23andme components highest frequency map for white Americans in the US.

[Sikeliot]

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2014/09/26/009340.DC2/009340-1.pdf

https://i.imgur.com/tbcNVJl.png

[Arduti]

This map is inaccurate. The sample only consists of people who opt to participate in 23andMe research, which isn't exactly representative of the population.
Also the majority of the country is still "white" so that map should look a lot more "European"

[Sikeliot]

This map is inaccurate. The sample only consists of people who opt to participate in 23andMe research, which isn't exactly representative of the population.
Also the majority of the country is still "white" so that map should look a lot more "European"

You're not reading it properly. It is showing what percentage of each component the average white person might score in each state.

[Petalpusher]

It also shows African Americans really have like the equivalent of an European grand parent on average. Surprising it's a bit lower in the south, i would have imagined the contrary. On the other hand white Americans have anecdotic African but still constantly there, like the Amerindian.

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

The highest Iberian ancestry is being displayed in Rhode Island, New Jersey and surrounding states where the Portuguese diaspora and Portuguese descents make up to 20% of the total population.

[Sikeliot]

The highest Iberian ancestry is being displayed in Rhode Island, New Jersey and surrounding states where the Portuguese diaspora and Portuguese descents make up to 20% of the total population.

I was surprised it wasn't even more for Massachusetts then.

My question is, is the higher Middle Eastern in New York/New Jersey/Massachusetts likely due to actual Middle Easterners, or is it due to the secondary component in people like Italian and Jewish Americans who are prominent in those states?

IMO it has to be the latter because it says self-reported 'European Americans.'

[The Illyrian Warrior]

Look how underestimated Italian is, this can't be true given the strong Italian wave US has absorbed.

[Sikeliot]

Look how underestimated Italian is, this can't be true given the strong Italian wave US has absorbed.

Only the northeast and California have large Italian American populations.

Anyhow I'd attribute most of the Italian, Balkan, and Middle East above to be higher because of Italian Americans carrying these components.

[Smitty]

Only the northeast and California have large Italian American populations.

Anyhow I'd attribute most of the Italian, Balkan, and Middle East above to be higher because of Italian Americans carrying these components.

And Chicago and Louisiana.

[Smitty]

It also shows African Americans really have like the equivalent of an European grand parent on average. Surprising it's a bit lower in the south, i would have imagined the contrary. On the other hand white Americans have anecdotic African but still constantly there, like the Amerindian.

Consistently there? Am I reading this chart wrong? It looks like 1% or so score SSA.

68118

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=68118&d=1506530588

[Petalpusher]

Consistently there? Am I reading this chart wrong? It looks like 1% or so score SSA.

68118

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=68118&d=1506530588

On 23andme you really have to have something oddly African to score even 0.1%, the threshold is high. In real autosomals people get 10 times more usually than on 23andme.

https://i.imgur.com/gLdckh2.png

It increases in the expected states, like Alabama, Louisiana, South Carolina but as i said, still anecdotic overall.

[Smitty]

On 23andme you really have to have something oddly African to score even 0.1%, the threshold is high. In real autosomals people get 10 times more usually than on 23andme.

https://i.imgur.com/gLdckh2.png

It increases in the expected states, like Alabama, Louisiana, South Carolina but as i said, still anecdotic overall.

And do you believe that translates to actual ancestry? I've seen a Brit and a Belgian get 0.1% and <0.1% and plenty of Romanians with more, so I don't put that much stock in it. I could be wrong though.

[The Illyrian Warrior]

Only the northeast and California have large Italian American populations.

Anyhow I'd attribute most of the Italian, Balkan, and Middle East above to be higher because of Italian Americans carrying these components.

I know that but notice the mean % on Italian how low and insignificant it shows up in European Americans, something doesn't adds up here.

[The Illyrian Warrior]

And do you believe that translates to actual ancestry? I've seen a Brit and a Belgian get 0.1% and <0.1% and plenty of Romanians with more, so I don't put that much stock in it. I could be wrong though.

Less than 0.5% could be translated as noise however in southern states that low SSA score on first sight is a likelihood given the history it had with African slave women.

