Are there really more Americans of German ancestry than English ancestry?

[politicus]

The mainland Scandinavian languages are basically pidgin languages by people who have spoken Old Norse languages but tried to sell their herring to Low Germanic people. On level of grammar there are big differences (in declination) that are easy to recognize, but wortschatz
is very similar.

Not quite sure if you are serious, but since there are no smileys:

They are far from pidgin languages. Only 30-35% of the vocabulary is of German origin. Even in Danish the Nordic words are the majority and this number is slightly higher in Swedish and Norwegian. So heavily influenced by Low German in the late middle ages, but thats it. English has lots of French words without being a French pidgin.

English is very much a French - Anglosaxon(-and some Norse) pidgin creole, actually. With a lot of the typical grammatical features.

The basis of English is an Anglo-Saxon-Norse mix with (mainly) French loan words for more "advanced" concepts.
This is in many ways similar to the Scandinavian languages where Low German played the role of French.
This doesnt make any of those languages "pidgin" since the majority of the vocabulary is "home grown".
But the Scandinavian languages are less influenced by other languages than English, so it makes even less sense to call them pidgin or creole.

[minionofmidas]

English really shows internal evidence of having gone through a genuinely pidgin phase.

I've never heard that said of the Scandinavian languages, though.

[Sol]

English really shows internal evidence of having gone through a genuinely pidgin phase.

I've never heard that said of the Scandinavian languages, though.

I don't think so. English did go through a lot of natural simplification and did get a lot of loanwords, but that doesn't mean it went through a pidgin phase.

[Franknburger]

English really shows internal evidence of having gone through a genuinely pidgin phase.

Does it really? A lot of what appears "pidgin" from a High German point of view can be related to the (Low) Saxon origin of English, e.g. the absence of a clear distinction between Dative and  Accusative, or the replacement of the Genitive by the possessive form (Min Vader sin Hus -> My father his house -> My father's house). 

The replacement of strong verbs (see-saw-seen) by weak verbs (walk-walked-walked) has advanced further in English, but can also be observed in High German, e.g. 'backen´ (to bake), past tense traditionally 'buk', but more and more replaced by "backte".

English has mostly given up the non-personal use of genders, with a few exceptions (e.g. ships), and drastically simplified the declination of verbs, also in comparison to Low Saxon. It has, on the other hand, maintained great precision in the use of tenses, which has got lost in High German (e.g. no clear distinction between the use of  past tense and of present perfect, use of present tense with a temporary adverb instead of future tense). 
Different paths of grammatical simplification, but not necessarily pidgin (which I, for example, would expect to have more or less eradicated complex grammatical constructions like the conditional or present) continuous). But maybe I have misunderstood what you mean by "pidgin phase".

[scotopino]

According to the U.S. census, the answer is clearly yes.  But my guess is that while German ancestry is significant, I don't think they actually outnumber those of English ancestry.

In colonial America, about 60% were of English ancestry and less than 10% were German.  The 1980 census said English and German ancestry were both about 50 million, but while German has remained pretty stable the number reporting English ancestry was only 25 million.  This is obviously a significant undercount.  

I suspect the vast majority of those declaring American ancestry are of British ancestry (mostly English with some Scottish and Scots-Irish), given that they're mostly white Southerners.  Also, nonresponses to the ancestry question tend to be high in the same places where "American" ancestry is high.  

1980 was the first time an ancestry question was asked.  Previously the most similar question was about the birthplace of parents.  With the cut off of large scale immigration after WWI, almost anyone under the age of 50 (born after 1930) would have US-born parents.

The 1980 (long) form asked "What is this person's ancestry?"   It gives examples of "Afro-Amer., English, French, German, Honduran, Irish, Italian, Jamaican, Korean, Lebanese, Mexican, Nigerian, Polish, Ukrainian, and Venezuelan".   In 1980, race was "Negro or Black"  The question was immediately after the language question, which focuses on non-English use.  This might tend to elicit a response of "English" to the next question, since few persons would speak a language other than English at home.  The instructions emphasized that the ancestry should be that which the person identifies with.  It said that if there were multiple identities, that it should be reported similar to "German-Irish".

