Which ancestry is more commonly found worldwide: Iberian or Brittish?

[gixajo]

It's not really an accurate source though. It's giving for example English ancestry to people that don't have it like the Dutch etc. It's just lack of proper samples and not based on actual ancestry just a bad genetic breakdown. My Heritage gives me Jewish for example and my daughter nearly 10% Eastern European. My brother gets something completely different like Baltic and none of it is real.

No one of those commercial companies estimations are really accurate.

We always consider more accurate the company that suits better its results to our thinkings.

[mitalit]

No one of those commercial companies estimations are really accurate.

We always consider more accurate the company that suits better its results to our thinkings.

En mi caso 23andme lo ha hecho muy bien.

[Grace O'Malley]

No one of those commercial companies estimations are really accurate.

We always consider more accurate the company that suits better its results to our thinkings.

Not really. MyHeritage is just a bit wacky more so than the other companies. They are promising a big update though so I'm looking forward to see what they come up with.

[Graham]

British Isles is a geographic descriptor but even then the Irish Government don't use it nor Irish people. They usually say "these Isles" or just Ireland and Britain. To call the Irish British evokes colonialism and they don't like it. I use the British Isles sometimes but I know it's not a popular term in Ireland.

Just letting you know the Irish will not be impressed if you call them British.

Yeah I think it's context. Used in a Geographic sense is probably ok like " red hair is common in the British Isles" vs "Ireland's part of the British Isles". Same as everything really, got to pick your words.


British Isles will probably make more sense if Great Britain was split up, then GB or British Isles would both be geographical with England as the largest country to refer to.

[Grace O'Malley]

Yeah I think it's context. Used in a Geographic sense is probably ok like " red hair is common in the British Isles" vs "Ireland's part of the British Isles". Same as everything really, got to pick your words.


British Isles will probably make more sense if Great Britain was split up, then GB or British Isles would both be geographical with England as the largest country to refer to.

Genetically Irish are part of the British Isles and in a European context it seem pretty churlish. I think you have to weigh up genetics against political sensibilities. You really have to look at history also. Anyway it is interesting that Irish are closest to British than any Continental European population. Just appears to be that Bell Beaker/Corded Ware have made more contributions to British genetics than any sources outside Britain.

[Graham]

Genetically Irish are part of the British Isles and in a European context it seem pretty churlish. I think you have to weigh up genetics against political sensibilities. You really have to look at history also. Anyway it is interesting that Irish are closest to British than any Continental European population. Just appears to be that Bell Beaker/Corded Ware have made more contributions to British genetics than any sources outside Britain.

In a simple world Germanic and Celtic speakers would have been as genetically different as their languages. I don't think the Bronze Age R-L21 Isles will catch on in political and social circles.

The Irish weren't even Brythonic speakers anyway. Lazy ancient med cartographers.

[Viriatus91]

In the U.S., English-Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc, because of a common language, English and to a lesser extent Scottish immigrants assimilated very easily and their descendants forgot about their ethnic ancestry. In a way, being of English ancestry made you American, Canadian or Australian almost automatically. I have heard people refer to English surnames as "American" or "white" with no clue to the origins and I imagine that many in these countries are ignorant of their past.

Even after independence over 6 million people from Great Britain immigrated to the U.S. and another 2.5 Anglo-Canadians did the same. This can be compared with 7.4 million Germans and 4.8 million Irish.

In the United States, the population of English and Scottish ancestry is grossly under counted, particularly if we consider the number of self-identified "English Americans" has declined since the 1980 census. According to the 1790 census, every state's white population had an English majority, the exception being Pennsylvania where only 35.3% were identified as English. In that state the next largest group being Germans with 33.3% and Scottish/Irish at 23.1%. The remainder being largely Welshmen.

In New England, there was very little immigration between 1650 and 1820, with the overwhelming majority being of English stock. The exception being in New Hampshire and Maine where in the 1710s there was a wave of immigration from Nothern Ireland, the result being that by 1790 Maine (still a part of Massachusetts) had 16.2% of its population being Scottish and Irish. The population of New England was largely descended from old-stock English settlers whom arrived mostly from 1620 and 1650 and whose population grew due to natural growth. By the nineteenth century there would be a huge outflow of these individuals into the Northwest Territory. Indiana, Ohio and Michigan were largely populated by settlers from New England. The white population of these states to this day most likely has a large Anglo-Celtic component. In Indiana, immigrants were never more that 9% of the total population, and in Ohio they peaked at 14%. In Michigan over one-fourth of the population was foreign-born in 1890 so this would be the most ethnically diverse.

If we look at the southern states, in 1790, all of them had an English majority amongst their white populations, ranging from 57% in Georgia to 68.5% in Virginia. Then we had the Scottish and Irish (overwhelmingly Protestant at that time) who ranged from 19.9% in Maryland to 30.8% in Georgia. The next largest group, Germans, but these ranged from 11.7% in Maryland to 4.7% in North Carolina, there were smaller groups such as French Huguenots and even Jews in Charleston, but numerically they were insignificant. The southern states, particularly the Carolinas, Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, Mississippi and Arkansas attracted negligible numbers of foreign immigrants until the 1980s and 1990s. Also, until the migration to the sunbelt, most of these states white population would be overwhelmingly of Anglo-Celtic colonial stock.

In North Carolina for instance only 0.2% of the population was foreign born in 1890 and in most of these states it was under 2%. Even in 1850 when land had been more available, Virginia, the Carolinas, Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas and Mississippi all had under 2% of their population being counted as foreign-born, and this includes slaves. Coincidentally these states seem to be where the largest number of self-declared people of "American" ancestry seem to live.

[alnortedelsur]

Very hard question, since several parts of Latin America have a lot of Spanish ancestry (over 50%), and people of equal or more than 70% Spanish stock are very common/widespread in Cuba, Puerto Rico, Costa Rica, West/Northwest Mexico, the Colombian/Venezuelan Andes, Paraguay, Chile, Argentina and Uruguay, and in the middle to upper class of countries like Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela Ecuador and Peru.

[Brás Garcia de Mascarenhas]

Reviving this thread as I feel that we did not reach a consensus.

[Rocinante]

Iberian of course.