Vahaduo calcs vol.2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rothaer

Can you tell what is meant with US_Alabama f. i.? Only white, only some white? Are they arbitrary residents in Alabama or is there any requirement regarding where the ancestors resided?

---

With pleasure. It is made up of Whites from these places, my racial minimum for inclusion is 75% White, but very rarely is anyone more than around 1/32 non-white. The vast majority of kits used have 4 grandparents born in that place, some have 3 grandparents, and occasionally I include people with 2 parents and 2 grandparents from a location, usually in places with more recent immigration histories. But this is about as close as you'll get to the 'native' White populations, those with multigenerational roots. So not totally representative of the current White ethnic make-up of these places, for example 21st century Australia is not as Anglo-Celtic as these state averages, but the post-WWII Southern/Eastern Euro immigration is too recent for inclusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rothaer

Can you tell what is meant with US_Alabama f. i.? Only white, only some white? Are they arbitrary residents in Alabama or is there any requirement regarding where the ancestors resided?

---

Since you brought up Alabama for example, 52 out of 54 kits from there had 4 grandparents born in Alabama. Only 2 I have marked down as having 1 grandparent from elsewhere in the US.

Surnames of Alabama kits

Spoiler!

Wilson/McQueen
Jackson/Elrod
Bowling/Fowler
Pierce/Wyatt
Ledbetter/Inman
Phillips/Pannell
Davis/Brown
Kearley/Black
Gibson/Williams
Ellison/Singleton
Bowdoin/Wyatt
Bryan/Gates
Pope/Norwood
Mathews/Wiggins
Nash/McElroy
Corum/Smith
Worrell/Smelley
Bronson/Belyeu
Tierce/Stuart
Herrod/Snell
Baswell/Byrd
Kilgore/Cannon
Pace/Potter
Smith/Mullins
Reeves/Deas
Naile/Hinson
Hays/Mills
Bright/Talley
Miller/Hudson
Collier/Rose
Bolden/Fields
Morgan/Blackwell
Lankford/Kean
Hopson/Darden
Donahoo/Adkins
Tyler/Cash
Diamond/Travis
Moates/Culp
Spradlin/Vinson
Pitts/Riley
Conway/Wiggins
Funderburg/Avery
Benefield/Stricklin
Wright/Penny
Jones/Aston
Williams/Dickerson
Pruitt/Bryant
Moody/Bundy
Smith/Woodruff
Wright/Rickels
Atchison/Roberts
Watson/Everett
Speegle/Swann

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Creoda

With pleasure. It is made up of Whites from these places, my racial minimum for inclusion is 75% White, but very rarely is anyone more than around 1/32 non-white. The vast majority of kits used have 4 grandparents born in that place, some have 3 grandparents, and occasionally I include people with 2 parents and 2 grandparents from a location, usually in places with more recent immigration histories. But this is about as close as you'll get to the 'native' White populations, those with multigenerational roots. So not totally representative of the current White ethnic make-up of these places, for example 21st century Australia is not as Anglo-Celtic as these state averages, but the post-WWII Southern/Eastern Euro immigration is too recent for inclusion.

---

Thank you very much! It's nice to see that there are clear and applied thoughts behind. Tbh I'd have neglected such data as arbitrary before (not knowing who collected them with what criteria), but knowing this, there is valuable information contained. I actually reacted on the distances that you posted. They made clear that there was some selection more than being today resident.

I've more questions:

1. It's stunning to see how "English" US_South got. And yes, later European immigrations did not go there much. Maybe with this Lousiana exception. I know from 23andMe results that you have a lot of "whites" in Lousiana with comparably high SSA. These with French names have often 4% SSA. As I understood your rules they are all included and also would include Melungeons. Are they included, but are there no samples from or are they in fact just an exotic thing without actual weight? (The distances to the various English averages are so stunning low, that Melungeons can not be part of it imo.)

2. What is excluded from whites? I understand that "Latinos" will be excluded from whites. But what about Spaniards? And what about Portuguese proper? And what about Italians in New york and Chicago area? They are not much visible. Are they excluded or are they just not represented in actual samples? The same question as for handling of Ashkenazi Jews. To make it clear: I do NOT critisize anything and I know that there are many ways leading to Rome (as one say on German, however). It's just about getting the most out of the data reported by you.

3. What's up historically with New Brunswick (Brunswick is the English name of the German town (and state) Braunschweig)? The population is notably deviating from other Australian regions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rothaer

Thank you very much! It's nice to see that there are clear and applied thoughts behind. Tbh I'd have neglected such data as arbitrary before (not knowing who collected them with what criteria), but knowing this, there is valuable information contained. I actually reacted on the distances that you posted. They made clear that there was some selection more than being today resident.

I've more questions:

1. It's stunning to see how "English" US_South got. And yes, later European immigrations did not go there much. Maybe with this Lousiana exception. I know from 23andMe results that you have a lot of "whites" in Lousiana with comparably high SSA. These with French names have often 4% SSA. As I understood your rules they are all included and also would include Melungeons. Are they included, but are there no samples from or are they in fact just an exotic thing without actual weight? (The distances to the various English averages are so stunning low, that Melungeons can not be part of it imo.)

---

Thanks for your comments. Yes, the South is very English, but in theory it should be even more 'British' than it is, White Southerners were not only English but also heavily Scottish, with some Irish Catholic and Welsh ancestry too, and yet many of the Southern states are a bit continental shifted even compared to Southeast English, who are the most continental British people. So evidently the South (outside Louisiana) has some minor German and French ancestry, as well as non-Euro, that shifts them a little bit away, and makes even heavily Scottish areas plot more like average English instead.

