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

[Blondie]

But it's foreigners like yourself from Continental Europe or Latin America that refer to Americans blanketly as Anglo-Saxon or Anglo. I cringe whenever I see it.

I think americans are just americans with an unique culture. I like american peoples, i just hate their political elite.

[Laredo]

That rule is written somewhere? It's exactly what Colombia is on average based on genetic studies. The majority of the population is "white", as in not black or pred Amerindian but they don't look white in the European sense, they look way off. It's not even about a particular location in Europe, they just look off and mixed somehow, which they are (besides a few obvious tourists). Most of the "spectrally white" population have features that are completely alien to Europe. You might not see it because that's all you ve ever seen in your life, yet it's very obvious in all South America when you look at the real population.



I don't think the US will ever look like this, sure the proportion of groups living alonside each others will change but this is something else that would take hundreds of years, and need a complete dissolution of identity in the philosophical sense which im not sure old stock Americans are willing to accept that easily. There will be at least many holdouts.

It's not a written rule for sure, but I'm talking over 10+ years of experience since I was a teen from genetic studies and personal views.


Normally amerindian doesn't show when it's under 25%.


Here a genetically 100% castiza mexican




Now Imagine adding up 25% Anglo Germanic admixture to the 50% Spanish /Celtic mestizo.

[Petalpusher]

Yes i imagine LOL

[hangh]

It isn't. Florida was majority Anglo-Celtic at the time of the War between the States.

"Anglo-Celtic" - What are you referring to here? "The war between the states"? The Civil War? It might have had majority British ancestry, but it at one time was majority Spanish, and this Floridano element has a significant impact on the ethnic/phenotypic appearance of many Floridians.

Sure, somewhere like Tupelo is a gulf coast city. Alabama and Mississippi have about an equal amount of gulf coastline. Mississippi whites are much more British than French or Spanish.

Probably more so than Louisiana, but they are still heavily French and even Spanish too.

Like I said, you don't know Mississippi.

Nothing I said was untrue

You don't know who white people in the South consider white either. I'll give you Fiona Apple though, but most of the people you posted like Wentworth Miller are definitely not considered white. In the historical pics you posted a guy whose mother was literally a slave and you're trying to tell me he was considered white in 1860? That's not trace ancestry.

Wentworth Miller would absolutely be considered white in the south and anywhere in the US. Depp is only ever considered white. Most of those historical pictures would be considered Melungeon today.

[hangh]

Oh, please. I'm descended from actual Melungeons, so why would I minimize their P.O.P.? Most White Southerners don't have Black ancestry, period

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

and the "mulattos" that you emphasize have 5% at the most on DNA tests, so BFD. Our Down Under friends are quite like White people from the South who have both English and Irish forebears, and the negligible traces of this and that (when there really are some) mean squat.

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.

[hangh]

Amongst native English speakers, 'Anglo' (grammatically retarded on it's own) broadly refers to people of English, or at least British Isles descent. It's not just a cultural term.


So America became Anglo in 1917 Ironically that's around when the US started to become non-Anglocentric politically and culturally (the beginning of Hollywood and Jewish financial power).

Don't forget Jazz, which started the dominance of America's unique Afro-European musical styles throughout the world.

[hangh]

Really? Besides a few people on this forum (myself included) I've rarely seen people make this point, most will accept the ethnic census figures uncritically. You seem more insecure to make a mini-essay about it out of the blue.

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 outbreeding would have had to mostly occur between 1980 (when English was the largest reported ancestry) and 1990/2000. This is impossible. The major difference between those dates is the inclusion of the 'American' option in self-reported ancestry, which has siphoned off those identifying as English and Scottish origin.

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.

And the idea that British immigration to the US dried up in the 1810s is stupid, the number of immigrants from Britain to the US between 1820 and 1978 was 4.9 million, only behind Italy (5.3 million) and Germany (6.9 million). Add the 4.7 million immigrants from Ireland (many of whom would be Protestant Scottish/English stock) during that time and the number of immigrants from the British Isles is 9.6 million. And that's just on top of the mostly British founding stock.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...pean_migration

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.

As it happens this has been the smoking gun in dispelling the ethnic estimates of recent US censuses, and proving that White Americans are more British (or at least Anglo-Celtic) than anything else. The 23andme-based academic paper on US genetic origins showed that the British & Irish genetic category dwarfs all others in frequency for Americans identifying as White.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/bior...2/009340-1.pdf


And Americans after 1980 can be trusted to more accurately report their ancestry why?

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 are you seriously arguing that the increased availability of digital records and genetic testing in the post-1980s period means Americans are less likely to accurately report their ancestry than before? That's stupid.

Also, your maps clearly show that British ancestry is proportionally predominant in the lowly populated regions of the country, and states that are also heavily Black.

Some of the maps, most notably "mean Italian ancestry", are very misleading. Italian ancestry is made to seem less common than "Middle Eastern" ancestry or Scandinavian, which is bizarre and inaccurate.

