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

[Anglo-Celtic]

I'd wager at least a plurality do, but it's not identified as such because it's trace ancestry.



Erroneous statement, and no, our down under friends are similar but not like Southern whites in very important ways - the distinguishing factor being higher likelihood of French or other ancestry in the south, and also the very significant Black/Native elements in the South/South Central region of the US.

You would lose that bet. There's absolutely nothing erroneous about my statement because I know that most White people, in that region, are fully to mostly Anglo-Celtic.

[Anglo-Celtic]

His "stats" didn't support what he was trying to claim, for one

Two, it's more than "ethnic spice added to the mix in some regions". British people want to be seen as diverse, so they have this agenda, as do you, to make the US out to be some kind of Australian outpost - these people would tell someone like Nick Bosa to his face that he must be English because he was American, and would become enraged if he bothered to point out he was Italian - that's how triggered Australians, Brits, rural Southerners, etc, get when it's pointed out that most white Americans have pan-European ethnicy overall.

Meh. My relatives get close to 97% "British & Irish" on 23andMe, and my guess is that a lot of Australians get the same kind of score, so that's just one personal anecdote that pans your "pan" claim.

[Creoda]

Huh? Every single post about American's ethnic makeup online devolves into Anglophiles, Commonwealth dwellers, and British people limiting the discussion to "British/English ancestry" because they're desperate to 1) Undermine American cultural sovereignty and 2) Liken Americans to themselves, ethnically and phenotypically

This is just your fantasy. Have other Americans (if you even are one, I doubt you're 'Germano-Celtic') here noticed this phenomenon? Most discussions about America's demographics online are about its racial makeup and declining white majority. The ethnic makeup of White Americans is a niche issue that few seem to care about, and British ancestry is usually only emphasised in response to the false statement that German ancestry is the largest element.

Again, no. Post-1980, when genetic testing became more common + digital access to old census data, immigration records, etc, the ethnic complexity of Americans became more clear. Whereas in the 1980s and before, people often took it for granted that they were of British ancestry, or more British than they were, given the history of the country. That's a major reason why self-reported English/British ancestry drastically decreased compared to others.

Wrong. Commercial genetic testing only became common post-2010, and digital genealogy became common post-2000. Even then these are minority interests, and genealogical records before the 19th century are harder to trace or non-existent, making genealogy biased towards more recent immigration. Besides that, Americans in the past were generationally closer to their origins and less ethnically mixed, so inherently more knowledgeable about their real origins. The idea that people become more aware of their ancestry the further away they get from it and more mixed they are makes no sense.

So this is the typical Irish amalgamation cope practiced to inflate British/English ancestry in the US. Yes, British Isles ancestry altogether is pluralistic or majority. English ancestry is not.

Nobody here claimed English, or even British ancestry is the majority in modern White Americans.

Irish ancestry isn't even needed for British to be largest component in White Americans by far. Besides, there's good indication that many of those who today identify as Irish in America are of mostly British origin, considering that the majority (51%) of them also identify as Protestant, which is rare for Irish in Ireland. Only 1/4 of those reporting Irish ancestry in 1980 claimed it as their single ancestry (10.3m out of 40.1m). By contrast nearly half of those reporting English ancestry claimed it as their single ancestry (23.7m out of 49.5m), and just over a third of those reporting German ancestry claimed it as their single ancestry (17.9m out of 49.2m).

No, it doesn't dwarf anything.

One, this obfuscates things because British and Irish are grouped together. Of course British and Irish are a majority.

23andme often confuses every kind of Northern European ethnicity, from Dutch to German to Scandinavian to French to Swiss, with "British and Irish". The USA had populations of Swiss, German, "Delaware Swedish", Norwegian + late 19th century immigrants that are often confused with British and Irish. Australia didn't have this dynamic.

And British people get French & German, Scandinavian on 23andme at probably greater rates than those nationalities get British & Irish. The point is the comparison.

