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

[hangh]

Southerners tend to look more like British and Australians than swarthy Yankees from New Jersey and states like that.

Upland southerners tend to look more British or Australian, but overall do not look very British or Australian for obvious reasons.

The dominant European group here has always been British. Also, 23andMe already released maps showing that African or Indian ancestry in most southern whites is negligible. South Carolina and Louisiana have the most of it, and even there, only 12% of whites score African at levels above 1% and the amount of injun is even lower. The products of race mixing were always considered part of the non-white group which is why blacks are so much more mixed than whites.

It’s British and other ancestries. Most people in the US are not of solely British ancestry - especially not up north, but not even in the south. And if you go to Louisiana, you’re going to have a hard time explaining why blacks and whites alike have all sorts of French, Italian, and Canarian Spanish last names.

The African/Native ancestry might be distant, amounting to traces, but it’s common to southerners, and common enough that it regularly pops up on American 23andMe results. And it, of course, massively distinguishes Southerners phenotypically, as British people and Australians share absolutely zero genetic relationship to Black or Native American populations whatsoever. And 10s of tri-racial groups exist in the south. Many of the ancestors of these groups look completely white, and the SSA might not even register. Bi-racial individuals are very common in the south, as are, obviously, Blacks, who are a mixed ethnic group. So the logic being applied here is off.

The idea that southern whites aren’t mixed and blacks are is nonsensical, and this is the way the one-drop rule has positioned things - it’s not the actual reality. This is simply a bias. A lot of genetic data has been lied about to perpetuate racial Marxism, because that’s the only possible source behind this weird idea that a country that was 20% black in the 1790s, that has tons of recognized tri-racial ethnic groups, somehow has no racial admixture among not just American whites, but SOUTHERN whites, and Blacks do. That doesn’t make sense. That’s a lie. Thousands of photos of practically white mixed Americans from the 19th century exist. We know Southern whites are heavily distinguished by this heritage, whether it amounts to a trace of DNA or more.

[Smeagol]

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.

[hangh]

South Louisiana is an outlier in the South.

Louisiana, Florida, and Texas share relatively similar natures, and none are outliers - they represent the vast majority of the region’s population.

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.

But there never used to be any category for multiracial groups until very recently - that population exploded to 33 million in the last census count. So…

And any racial admixture in a person’s family tree, from the past couple hundred years, is going to alter physiognomy, absolutely. Suggesting otherwise is silly. Sure, many southerners with trace African ancestry (who claimed they had Cherokee ancestry to hide it) look white, definitely, and that’s why they don’t identify as AfAm. But their builds, eye shape, skull shape will be different to Brits and Australians in significant ways.

[Smeagol]

Louisiana, Florida, and Texas share relatively similar natures, and none are outliers - they represent the vast majority of the region’s population.

They're not even very similar to each other, and they obviously don't represent the majority of the region's population. Texas and Florida are borderline southern. East Texas is similar to the rest of the south (Mostly British!) but the rest of the state is transitional to the Southwest and is much more Hispanic than the rest of the former Confederacy except for Florida whose Hispanics are mostly descended from 20th century immigrants. Louisiana is a different thing altogether, although north Louisiana is mostly Anglo-Celtic and more "mainstream" Southern.

Whites from Virginia, the Carolinas, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Arkansas are all very similar and yeah, mostly British.

And any racial admixture in a person’s family tree, from the past couple hundred years, is going to alter physiognomy, absolutely. Suggesting otherwise is silly. Sure, many southerners with trace African ancestry (who claimed they had Cherokee ancestry to hide it) look white, definitely, and that’s why they don’t identify as AfAm. But their builds, eye shape, skull shape will be different to Brits and Australians in significant ways.

That is simply not true. Show me a white Southerner who can be distinguished from Brits/Australians on that basis.

[hangh]

Duplicate

[hangh]

They're not even very similar to each other, and they obviously don't represent the majority of the region's population. Texas and Florida are borderline southern. East Texas is similar to the rest of the south (Mostly British!) but the rest of the state is transitional to the Southwest and is much more Hispanic than the rest of the former Confederacy except for Florida whose Hispanics are mostly descended from 20th century immigrants. Louisiana is a different thing altogether, although north Louisiana is mostly Anglo-Celtic and more "mainstream" Southern.

Okay, no.

Texas and Florida are both Southern. The most common white European ancestry in Texas is German, not English. Florida’s had Hispanic populations (Floridanos, Spaniards by way of Cuba and elsewhere) from the 16th century. The Gulf coastal region, including Mississippi, much of Texas, and Louisiana, is heavily French and colonial Spanish + Spanish via 19th and 20th century immigration. It’s also German, Italian, Irish, Croatian, and has tons of tri-racial groups.

Do you see how futile your argument is? You must agree with my post to a certain degree, because we’re now reduced to arguing about the South specifically rather than the country at large, and from that, we’ve concluded that because some parts of the south actually aren’t British and have tons of other ethno-racial influence, we need to talk about specific parts of the south (that comprise the minority of the south’s population, let alone the country’s). It’s getting silly.

Whites from Virginia, the Carolinas, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Arkansas are all very similar and yeah, mostly British.

Mississippi, no, the rest have variances and are British and other European, with traces of African and sometimes Native.

That is simply not true. Show me a white Southerner who can be distinguished from Brits/Australians on that basis.

It is ABSOLUTELY true!:

[Smeagol]

Texas and Florida are both Southern.

Southern in that they were both former Confederate states, but large parts of both Texas and Florida have more in common with other regions of the country.

The most common white European ancestry in Texas is German, not English.

But the most common European ancestry in East Texas is English.

Florida’s had Hispanic populations (Floridanos, Spaniards by way of Cuba and elsewhere) from the 16th century.

Most Hispanics in Florida are not descendants of those people.

The Gulf coastal region, including Mississippi

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."

Do you see how futile your argument is? You must agree with my post to a certain degree

I do agree there is a large amount of non-British ancestry among white Southerners. Never denied it. What I said was that the majority are of British or mostly British descent and that goes for most of the people who just call themselves American.

because we’re now reduced to arguing about the South specifically

I'm only interested in the South and said that in my second post in this thread.

Mississippi, no,

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

It is ABSOLUTELY true!:

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.

[Ruggery]

The northern states are not majority British?

[Anglo-Celtic]

Southerners tend to look more like British and Australians than swarthy Yankees from New Jersey and states like that. The dominant European group here has always been British. Also, 23andMe already released maps showing that African or Indian ancestry in most southern whites is negligible. South Carolina and Louisiana have the most of it, and even there, only 12% of whites score African at levels above 1% and the amount of injun is even lower. The products of race mixing were always considered part of the non-white group which is why blacks are so much more mixed than whites.

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

[Anglo-Celtic]

Duplicate

Melungeons are genetic outliers, and they represent extremely few individuals, 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).