[alnortedelsur]

The highest Iberian ancestry is being displayed in Rhode Island, New Jersey and surrounding states where the Portuguese diaspora and Portuguese descents make up to 20% of the total population.

Where about New Mexico, where great part of the population from that state descent from Spanish settlers from colonial times?

[alnortedelsur]

I was surprised it wasn't even more for Massachusetts then.

My question is, is the higher Middle Eastern in New York/New Jersey/Massachusetts likely due to actual Middle Easterners, or is it due to the secondary component in people like Italian and Jewish Americans who are prominent in those states?

IMO it has to be the latter because it says self-reported 'European Americans.'

In the case of Massachusetts scoring more Iberian, is very likely because south eastern Massachusetts (New Bedford and other surrounding areas bordering Rhode Island) is full of Portuguese descent people.

[Smitty]

Less than 0.5% could be translated as noise however in southern states that low SSA score on first sight is a likelihood given the history it had with African slave women.

0.5%, especially in the South, would give me pause. 0.1% or 0.2%, not so much.

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

Where about New Mexico, where great part of the population from that state descent from Spanish settlers from colonial times?

That migrant wave is way older and probably disseminated across other states and regions throughout the generations (just speculating). Portugueses have a long history with the North-American continent since the 16th century but most our diaspora is actually quite "new" (mid-late 20th century).

[Petalpusher]

And do you believe that translates to actual ancestry? I've seen a Brit and a Belgian get 0.1% and <0.1% and plenty of Romanians with more, so I don't put that much stock in it. I could be wrong though.

I think it's very rare in most Europeans, if every states had 0.1 on average i could say it's not relevant but beyond at 0.3, 0.4 up to 0.6 is definetly real and relatively recent, again 23andme is really conservative in showing African to someone. The thing is it only takes one ancestor even 400 years ago to get these sort of values, the geneflow is extremely biased already as African Americans are much more European than Europeans are African (we know why) but as long as you are old time colonials there was still a very minor gene flow in this direction especially in some state there s a fair chance to get something, like New Mexico also get the most Amerindian as expected it's not random values.

[The Illyrian Warrior]

0.5%, especially in the South, would give me pause. 0.1% or 0.2%, not so much.

0.1% outside of South most probably is a noise, however in south the SSA level unsurprisingly increases (although a minor change) so it can't be a coincidence but rather a sign of african past.

[Cristiano viejo]

Where about New Mexico, where great part of the population from that state descent from Spanish settlers from colonial times?

I would not pay too attention in "Spanish" from New Mexico. All their bloodline was absorved by Amerindians many generations ago.
Only in Lousiana, Florida and perhaps Texas and California remain pure Spanish blood.

I am referring of course to colonial times, not recent immigration like the Colonel Francisco Grimes example

[Smitty]

I think it's very rare in most Europeans, if every states had 0.1 on average i could say it's not relevant but beyond at 0.3, 0.4 up to 0.6 is definetly real and relatively recent, again 23andme is really conservative in showing African to someone. The thing is it only takes one ancestor even 400 years ago to get these sort of values, the geneflow is extremely biased already as African Americans are much more European than Europeans are African (we know why) but as long as you are old time colonials there was still a very minor gene flow in this direction especially in some state there s a fair chance to get something, like New Mexico also get the most Amerindian as expected.

I agree that it's not surprising in the South, but elsewhere, it would seem very odd to me. Interesting, regardless.

[alnortedelsur]

I would not pay too attention in "Spanish" from New Mexico. All their bloodline was absorved by Amerindians many generations ago.
Only in Lousiana, Florida and perhaps Texas and California remain pure Spanish blood.

I am referring of course to colonial times, not recent immigration like the Colonel Francisco Grimes example

I know, but I just meant that chances are that people from that state have considerable amounts of Colonial Spanish ancestry, even if mixed with other things (like Amerindian and/or Anglo).

[Cristiano viejo]

I know, but I just meant that chances are that people from that state have considerable amounts of Colonial Spanish ancestry, even if mixed with other things (like Amerindian and/or Anglo).

Ah yes, all these mestizos from New Mexico must have industrial amounts of Spanish blood in them, of course.