I guess I haven't come across many Melungeons, I don't know why, maybe they're not a large population. The SSA element in the South is notable though. My Southern average is 0.5% SSA, but unlike in Afrikaners it is far less evenly distributed, most don't have any.

Target: US_South
Distance: 0.2004% / 0.20035041 | ADC: 0.25x RC
81.7 English_Southeast
14.5 French_Brittany
3.3 Irish_Leinster
0.3 Yoruban
0.2 Bantu_Eastcentral_Africa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rothaer

2. What is excluded from whites? I understand that "Latinos" will be excluded from whites. But what about Spaniards? And what about Portuguese proper? And what about Italians in New york and Chicago area? They are not much visible. Are they excluded or are they just not represented in actual samples? The same question as for handling of Ashkenazi Jews. To make it clear: I do NOT critisize anything and I know that there are many ways leading to Rome (as one say on German, however). It's just about getting the most out of the data reported by you.

---

I included all groups from Europe, those legally treated as 'White' historically in the Anglosphere, including Ashkenazi Jews (even if I don't consider them White with a capital W myself). But these are fairly minor groups historically outside urban areas, so their influence isn't felt in most places. Only heavily in NY, Chicago etc as you can see. New Jersey should probably be more Southern but it's a low sample size.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rothaer

3. What's up historically with New Brunswick (Brunswick is the English name of the German town (and state) Braunschweig)? The population is notably deviating from other Australian regions.

---

New Brunswick is in Canada, not Australia, hence the French shift, but I don't think it's very representative tbh, it's a relatively low sample size (20) and must be less French than that.

US South average without Louisiana by comparison (577 kits)

Code:

---

US_South_minus_Louisiana,48.68,23.09,13.92,5.72,4.37,0.74,1.04,0.16,0.33,0.69,0.39,0.29,0.52

Target: US_South_minus_Louisiana
Distance: 0.1557% / 0.15567409 | ADC: 0.25x RC
82.9        English_Southeast
8.4        Welsh
8.0        French_Brittany
0.5        Bantu_Southeast_Africa
0.2        Greenlandic_Inuit_East

Distance to:        US_South_minus_Louisiana
0.61806149        English_Southeast
1.06418983        English_Midlands
1.22270193        English
1.71038007        English_Southwest
2.29379598        English_North
2.64949052        Welsh
2.95590934        Dutch
3.20834848        French_Brittany
3.28785644        Dutch_South
3.36962906        Scottish_East

---

Without Southeast English:

Target: US_South_minus_Louisiana
Distance: 0.1796% / 0.17958501 | ADC: 0.25x RC
87.2 English
5.1 German_North_Rhine
4.7 French_Northeast
2.5 Dutch_South
0.4 Luhya
0.1 Bantu_Southeast_Africa

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Creoda

(...) New Brunswick is in Canada, not Australia, hence the French shift, but I don't think it's very representative tbh, it's a relatively low sample size (20) and must be less French than that.

---

I must have had a blackout! In the order it followed directly the Australian samples and my eye missed the context. :picard1:

Creoda,

I have a question, why did you differentiate between Quebec and French Canadians? The latter are not from Quebec?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rothaer

1. It's stunning to see how "English" US_South got. And yes, later European immigrations did not go there much. Maybe with this Lousiana exception.

---

Lousiana was French before it was English, so we cannot say that French influx was a "later migration" in that case.

BTW, English colonies had a huge demographic advantage over all other colonies almost since the very beginning.

I have population numbers for every state/province year by year (1564-1900) which I used when making this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyTck7P288E

^^^
We can safely assume that population in colonies that belonged to France was French, until their takeover by England.

So, for example among the 66530 colonists in year 1655, there were:

In English colonies - 52170 (78.4%)
In French colonies - 6060 (9.1%)
In Dutch colonies - 4530 (6.8%) ----> parts of modern New York State
In Swedish colony - 1390 (2.1%) ----> parts of Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania
in Spanish colonies - 2380 (3.6%)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Creoda

Thanks for your comments. Yes, the South is very English, but in theory it should be even more 'British' than it is, White Southerners were not only English but also heavily Scottish, with some Irish Catholic and Welsh ancestry too, and yet many of the Southern states are a bit continental shifted even compared to Southeast English, who are the most continental British people. So evidently the South (outside Louisiana) has some minor German and French ancestry, as well as non-Euro, that shifts them a little bit away, and makes even heavily Scottish areas plot more like average English instead.

I guess I haven't come across many Melungeons, I don't know why, maybe they're not a large population. The SSA element in the South is notable though. My Southern average is 0.5% SSA, but unlike in Afrikaners it is far less evenly distributed, most don't have any.

Target: US_South
Distance: 0.2004% / 0.20035041 | ADC: 0.25x RC
81.7 English_Southeast
14.5 French_Brittany
3.3 Irish_Leinster
0.3 Yoruban
0.2 Bantu_Eastcentral_Africa


I included all groups from Europe, those legally treated as 'White' historically in the Anglosphere, including Ashkenazi Jews (even if I don't consider them White with a capital W myself). But these are fairly minor groups historically outside urban areas, so their influence isn't felt in most places. Only heavily in NY, Chicago etc as you can see. New Jersey should probably be more Southern but it's a low sample size.
(...)

---

Thanks, actually all questions are answered. :thumb001:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Piotraschke

Creoda,

I have a question, why did you differentiate between Quebec and French Canadians? The latter are not from Quebec?

---

The difference is that the French Canadians are not just from Quebec, and theoretically people from Quebec can be ethnically non-French.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Piotraschke

(...)Lousiana was French before it was English, so we cannot say that French influx was a "later migration" in that case.
(...)

---

And considering what at all once was Lousiana!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Purchase