To put in context the British & Irish percentages in America, the average results of 20 ethnically English people on 23andme from 2017:

58% British & Irish
12% French & German
4% Scandinavian
22% Broadly NW European
1.1% Southern European
0.4% Eastern European
0.1% Finnish (only two samples)

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....ry-composition

So the British & Irish percentage for Whites in much of the South is massive, nearly on par with English in England with no foreign ancestry, and substantial in most other states.

Don't know why you keep mentioning Australia, as it's irrelevant to the discussion.

1) No, ethnic studies show that white Americans typicall have 1-2% Black admixture on average, and Southerners somewhat more. Why did you lie? Oh yea, because you want to pretend White Americans are similar to White Australians.

Australian wants to claim White Americans are just like his people! So he uses misleading data.

I already posted the study, nothing more need be said.

I find it bemusing that you think I have an agenda to liken White Americans to Australians. I mean it's not like I dislike Americans or want to distance us from them, but if anything the theme of my postings on this forum has been to emphasise the differences between us, and the differences between North American Anglophones and the rest, other posters might attest to that. Partly because I find it a bit irritating when foreigners equate all 'Anglo' countries together as the same, or that Australia is like a 51st state. That being said, one has to acknowledge the countries are relatively similar, and I do feel a loose kinship with Anglo-Celtic Americans (but no others).

2) The vast majority of these are likely to be anglicized German, Scandinavian or other surnames (Johnson, Anderson, Miller, Stone, Schmidt, Myers)

No evidence for that. And it says something that many of them Anglicised their names. If the waves of continental migrants were so large as to outnumber the founding stock, there wouldn't be much need to Anglicise your surname.

3) English surnames are more homogeneous - There may be more Americans with European surnames, but they're often much more heterogeneous - an Italian American might have a surname like Rizzo, or Frasca, or Biancalana, and there might be more of them in a given city, or town, but tons of Americans with British ancestry might share identical surnames - Brown, Smith, etc...ergo, they're more "frequent" among white American people, but not necessarily the majority of white surnames, and certainly nowhere near as frequent or predominant as they are in Australia, where you almost never see a non-British surname outside of Sydney and Melbourne.

British surnames aren't less diverse than German surnames, and are certainly more varied than Scandinavian surnames. You can go through the list, British surnames don't just cluster at the top, they are dominant from 101-500 just as they are from 1-100.

Again, Australian - British surnames are by far dominant in Australia - not in America.

The most common surnames list looks pretty similar in both countries, but Australia has more Irish surnames.

Here's a list of surnames among the white people from my high school yearbook:

ADAMS
ALABYAD
ALBELDA
ALKHARRAT
ALZEIN
ANDERSON
ANDONIADIS
ANTONIOS
ASMONAITE
AWALT
AYRES
BAIER
BALDERSTON
BANOUB
BARAJAS
BARAN
BARECK
BAROFSKY
BARREDA
BEAN
BEAULIEU
BECKER
BEJA
BERBERICH
BERG
BERG
BERGER
BERGER
BERNARD
BETMAN
BIERNACKI
BIZUB
BLACKETOR
BLANCHARD
BLASDELL
BOORAS
BORDERA
BOSSY
BOURTSOS
BOWATER
BRENNAN
BRESCIA
BREWER
BRIXIE
BRONSON
BROWN
BROWN
BROZ
BRUNI
BRUNS
BRYJAK
BULL
BURNS
BURR
BURRESS
BYNAN
BYRNE
CAPUTO
CARTA
CARTER
CASEY
CAVENEY
CHADWELL
CHARLIER
CHIAPPE
CHIARAMONTE
CHISNELL
CHRISTENSEN
CHRONES
CIANCIO
CIRIGNANI

Note, a number of people with British surnames here would identify as white, but are visibly darker, with more Mediterranean or mixed Asian physiognomy.

So your high school is more reflective of White American surnames than the United States census. Riiiiight.