[Dick]

That's a lot of mean people in the US.

[Friends of Oliver Society]

That's a lot of mean people in the US.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Jv_XR6RMAI

[Friends of Oliver Society]

I would not pay too attention in "Spanish" from New Mexico. All their bloodline was absorved by Amerindians many generations ago.
Only in Lousiana, Florida and perhaps Texas and California remain pure Spanish blood.

I am referring of course to colonial times, not recent immigration like the Colonel Francisco Grimes example

Florida's colonial Spanish population has been absorbed by the whole. California and Texas was settled most by mixed people. The wealthiest man in Los Angeles in the colonial era was a mulatto, for example. The last Mexican governor of California's grandfather was mestizo and his grandmother was mulatto.

btw, his descendant is the poster boy for Bellator. He was one point away from making the Olympic wrestling team. A disappointment considering he was if not the highest ranked high school wrestler in the US than at least in the top 5 (I'm pretty sure he was ranked #1).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjdjEuLQnOs

That was brutal.

[Heather Duval]

I would not pay too attention in "Spanish" from New Mexico. All their bloodline was absorved by Amerindians many generations ago.
Only in Lousiana, Florida and perhaps Texas and California remain pure Spanish blood.

I am referring of course to colonial times, not recent immigration like the Colonel Francisco Grimes example

Francisco :lol:

[Heather Duval]

Florida's colonial Spanish population has been absorbed by the whole. California and Texas was settled most by mixed people. The wealthiest man in Los Angeles in the colonial era was a mulatto, for example. The last Mexican governor of California's grandfather was mestizo and his grandmother was mulatto.

btw, his descendant is the poster boy for Bellator. He was one point away from making the Olympic wrestling team. A disappointment considering he was if not the highest ranked high school wrestler in the US than at least in the top 5 (I'm pretty sure he was ranked #1).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjdjEuLQnOs

That was brutal.

Is there any pure Spaniard in Louisiana? I doubt, most of them become creoles(African and European background).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C56FzJBFiug

[alnortedelsur]

Is there any pure Spaniard in Louisiana? I doubt, most of them become creoles(African and European background).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C56FzJBFiug

Isleno would not agree with you.

[Smitty]

Isleno would not agree with you.

Isleño introduced me to a community I didn't know existed in my country.

[Heather Duval]

Isleño introduced me to a community I didn't know existed in my country.

wich community? everyone knows about creoles and they are associeted with mullattoes

[GiCa]

Vermont is High in Sardinian relatively in USA context

Why? Sardinians didn't t immigrate massively in USA as I know and when tey immigrated the went in the same towns in New Jersey with other Italians

Perhaps maybe it has to do with French people in vermont

[Smitty]

wich community? everyone knows about creoles and they are associeted with mullattoes

He's apparently part of a colonial Canarian Spanish community in Louisiana that still speaks Spanish. I don't think it's the same as Creoles, although it may be a subset of them. I'm sure he could explain.

[Smitty]

Vermont is High in Sardinian relatively in USA context

Why? Sardinians didn't t immigrate massively in USA as I know and when tey immigrated the went in the same towns in New Jersey with other Italians

Perhaps maybe it has to do with French people in vermont

Except I think French-Canadian ancestry is found throughout upper New England, not just in Vermont. That density there was interesting to me.

[Heather Duval]

He's apparently part of a colonial Canarian Spanish community in Louisiana that still speaks Spanish. I don't think it's the same as Creoles, although it may be a subset of them. I'm sure he could explain.

he told me there are white creole and i was shocked. creoles are famous for being mulattoes

[GiCa]

Latinos in Arkansas, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia are white/castizos

Interesting

[Smitty]

he told me there are white creole and i was shocked. creoles are famous for being mulattoes

Here in the Midwest, I doubt most people could even define Creoles, although yes, it does conjure up an image of mixed-race people.