The aforementioned study also showed that to be a myth. White Southerners have remarkably little non-white ancestry for people who've been living alongside large numbers of blacks for centuries, less than 1% on average.

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.

2) The one-drop rule means that plenty of Americans with small %'s of SSA ancestry arbitrarily identify as black on census counts.

British surnames are also by far the most common amongst Whites.

No, they're not "by far"

The 100 most common surnames amongst those identifying as White in the 2010 US census

SMITH	2,442,977	1,732,071	70.90%	1	1
JOHNSON	1,932,812	1,139,779	58.97%	2	2
MILLER	1,161,437	976,885	84.11%	3	7
BROWN	1,437,026	832,757	57.95%	4	4
JONES	1,425,470	786,717	55.19%	5	5
WILLIAMS	1,625,252	743,553	45.75%	6	3
DAVIS	1,116,357	694,374	62.20%	7	8
ANDERSON	784,404	589,636	75.17%	8	15
WILSON	801,882	540,148	67.36%	9	14
MARTIN	702,625	525,564	74.80%	10	20
TAYLOR	751,209	491,140	65.38%	11	17
MOORE	724,374	481,057	66.41%	12	18
THOMPSON	664,644	463,789	69.78%	13	23
WHITE	660,491	432,688	65.51%	14	24
CLARK	562,679	420,040	74.65%	15	27
THOMAS	756,142	397,958	52.63%	16	16
BAKER	419,586	334,956	79.83%	17	44
NELSON	424,958	330,022	77.66%	18	43
KING	465,422	326,540	70.16%	19	34
ALLEN	482,607	326,194	67.59%	20	33
YOUNG	484,447	320,995	66.26%	21	32
HARRIS	624,252	320,866	51.40%	22	25
ADAMS	427,865	316,706	74.02%	23	42
LEWIS	531,781	309,656	58.23%	24	29
WALKER	523,129	306,867	58.66%	25	31
WRIGHT	458,980	302,009	65.80%	26	35
HALL	407,076	295,741	72.65%	27	45
ROBERTS	376,774	291,133	77.27%	28	50
CAMPBELL	386,157	284,443	73.66%	29	47
JACKSON	708,099	282,461	39.89%	30	19
HILL	434,827	279,855	64.36%	31	39
PHILLIPS	360,802	276,699	76.69%	32	52
SCOTT	439,530	264,641	60.21%	33	36
ROBINSON	529,821	258,023	48.70%	34	30
MURPHY	308,417	256,325	83.11%	35	64
LEE	693,023	249,142	35.95%	36	21
COOK	302,589	247,518	81.80%	37	65
GREEN	430,182	244,515	56.84%	38	41
EVANS	355,593	243,190	68.39%	39	53
COLLINS	329,770	236,148	71.61%	40	59
PETERSON	278,297	234,855	84.39%	41	71
MORRIS	318,884	234,667	73.59%	42	62
MITCHELL	384,486	234,613	61.02%	43	48
PARKER	336,221	232,564	69.17%	44	56
ROGERS	302,261	227,905	75.40%	45	66
STEWART	324,957	224,773	69.17%	46	61
TURNER	348,627	223,993	64.25%	47	54
WOOD	250,715	222,434	88.72%	48	84
CARTER	376,966	219,394	58.20%	49	49
MORGAN	286,280	217,773	76.07%	50	69
COX	261,231	215,829	82.62%	51	78
KELLY	267,394	208,808	78.09%	52	74
EDWARDS	332,423	206,534	62.13%	53	58
BAILEY	277,845	201,299	72.45%	54	72
REED	277,030	197,495	71.29%	55	73
WARD	260,464	196,859	75.58%	56	79
MYERS	229,895	194,261	84.50%	57	96
SULLIVAN	220,990	193,875	87.73%	58	105
COOPER	280,791	190,741	67.93%	59	70
BENNETT	247,599	189,562	76.56%	60	86
HUGHES	236,271	185,213	78.39%	61	90
LONG	229,374	183,224	79.88%	62	97
FISHER	214,703	177,302	82.58%	63	112
PRICE	235,251	173,921	73.93%	64	91
RUSSELL	221,558	170,710	77.05%	65	104
HOWARD	264,826	170,310	64.31%	66	75
GRAY	246,116	169,032	68.68%	67	87
WATSON	252,579	166,778	66.03%	68	81
REYNOLDS	200,247	162,360	81.08%	69	121
FOSTER	227,764	158,638	69.65%	70	99
ROSS	229,368	158,172	68.96%	71	98
OLSON	164,035	155,440	94.76%	72	157
RICHARDSON	259,798	155,099	59.70%	73	80
BROOKS	251,663	151,551	60.22%	74	82
PERRY	221,741	151,493	68.32%	75	103
STEVENS	185,674	151,213	81.44%	76	135
POWELL	224,874	151,115	67.20%	77	101
SNYDER	160,262	150,758	94.07%	78	165
WEST	195,818	147,803	75.48%	79	125
COLE	195,289	147,111	75.33%	80	126
WAGNER	155,795	144,064	92.47%	81	173
MEYER	150,895	143,109	94.84%	82	183
KENNEDY	176,865	142,942	80.82%	83	146
HAMILTON	201,746	141,646	70.21%	84	119
BARNES	218,241	141,442	64.81%	85	110
GRAHAM	201,159	140,852	70.02%	86	120
SANDERS	230,374	140,021	60.78%	87	94
SCHMIDT	147,034	139,903	95.15%	88	185
MURRAY	184,910	138,535	74.92%	89	136
MCDONALD	180,497	138,351	76.65%	90	143
PATTERSON	205,423	138,188	67.27%	91	117
GIBSON	190,667	137,547	72.14%	92	130
WALLACE	197,276	136,594	69.24%	93	123
BUTLER	218,847	136,473	62.36%	94	108
BELL	220,599	134,808	61.11%	95	106
HAYES	194,246	134,768	69.38%	96	127
FOX	152,334	134,176	88.08%	97	180
BURNS	165,925	133,171	80.26%	98	155
ELLIS	188,968	132,958	70.36%	99	131
STONE	153,329	131,786	85.95%	100