This is probably not the case in an equivalent part of Australia, like suburban Brisbane, where I can guarantee you just about all the white people's surnames will be English.

You'd be wrong. Your insistence that Australia is specifically English shows you have no idea for starters. The bulk of Australia's white population is Anglo-Celtic, a mixture of English, Irish and Scottish in that order. The British Isles descended population of Australia is far more Irish and Catholic percentage-wise than the British Isles descended population of America.

It is not "by far", and it isn't supported by most historical, immigration, or genetic data, nor "common sense" - common sense would have you conclude that German ancestry was more common than English, or that the US has a plurality of it's white population that is minimally British if at all, but because Anglosphere dwellers outside of America have a furious fetishistic obsession with American people, they like to pretend their history of stultifying British homogeneity is echoed in America. That way they can insult Americans or generalize them in all sorts of dumb ways, and on the same hand liken themselves to the land of Hollywood and porn stars that they now so frequently try to deny holds any sense of glamor.

"Americans are so sexy and I actually am obsessed with comparing my country with theirs but they also suck and are horrible and much inferior to us" tybe beat.

You sound mentally disturbed, creating narratives and characters in your head. None of that rings true.

[Universe]

Huh? Every single post about American's ethnic makeup online devolves into Anglophiles, Commonwealth dwellers, and British people limiting the discussion to "British/English ancestry" because they're desperate to 1) Undermine American cultural sovereignty and 2) Liken Americans to themselves, ethnically and phenotypically

That happens because of people taking the census at face value and making the conclusion that "White Americans are Germans or mostly Germans", which is arguably wrong considering that 20 million Americans didn't not pick a European ancestry, but reported they're "American". Some of those people who reported their ancestry is "American" are mixed, but majority aren't.

You're exaggerating about those "anglophile posts overestimating British ancestry", not everyone online says White Americans are mostly British, I've seen more people taking the census at face value (by online I mean all of internet, not this forum only).

Your posts are confusing. You want to discuss British or English ancestry? You mention both in your posts. The number of people who reported English ancestry is 25 million, on the other hand 37 million reported some type of British ancestry (not taking into account 19 million Americans who reported "American"). I have no doubt that British ancestry outweighs Germans, stating the opposite goes against logic imo, I admit that English vs German is more debatable.

Again, no. Post-1980, when genetic testing became more common + digital access to old census data, immigration records, etc, the ethnic complexity of Americans became more clear. Whereas in the 1980s and before, people often took it for granted that they were of British ancestry, or more British than they were, given the history of the country. That's a major reason why self-reported English/British ancestry drastically decreased compared to others.


So this is the typical Irish amalgamation cope practiced to inflate British/English ancestry in the US. Yes, British Isles ancestry altogether is pluralistic or majority. English ancestry is not.


The "mostly British founding stock" is erasure of everything outside of the 13 colonies. Again, the US wasn't settled like Australia - this is something Australians do not understand. It was settled by populations of Swedes, Dutch, Germans, Huguenots, and Jews even in the 13 colonies, which were 20% Black and Malagasy in 1790. Outside of these colonies, territories that the US grew to encompass had 100s of thousands to million strong populations of French people, Spaniards, and Natives.

British immigration did fall down the list of primary sources of immigration to the USA by the 1810s decade. Whereas they stayed the primary destinations for immigrants to the likes of Canada and Australia until very recently, and they still are a primary source of immigrants to Australia. The comparisons are ridiculous.

White American population in 1790 was 60% English and 75% British. White American population between 1790 and 1830 grew from 3 million to 10 million while receiving relatively low amount of immigrants, the majority of Irish and German immigration had not happened yet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Americans

Is there any info immigration to USA between 1790 and 1820? All I could find is that 1820 and 1830 only 98,000 immigrants settled in USA which is a relatively low amount.

That means in 1830 we had 10 million White Americans, majority British. After 1820, USA had 7 million German and 5 million British immigrants. That is a "surplus" of 2 million German immigrants.