[Heather Duval]

when you google for lousiana creoles on google
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f9/45/15/f94515f5364b14c6757b0d7d2d5f8e05.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/2b/36/65/2b366500ab814ad4e38d730b215c054c.jpg

[Cristiano viejo]

Isleño introduced me to a community I didn't know existed in my country.
What says a lot about your knowledges about your own country, Smitty :rolleyes:
They lived in Lousiana since before than USA simple exist, so imagine...


wich community? everyone knows about creoles and they are associeted with mullattoes

Isleños are pure-blood Spanish living in Lousiana, Texas and Florida since the last decades of 1700s.

[Smitty]

What says a lot about your knowledges about your own country, Smitty :rolleyes:
They lived in Lousiana since before than USA simple exist, so imagine...



Isleños are pure-blood Spanish living in Lousiana, Texas and Florida since the last decades of 1700s.

They're a population of 37,000 from a completely different side of the country from my own. I don't feel too stupid for not knowing they existed. But yes, I learn new things all the time - even about my own country.

[Cristiano viejo]

They're a population of 37,000 from a completely different side of the country from my own. I don't feel too stupid for not knowing they existed. But yes, I learn new things all the time - even about my own country.

They are more than 37.000 and the main reason of why all Americans should know their history is because they are living in Lousiana since before than everyone else, and are American citizens since the fuckin birth of the nation. They are settled in current USA much before than 99% of Americans.
They are a relic.

[Smitty]

They are more than 37.000 and the main reason of why all Americans should know their history is because they are living in Lousiana since before than everyone else, and are American citizens since the fuckin birth of the nation. They are settled in current USA much before than 99% of Americans.
They are a relic.

Isleños? Wikipedia says they're 37,000 in the US. And they're colonial. That's not that impressive - at least, not to a fellow colonial. There were also Poles and Sephardic Jews in the US in colonial times, facts which I didn't realize until recently. You can't know everything. That's a relief really.

EDIT: I would also point out that America is an Anglo nation which looks at its history still (for better or worse) through an Anglo lens. The Spanish residents of Louisiana would be seen as being brought into the Anglo nation as it moved westward. Not quite the same as being a US colonial, despite their rich and very old history. This won't make you happy, but it is what it is.

[Heather Duval]

Louisiana wasnt even USA.

[Cristiano viejo]

Isleños? Wikipedia says they're 37,000 in the US. And they're colonial. That's not that impressive - at least, not to a fellow colonial. There were also Poles and Sephardic Jews in the US in colonial times, facts which I didn't realize until recently. You can't know everything. That's a relief really.
Wikipedia can say mess. In any case their amount does not matter, it cares the fact that they live in America probably some centuries before than your ancestors, Smitty.


EDIT: I would also point out that America is an Anglo nation which looks at its history still (for better or worse) through an Anglo lens. The Spanish residents of Louisiana would be seen as being brought into the Anglo nation as it moved westward. Not quite the same as being a US colonial, despite their rich and very old history. This won't make you happy, but it is what it is.
But it is false :noidea:



Louisiana wasnt even USA.

ok Rainbowpipi, time to leave this thread for people that understand. Go back to your threads about celebrities, dear.

[Smitty]

Wikipedia can say mess. In any case their amount does not matter, it cares the fact that they live in America probably some centuries before than your ancestors, Smitty.

Well, do you have a better source for their numbers? And from what I know of my genealogy, my family has probably been in the US since the 1630s, during the Puritans' Great Migration. Canarians, on the other hand (Wikipedia): "During the 18th century, the Spanish crown sent several groups of Canary Islanders to their colonies in New Spain. Spain's goal was to colonise certain regions with Spanish settlers, and between 1731 and 1783, several Canarian communities were established in what is now the Southern United States. In 1731, 16 Canarian families arrived in San Antonio, Spanish Texas. Between 1757 and 1759, 154 families were sent to Spanish Florida. Between 1778 and 1783 another 2,100 Canarians arrived in Spanish Louisiana. In southern Louisiana, the Canarians founded four communities in St. Bernard Parish, Valenzuela, Barataria, and Galveztown." Of course, that doesn't matter, but if you're going to bring it up...


But it is false :noidea:

Why is it false?

[Heather Duval]

Wikipedia can say mess. In any case their amount does not matter, it cares the fact that they live in America probably some centuries before than your ancestors, Smitty.