https://namecensus.com/last-names/co...hite-surnames/
British surnames are dominant, which should be unsurprising for anyone familiar with America(ns).

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

1) Excludes white Hispanic surnames

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

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.

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

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.

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.

I don't know what your point is, everyone knows modern Americans are overall a mixture and aren't British. Mine and others' contention is only that British ancestry is by far the largest European ancestry amongst them, which is supported by all historical and genetic data, as well as common sense.

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.

[hangh]

For a fun comparison, let's compare identified ancestry between similar American, Canadian, and Australian states and provinces:

Tasmania

White: 94%

English: 47.7%
Australian: 46.3%
Irish: 11.7%
Scottish: 10%
German: 4%
Dutch: 2.2%
Italian: 1.5%

Newfoundland and Labrador

White: 89%

Canadian: 43.4%
English: 39.4%
Irish: 19.7%
Scottish: 6%
French: 5.5%
German: 1.2%

Alaska

White (NH): 59.4%

German: 20.3%
Irish: 9.4%
English: 7.5%
Norwegian: 7%
French: 4.1%
Italian: 3.7%
Scottish: 3%
Polish: 2.7%
Swedish: 2.5%
Dutch: 2%
Russian: 1.6%
Montenegrin/Serbian/Yugoslav: 1.5%
Portuguese/Azorean: 0.5%

Victoria

White: 85.5%

English: 32%
Australian: 30%
Irish: 10.8%
Scottish: 9%
Italian: 6.4%
German: 3.6%
Greek: 3.1%
Dutch: 1.8%
Maltese: 1.3%
Polish: 1%

Quebec

White: 92.6%

Canadian: 60.1%
French: 28.8%
Irish: 5.5%
Italian: 4%
English: 3.3%
Scottish: 3%
Quebecois: 2%
German: 1.8%
Spanish: 1%
Jewish: 1%
Greek: 1%

California

White (total): 34.7%

German: 9%
Irish: 6.7%
English: 6.5%
Italian: 6%
Spanish (includes 'Californio' population): 4%
French: 3.8%
Persian (Iranian, Armenian): 3.5%
Jewish: 3.3%
Portuguese/Azorean: 3.2%
Scottish: 3.1%
Polish: 3.1%
Russian: 3%
Swedish: 2.4%
Dutch: 2.4%%
Norwegian: 2%
Arab: 2%
American: 1.8%%
Danish: 1.5%
Greek: 1.3%
Hungarian: 1%
Swiss: 1%
Ukrainian: 0.6%

Queensland

White: 88.8%

English: 41.2%
Australian: 38%
Irish: 13%
Scottish: 11.2%
German: 6.8%
Italian: 3%
Dutch: 1.6%
New Zealander: 1.6%

Florida

White (NH): 51.5%

German: 10%
Irish: 7.8%
English: 7.3%
American: 7%
Italian: 6.8%
Jewish: 3%
Spanish: 2.8%
Polish: 2.6%
French: 2.3%
Russian: 1%
Scottish: 1%
Dutch: 0.8%
Arab: 0.7%
Swedish: 0.7%
Norwegian: 0.6%

Queensland (state's name being etymologically English) sports crowds - looks very English adjacent:

Attachment 119083

Attachment 119085

Attachment 119087





Florida (state's name being etymologically Spanish) sports crowds - doesn't look English at all:

Attachment 119084

Attachment 119086

Attachment 119088

[hangh]

It might take a few more hundreds of years for the US to be like some parts of South America with tens of millions of mixed individuals, and it even could never happen that the whole population will dilute into a stabilized new ethnicity such as "balanced x whatever".

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

[hangh]

Where did the OP go? I guess that Creoda's post spooked him (maps and statistics can terrify individuals with agendas and vendettas). I just wing it when I reply to people on blatant crusades. It's common knowledge that the South is Anglo-Celtic with variations in degrees of both, as well as some extra ethnic spice added to the mix in some regions.

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.