Many of those 2 million "surplus Germans" arrived when White American population was already 20, 30, 40 or 50 million. This why I don't believe in Germanification of White Americans. How could 2 million Germans "cancel" 10 million (or more) people who descended from old stock English/British?

I don't care if you keep saying Americans are more genetically German than British, you say want you want. Of course, you're entitled to your opinion, but I'm also entitled to mine. You seem more upset than us, stating stuff like this on the first page already: https://www.theapricity.com/forum/sh...=1#post7689818

I admit that USA is less genetically British than Australia (I never tried to claim this anyway) and I admit that Americans have a quite bit of German blood, but I think there's more British DNA in USA than German.

Also, your maps clearly show that British ancestry is proportionally predominant in the lowly populated regions of the country

I think you should look at the keys of each map. The same color can mean different things on different maps.

, and states that are also heavily Black.

and? Then what? The map is about DNA of European Americans.

1) No, ethnic studies show that white Americans typicall have 1-2% Black admixture on average, and Southerners somewhat more. Why did you lie? Oh yea, because you want to pretend White Americans are similar to White Australians.

A person that is 99% British genetically and 1% Black is still overwhelmingly British by ancestry, not German.

You keep mentioning Blacks but Blacks have more White DNA than the other way around. Last time I checked, Blacks were 20-25% European according to DNA tests. Most of the White admixture Blacks have is British. There are 40 million Blacks in USA, that is a high amount of "hidden British ancestry". I don't see how bringing up Blacks help minimizing British ancestry in USA.

Irish ancestry isn't even needed for British to be largest component in White Americans by far. Besides, there's good indication that many of those who today identify as Irish in America are of mostly British origin, considering that the majority (51%) of them also identify as Protestant, which is rare for Irish in Ireland. Only 1/4 of those reporting Irish ancestry in 1980 claimed it as their single ancestry (10.3m out of 40.1m). By contrast nearly half of those reporting English ancestry claimed it as their single ancestry (23.7m out of 49.5m), and just over a third of those reporting German ancestry claimed it as their single ancestry (17.9m out of 49.2m).

If many of the Irish migrants to USA were protestant/British origin then this debate is even more senseless.

[Davystayn]

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.



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



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.




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.



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.



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”.



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



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.

There has been an assumption that modern US is a highly mixed country, like a Northern Brazil, which your points about the diversity of immigration, certainly indicate is largely true in many areas.

The US is mixed like a lot of countries these days but what about the period up to 1850, when a lot of nation building took place?

How has the numbers of different groups living in urban areas in the modern day have to do with nation building from before, the institutions and elites?

You also seem to base your argument on census data and self appointed ancestry. we now have actual science for this with genetics.

For white Americans I have been surprised how high B&I has come out on average and how much more homogenous many white Americans are with N Euro ancestry, B&I plus German, some French etc.

To say that B&I is sometimes mislabeled with other NW Euro ancestry is clutching at straws a little.

Having said this I know Brits who have been given majority Irish in some tests then French/German in others, so the labelling between a lot of commercial tests can be misleading. Nonetheless it all shows that all NW Euros cluster together as can be seen in the distance maps.

I do agree the US is much more heterozygous than Australia, which is more or less still British and Irish though this is changing in the cities of course.

Australia is 150 years behind the US afterall, 1770 arrival for Cook, 1620 for the Mayflower.

Australia could maybe be like the US now in 150 years time, except south and South Asian continuing inmigration as opposed to German, Irish, Polish etc. In 150 years Britain will be South Asian/African in any case.

[Petalpusher]

The US already has 33 million self-identified multiracial individuals and rising fast.