But it is false :noidea:




ok Rainbowpipi, time to leave this thread for people that understand. Go back to your threads about celebrities, dear.

louisiana was a french state, dear

[Mortimer]

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2014/09/26/009340.DC2/009340-1.pdf

https://i.imgur.com/tbcNVJl.png

So Middle Easterners are European Americans? Also it shows British/Irish and French/German to be the most frequent. Expected. Most minor ancestries like middle eastern or balkan are in the northeast.

[Sikeliot]

So Middle Easterners are European Americans? Also it shows British/Irish and French/German to be the most frequent. Expected. Most minor ancestries like middle eastern or balkan are in the northeast.

No, it means that self-reported European Americans in the northeast have the most Middle Eastern ancestry of all white Americans, and this makes sense because it is likely people of southern Italian/Sicilian descent who are coming up with this.

[Heather Duval]

Well, do you have a better source for their numbers? And from what I know of my genealogy, my family has probably been in the US since the 1630s, during the Puritans' Great Migration. Canarians, on the other hand (Wikipedia): "During the 18th century, the Spanish crown sent several groups of Canary Islanders to their colonies in New Spain. Spain's goal was to colonise certain regions with Spanish settlers, and between 1731 and 1783, several Canarian communities were established in what is now the Southern United States. In 1731, 16 Canarian families arrived in San Antonio, Spanish Texas. Between 1757 and 1759, 154 families were sent to Spanish Florida. Between 1778 and 1783 another 2,100 Canarians arrived in Spanish Louisiana. In southern Louisiana, the Canarians founded four communities in St. Bernard Parish, Valenzuela, Barataria, and Galveztown." Of course, that doesn't matter, but if you're going to bring it up...



Why is it false?

CV always claims that Canary Islanders isnt Spain. I dont know his point right now.

[Cristiano viejo]

Well, do you have a better source for their numbers?
70.000 only in San Bernardo Parish in 2005, before Katrina
https://emigrantecanario.wordpress.com/reportajes/los-islenos-de-luisiana/


And from what I know of my genealogy, my family has probably been in the US since the 1630s, during the Puritans' Great Migration.
ok, touche.
All your family? 100% of them? :rolleyes:


Why is it false?
Because Spanish from Lousiana were as colonial as the first fuckin Anglo colonials that you could imagine, if not more (in Lousiana with no doubts).


louisiana was a french state, dear

Also it was a Spanish province, dear. Cajuns exist thanks to Spain, that allowed to them come to Lousiana since Acadia in Canada to settle in Lousiana just because they were Catholics.

You are welcome.

[Smitty]

70.000 only in San Bernardo Parish in 2005, before Katrina
https://emigrantecanario.wordpress.com/reportajes/los-islenos-de-luisiana/

Fair enough. Either way, though, this is not a major group. They're small, and they're regional. I've never been to Louisiana. I live on the opposite side of the country. If they're not widely known, it is no surprise.



ok, touche.
All your family? 100% of them? :rolleyes:


No, not all my family, as you should already know. But what of it? This isn't a competition. My point is that merely being "colonial" is not that big of a deal to the tens of millions of Americans with colonial roots of their own, many of them a full century before the Isleños began coming in the 1730s under Spanish rule. It is their culture that is unique, not their age.


Because Spanish from Lousiana were as colonial as the first fuckin Anglo colonials that you could imagine, if not more (in Lousiana with no doubts).

You're glossing over the distinction I pointed out. They're colonial, but they're Spanish colonial. That doesn't lessen them as Americans in any way. In fact, if we were to rank "Americanness," they'd be more American than swaths of Americans. But being a Spanish colonist in a colony that was later acquired and absorbed by England is slightly different than being a colonist of an English colony. Their history prior to the Louisiana Purchase was not American (read: Anglo). As an example, what if America were to purchase Quebec? The Quebecois would now be American, they would have very deep roots on the continent, but their history prior to that acquisition would be different. Quebec's history would become American history only in a regional sense. The founders of America would still be seen separately as the English. This is a slight distinction, and you'll probably blow it up and say I'm claiming the Isleños aren't American, but I'm not. I'm just trying to explain why they would not be seen as part of American history in the sense that Jamestown and Plymouth Rock are.