The 1990 (long) form asked "What is this person's ancestry or ethnic origin?", and gave examples of "German, Italian, Afro-Amer., Croatian, Cape Verdean, Dominican, Ecuadoran, Haitian, Cajun, French Canadian, Jamaican, Korean, Lebanese, Mexico, Nigerian, Irish, Polish, Slovak, Taiwanese, Thai, Ukrainian, etc.".  Note the absence of English, and emphasis on cultural heritage since Acadia, French Canada, Slovakia, and Ukraine were not countries in 1990 (historically the Census Bureau coded country of birth based on the current boundaries, so that my Alsatian ancestors were said to have been born in "Germany" even though they had served in the French Army during the Franco-Prussian War.  The language question was a few questions later. The instructions said that "Ancestry refers to the person’s ethnic origin or
decent, 'roots' or heritage, Ancestry also may refer to the country of birth of the person or the person's parents or ancestry before their arrival in the United States."

So 1990 removed the example of "English", separated it from the question about use of a language other than English, and gave more of a sense of ethnicity as opposed to ancestral origin.  After the Revolution, there was a deliberate de-anglicization.  We forgot that the Englishman John Cabot had discovered North America, rather than the Spaniard Christopher Columbus.  Those who settled New England were religious dissenters, who backed the losing side in the English Civil War.  Those who came here as indentured servants, and headed west for land as soon as their contract paid off might not have had good thoughts about jolly olde  England.  Those who might have identified closest with England, through continued trading relationships, Southern planters, were on the losing side in the American Civil War.

It is typical for mixed marriages between the incumbent dominant group, and new groups to be predominately female-male.   That is, there were more English female-German male marriages than English male-German female, and similarly for Americans and Italians, Whites and Blacks, Whites and Asians.

Descendants of a marriage between Johann Schwartz and Elizabeth Black may be more likely to identify as German based on their name, than the descendants of a marriage between John Black and Liesel Schwartz.  The grandchildren might remember Oma Liesel, but not later generations.   There would be more Schwartz-Black marriages than Black-Schwartz marriages.

Identification based on name might predominate, even though cultural values may be transmitted within the household by the mother, rather than the father who likely had more interaction with a larger community.

The 2000 (long) Census Form gave the following example:

(For example: Italian, Jamaican, African Am., Cambodian, Cape Verdean, Norwegian, Dominican, French Canadian, Haitian, Korean, Lebanese, Polish, Nigerian, Mexican, Taiwanese, Ukrainian, and so on.)

This removed Germans, Croatians, Ecuadorans, Cajuns, Irish, Slovak, and Thai; renamed Afro-Amer. as African Am.; and changed "etc." to "and so on".  I suspect that removal of English, Germans, and Irish, the three most dominant groups, was deliberate, and possibly related to the rise of Americans.

The 2000 form rearranged the form somewhat.  In 1990 and before, the long form included the short form questions (age, race and ethnicity, sex, family relationship, name) for all household members.  This was followed by the household questions (running water, income, age of dwelling, tenure (rent/owned), etc.).  And then the detailed questions for persons including ancestry.  So questions about race and ethnicity were separated from questions about ancestry and language.

In 2000, personal questions from the short form for the householder went directly into the long form personal questions.  The question about ancestry is thus closer to those for race and ethnicity than in the past.  In addition, the 2000 ancestry question is immediately before those about language, citizenship, and place of birth.  The 2000 Census Form did not include an instruction booklet, so the person filling in the form only had:

What is this person’s ancestry or ethnic origin?

________________________

________________________

(For example: Italian, Jamaican, African Am., Cambodian,
Cape Verdean, Norwegian, Dominican, French Canadian,
Haitian, Korean, Lebanese, Polish, Nigerian, Mexican,
Taiwanese, Ukrainian, and so on.)

With two blanks.

The American Community Survey (ACS), the replacement for the long form, uses the same question as 2000, and since 2009 has included an instruction booklet similar to 1990.  