Yeah this article states +23-24 Millions in 2020. There might be some heavily mixed Hispanic and whatnot, not very important regardless.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...crease-census/

In proportion for sure, besides south America it's unheard of anywhere but this is still something like only 10% of the whole population, which is, all things considered and especially the time people have been living together, not that much imo. With that said i would agree it actually feels a lot more than that roaming the city centers in the US but this is likely a false impression because of all other non whites, and the skew of densely populated areas vs countrysides (also in my experience, many "African Americans" don't look entirely black either). Anyhow those people seem to be creating another new ethnicity alongside white (or black) Americans, they may not dilute back in the rest of the population, yet still maybe more in non whites communities i imagine.



I think with the Québec stats you are kind of proving everybody else right. 60% identify as simply Canadians, while only 28% as French but we all know the vast majority of the people in Québec are French, or mostly French. Imo all these census are not very accurate indications anyway even for multi racials, as we know Americans have a propension to identify with parts of their ancestry that are anecdotical or irrelevant in the grand scheme of things (Amerindian fairy tales and all that jazz). Many might genuinely don't know very well all of it, and it's likely the most distant part are always the British as well, seeing the routine awe and shock when Americans get their results. Genetic paints a much better picture, i really don't see what's left to argue facing those stats. 23andme is the best ethnic census the US has ever had with millions in the databases.

[Davystayn]

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.

That is a extremely weird take as I have never seen any Brits on this board or anywhere else in society claim that majority of ancestry in the US is English and get angry about it, or the bizarre reasons you say they would being ugly.

Nobody in UK gives a monkeys about what ancestry is what or whatever it is in the US.

You literally just made that up, then followed up with an insult about being ugly (which is a fair shout to an extent I agree), but otherwise you are making things up people you can claim say to justify your own preferred take on everything. Stop being a chump.

[hangh]

This is just your fantasy. Have other Americans (if you even are one, I doubt you're 'Germano-Celtic') here noticed this phenomenon? Most discussions about America's demographics online are about its racial makeup and declining white majority. The ethnic makeup of White Americans is a niche issue that few seem to care about, and British ancestry is usually only emphasised in response to the false statement that German ancestry is the largest element.

Which it is. German ancestry is more common than English ancestry.

Wrong. Commercial genetic testing only became common post-2010, and digital genealogy became common post-2000. Even then these are minority interests, and genealogical records before the 19th century are harder to trace or non-existent, making genealogy biased towards more recent immigration. Besides that, Americans in the past were generationally closer to their origins and less ethnically mixed, so inherently more knowledgeable about their real origins. The idea that people become more aware of their ancestry the further away they get from it and more mixed they are makes no sense.

None of this negates what I said. It’s one reason of many that various self-reported ancestries decreased - none of this makes what I said wrong.

Irish ancestry isn't even needed for British to be largest component in White Americans by far. Besides, there's good indication that many of those who today identify as Irish in America are of mostly British origin, considering that the majority (51%) of them also identify as Protestant, which is rare for Irish in Ireland. Only 1/4 of those reporting Irish ancestry in 1980 claimed it as their single ancestry (10.3m out of 40.1m). By contrast nearly half of those reporting English ancestry claimed it as their single ancestry (23.7m out of 49.5m), and just over a third of those reporting German ancestry claimed it as their single ancestry (17.9m out of 49.2m).

If it’s not included, it isn’t “by far”. You are very determined to liken the American population to the Australian one.

And yea, the British population is more rural and was historically less mixed. But if you don’t like self-reported ancestry, why are you bringing it up at all in your argument that English ancestry is so overwhelming?

Many Irish people probably have some amount of very old British ancestry. They are still a separate ethnic group. French people have Celtic ancestry, Norwegians are often genetically fairly British, and vice-versa. You’re now getting desperate.

And British people get French & German, Scandinavian on 23andme at probably greater rates than those nationalities get British & Irish. The point is the comparison.

That’s because most people using 23andMe are American.

To put in context the British & Irish percentages in America, the average results of 20 ethnically English people on 23andme from 2017:

58% British & Irish
12% French & German
4% Scandinavian
22% Broadly NW European
1.1% Southern European
0.4% Eastern European
0.1% Finnish (only two samples)

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread....ry-composition

So the British & Irish percentage for Whites in much of the South is massive, nearly on par with English in England with no foreign ancestry, and substantial in most other states.

