289	147,111	75.33%	80	126
WAGNER	155,795	144,064	92.47%	81	173
MEYER	150,895	143,109	94.84%	82	183
KENNEDY	176,865	142,942	80.82%	83	146
HAMILTON	201,746	141,646	70.21%	84	119
BARNES	218,241	141,442	64.81%	85	110
GRAHAM	201,159	140,852	70.02%	86	120
SANDERS	230,374	140,021	60.78%	87	94
SCHMIDT	147,034	139,903	95.15%	88	185
MURRAY	184,910	138,535	74.92%	89	136
MCDONALD	180,497	138,351	76.65%	90	143
PATTERSON	205,423	138,188	67.27%	91	117
GIBSON	190,667	137,547	72.14%	92	130
WALLACE	197,276	136,594	69.24%	93	123
BUTLER	218,847	136,473	62.36%	94	108
BELL	220,599	134,808	61.11%	95	106
HAYES	194,246	134,768	69.38%	96	127
FOX	152,334	134,176	88.08%	97	180
BURNS	165,925	133,171	80.26%	98	155
ELLIS	188,968	132,958	70.36%	99	131
STONE	153,329	131,786	85.95%	100

https://namecensus.com/last-names/co...hite-surnames/
British surnames are dominant, which should be unsurprising for anyone familiar with America(ns).

I don't know what your point is, everyone knows modern Americans are overall a mixture and aren't British. Mine and others' contention is only that British ancestry is by far the largest European ancestry amongst them, which is supported by all historical and genetic data, as well as common sense.

[rothaer]

Really? Besides a few people on this forum (myself included) I've rarely seen people make this point, most will accept the ethnic census figures uncritically. (...)

True, I just noted you doing such a point.

Btw. I regard English surnames not that much telling, especially in the context of hard-core assimilating Germans where Schmidt, Müller and Schneider becomes Smith, Miller and Taylor within one day. Other names like Clark, Lewis and Campbell are less acessible to Germans by such transformings but I personally know a case where an American named Pomeroy by ancestry research found out that his surname originally was the German name Pommerenke which was somewhat unexpected.