[Peterski]

Self-declared ancestry for comparison:

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?222651-U-S-1980-Census-Ancestry-data

[Heather Duval]

Self-declared ancestry for comparison:

https://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?222651-U-S-1980-Census-Ancestry-data

23andme its shit for german people lol
they score less german than everything there
even oneeye one time showed a 23andme results from a dutch girl from europe and she scored more british than everything

[Cristiano viejo]

Fair enough. Either way, though, this is not a major group. They're small, and they're regional. I've never been to Louisiana. I live on the opposite side of the country. If they're not widely known, it is no surprise.
Nice but then dont try to convince me about topics that you dont know about southern states.




No, not all my family, as you should already know. But what of it? This isn't a competition. My point is that merely being "colonial" is not that big of a deal to the tens of millions of Americans with colonial roots of their own, many of them a full century before the Isleños began coming in the 1730s under Spanish rule. It is their culture that is unique, not their age.
I bet my life the majority of the current Americans dont have colonial ancestors prior to 1730.



You're glossing over the distinction I pointed out. They're colonial, but they're Spanish colonial. That doesn't lessen them as Americans in any way. In fact, if we were to rank "Americanness," they'd be more American than swaths of Americans. But being a Spanish colonist in a colony that was later acquired and absorbed by England is slightly different than being a colonist of an English colony. Their history prior to the Louisiana Purchase was not American (read: Anglo). As an example, what if America were to purchase Quebec? The Quebecois would now be American, they would have very deep roots on the continent, but their history prior to that acquisition would be different. Quebec's history would become American history only in a regional sense. The founders of America would still be seen separately as the English. This is a slight distinction, and you'll probably blow it up and say I'm claiming the Isleños aren't American, but I'm not. I'm just trying to explain why they would not be seen as part of American history in the sense that Jamestown and Plymouth Rock are.
Man... Spanish Lousiana, or Spanish Florida, Spanish Texas, Spanish California etc were not absorbed by England...

[Smitty]

Nice but then dont try to convince me about topics that you dont know about southern states.

Louisiana is not the South. Before you trip up on this, it is in the South, but it is not representative of it. I have been to the South, and Southern culture is widely familiar in America. But where have I tried to convince you of things I don't know anything about?




I bet my life the majority of the current Americans dont have colonial ancestors prior to 1730.



That's a safe bet, since we'll never know either way. But I didn't claim they did. I said "many [colonials]" do. As for the number of colonials, I'd wager another empty bet that a majority of white Americans have colonial roots, and all old-stock blacks do, since the slave trade was banned shortly after independence. All that to say that while Isleños are colonial, that is nothing unique.


Man... Spanish Lousiana, or Spanish Florida, Spanish Texas, Spanish California etc were not absorbed by England...

Not by England. Who said that? By America.

[Cristiano viejo]

That's a safe bet, since we'll never know either way. But I didn't claim they did. I said "many [colonials]" do. As for the number of colonials, I'd wager another empty bet that a majority of white Americans have colonial roots, and all old-stock blacks do, since the slave trade was banned shortly after independence. All that to say that while Isleños are colonial, that is nothing unique.
They are unique because not all Americans, nor much less, are living in America since so early.
That is why I feel bad when people claim they are foreigners.

[Smitty]

They are unique because not all Americans, nor much less, are living in America since so early.
That is why I feel bad when people claim they are foreigners.

Not all Americans, but a huge number actually have. The percentage goes up when you exclude recent Third World immigrants. It's a popular idea that we all descend from recent waves of Irish, German, and Italian immigrants, but that's just not accurate.

By the way, who says Isleños are foreigners? If people diss Spanish speakers, these old Louisianans are not the ones we have in mind. They're as American as any of us.

[RMuller]

Where about New Mexico, where great part of the population from that state descent from Spanish settlers from colonial times?

Those are Mexican-Americans. They are genetically related to Mexicans from Chihuahua,Sonora,Durango. They are on average 65% Euro-35% Amerindians. All Mexicans are descendant of Spanish settlers.