That 23andMe data you posted doesn’t support this ridiculous claim. Notice: “British and Irish ancestry in much of the south/nearly on par with” is very calculated to avoid admitting that I’ve been right and you’ve been wrong.

Take a genetic sample anywhere in Australia - they’re less likely to have non-British ancestry than Americans in the south.

Your claim is that Americans are less mixed and more British than British people? We are becoming unhinged, friend.

Don't know why you keep mentioning Australia, as it's irrelevant to the discussion.

It’s a relevant point of comparison given how the ancestry of Americans is discussed in a global context.

I find it bemusing that you think I have an agenda to liken White Americans to Australians. I mean it's not like I dislike Americans or want to distance us from them, but if anything the theme of my postings on this forum has been to emphasise the differences between us, and the differences between North American Anglophones and the rest, other posters might attest to that. Partly because I find it a bit irritating when foreigners equate all 'Anglo' countries together as the same, or that Australia is like a 51st state. That being said, one has to acknowledge the countries are relatively similar, and I do feel a loose kinship with Anglo-Celtic Americans (but no others).

The countries are not similar at all demographically. You don’t have 46 million Blacks, 65 million Hispanics, 8 million Natives, 25 million Asians, and you weren’t settled by the Dutch, the Swedish, the Spanish, the French, and the Russian. Those are massive differences, no? These make the US substantially different from Australia, genetically, ethnically, culturally…

No evidence for that. And it says something that many of them Anglicised their names. If the waves of continental migrants were so large as to outnumber the founding stock, there wouldn't be much need to Anglicise your surname.
British surnames aren't less diverse than German surnames, and are certainly more varied than Scandinavian surnames. You can go through the list, British surnames don't just cluster at the top, they are dominant from 101-500 just as they are from 1-100.

That’s the objective truth. The surnames Americans with British ancestry have are more homogeneous. A name like “Brown” will be seen among white students in the US 3+ times in a row, so it would rank as more frequent, but it’s not necessarily because it is more majoritarian than names of German or other origin especially when adjusting for the anglicization of American surnames.

This discussion is also something of an obfuscation because surnames don’t say much about ethnicity.

British surnames are less diverse than Polish and Italian surnames in America. Yes, they are.

British Americans are more likely to share the same smaller handful of surnames.

You’re blatantly lying about that table, and when I give you a random list of white American’s surnames that negates your assertion that your data shows anything but surname frequency, you get all belligerent. Lmao, okay.

Your table of surnames shows which surnames are most frequent, with many names on that list being obviously of German/Central European or Scandinavian origin. It doesn’t prove that non-British surnames arent pluralistic - those non-British surnames are much more diversified and are less likely to register as frequent. It doesn’t mean a plurality of white Americans don’t have non-British surnames. This isn’t hard to understand. “Chiaramonte” is not going to register as a frequent last name even in New York or New Jersey, where Italian ancestry is the majority, and more predominant than British. That doesn’t mean that Italian surnames won’t be pluralistic or predominant in the state. They’ll just be all different and a given British surname will be more frequent, than say, “Gagliano” or “Rossi”

The most common surnames list looks pretty similar in both countries, but Australia has more Irish surnames.

No, it doesn’t:

1. Smith

2. Johnson

3. Williams

4. Brown

5. Jones

6. Garcia

7. Miller

8. Davis

9. Rodriguez

10. Martinez

11. Hernandez

12. Lopez

13. Gonzalez

14. Wilson

15. Anderson

16. Thomas

17. Taylor

18. Moore

So your high school is more reflective of White American surnames than the United States census. Riiiiight.

Uh, yes, because a list of surname frequency is no more reflective of white American surnames than a list of white American people’s surnames. You’re seriously trying to claim that European surnames are vanishingly rare in the US? You are just delusional at this point. You are insecure that the US is more diverse and received more immigration than Australia.

You'd be wrong. Your insistence that Australia is specifically English shows you have no idea for starters. The bulk of Australia's white population is Anglo-Celtic, a mixture of English, Irish and Scottish in that order. The British Isles descended population of Australia is far more Irish and Catholic percentage-wise than the British Isles descended population of America.

No, it’s not. And percentage wise is a dumb assertion, because you have a massively larger % of English descent. So you’re wrong. All of your states have English, Scottish, and Irish ancestries as the 1, 2, and 3 most common ancestries by much larger %’s than they show up in any US state. You have zero states where Italian, Hispanic, French, or German ancestry comes close to predominating, and zero states where a non British European ancestry breaks the top 4. How delusional can you be?

You sound mentally disturbed, creating narratives and characters in your head. None of that rings true.

Of course it doesn’t, because it reflects poorly on your sense of nationalist fragility vis a vis Americans. This is absolute projection. All of your arguments here are deliberate manipulations of reality. You outright misinterpret data because you’re desperate to homogenize Americans or to liken them to British people or Australians. It’s the kind of deranged nonsense I’ve been talking about.

[hangh]

Meh. My relatives get close to 97% "British & Irish" on 23andMe, and my guess is that a lot of Australians get the same kind of score, so that's just one personal anecdote that pans your "pan" claim.

It really doesn’t, because Someone with 97% British ancestry is incredibly rare in the US overall. Unless other aspects of your ancestry are being confused as B&I. I can post more American 23andMe results on Reddit that don’t have predominant British ancestry than ones that do.

[hangh]

There has been an assumption that modern US is a highly mixed country, like a Northern Brazil, which your points about the diversity of immigration, certainly indicate is largely true in many areas.

No, not necessarily. A big reason comparisons between the two aren’t very productive is because Americans have defined race differently, and many Pardo (Brown) Brazilians are not African, per se. The countries are very similar in terms of racial mix when you combine the African American population with the multiracial with the native with the Hispanic with the white population that has trace Black ancestry in the US.

The US is mixed like a lot of countries these days but what about the period up to 1850, when a lot of nation building took place?

How has the numbers of different groups living in urban areas in the modern day have to do with nation building from before, the institutions and elites?

What is this about?

You also seem to base your argument on census data and self appointed ancestry. we now have actual science for this with genetics.

Genetics can misattribute many things.

For white Americans I have been surprised how high B&I has come out on average and how much more homogenous many white Americans are with N Euro ancestry, B&I plus German, some French etc.

No, you haven’t, because no other “European” population in the new world registers as more diverse. The US was the primary destination for the majority of Europe’s immigrants, and it’s common to see American white results on the 23andMe subreddit that are completely divided amongst every region of Europe - this is not the case for Brazil, where almost everyone registers as overwhelmingly Portuguese, or Australia, where almost everyone registers as overwhelmingly British.

To say that B&I is sometimes mislabeled with other NW Euro ancestry is clutching at straws a little.

No, it isn’t at all. The reality is, you have a bias to want to see Americans as British because you have biases against British people that you’re desperate to also apply to Americans, erroneously. Also, because diversity has been turned into a societal virtue, the idea that the US has always received the most diverse and significant immigration waves in the world is uncomfortable to people.

Notice how this thread has devolved into “most white Americans from the south” and has dispensed with trying to insist that white Americans let alone Americans in general are super British. Because it just can’t be done. You people know that’s a laughable suggestion and an erasure of the US’s obvious Pan-European and multiracial nature.

Australia is 150 years behind the US afterall, 1770 arrival for Cook, 1620 for the Mayflower.

Australia could maybe be like the US now in 150 years time, except south and South Asian continuing inmigration as opposed to German, Irish, Polish etc. In 150 years Britain will be South Asian/African in any case.

The US has more significant absolute components of both demographics than either of those countries, and no, because Australia will always have a wildly more homogeneous European makeup.