The ancestry question follows those about place of birth and citizenship, though there are educational questions in-between, and immediately before non-English language use.

Just found this forum, so sorry about joining the party late. Well,my last name is very Scottish.  Although I do have recent German heritage(my great grandmother was directly from Germany)I still identified  my Euro Heritiage as Scottish...and got the suprise of my life when I got my 23 and me DNA test and found, well, I am much more German than any other European nationality. I then went back and did  my family tree on my dad's side. Lo and behold just like in the example in the post above... a couple people with my Scottish last name married plenty of "Liesels"...so much so, that my Very Scottish name and the people who carried it in my neck of the woods(pennsylvania) were actually mostly German,but the heritage forgotten, because it was the women who didn't  pass on the German names. So my great great grandma wasn't the first German woman in my bloodline. And despite my very Scottish last name and my affinity to it, my Scottish ancestor came here in the 1600's.  My German ancestors? They've been intermarrying with my Scottish last name from the 1700's to the 1900's. Interesting how we identify ourselves.

[barfbag]

I haven't seen numbers lately, but it wouldn't surprise me at all. I know more German Americans than British Americans.

[King of Kensington]

Most estimates I've seen suggest 15-20 million German Americans in 1914.

[RINO Tom]

I redid my stats for the other topic I posted, and when combining "English" and "American" (and using the awesome site that was linked for me, http://statisticalatlas.com/United-States/Ancestry!), English and German are literally tied (% of Whites):

15.30% English (21.13%)
15.30% German (21.13%)
11.10% Irish (15.33%)
  5.60% Italian (7.73%)
  3.50% French (4.83%)
  3.10% Polish (4.28%)
  1.80% Scottish (2.49%)
  1.50% Dutch (2.07%)
  1.40% Norwegian (1.93%)
  1.30% Swedish (1.80%)
  1.00% Scots-Irish (1.38%)
  1.00% Russian (1.38%)
    .60% Welsh (.83%)
    .40% Spanish (.55%)

I know combining American and English isn't perfect, but whatever ... most people citing "American" are probably originally of English ancestry, minus a few Scots-Irish folks in Appalachia.

It also varies pretty significantly by Census region:

SOUTH
18.50% English (31.09%)
10.70% German (17.98%)
  9.50% Irish (15.97%)
  3.30% Italian (5.55%)
  2.50% French (4.20%)
  1.80% Scottish (3.03%)
  1.50% Polish (2.52%)
  1.40% Scots-Irish (2.35%)
  1.00% Dutch (1.68%)
    .60% Swedish (1.01%)

MIDWEST
27.50% German (35.48%)
14.60% English (18.84%)
12.50% Irish (16.13%)
  5.30% Polish (6.84%)
  4.40% Italian (5.68%)
  3.30% Norwegian (4.26%)
  2.90% French (3.74%)
  2.40% Dutch (3.10%)
  2.30% Swedish (2.97%)
  1.60% Scottish (2.06%)

NORTHEAST
16.10% Irish (23.61%)
13.90% Italian (20.38%)
13.70% German (20.09%)
12.40% English (18.18%)
  5.70% Polish (8.36%)
  5.40% French (7.92%)
  1.90% Russian (2.79%)
  1.60% Scottish (2.35%)
  1.30% Dutch (1.91%)
  1.20% Portuguese (1.76%)

WEST
12.80% English (24.443%)
12.70% German (24.24%)
  8.60% Irish (16.41%)
  4.00% Italian (7.63%)
  2.40% French (4.58%)
  2.00% Norwegian (3.82%)
  2.00% Scottish (3.82%)
  1.80% Swedish (3.44%)
  1.60% Polish (3.05%)
  1.10% Dutch (2.10%)

[King of Kensington]

^ And even most of those with Scots-Irish ancestry likely have a good amount of English ancestry too.

[King of Kensington]

The Census Bureau estimated there were 35 million whites who could trace ancestry to colonial America in 1900.  If that's the case there would have had to have been 20-25 million of them with English ancestry.  

I'm guessing a lot of English ancestry just isn't reported.  People will remember their Irish, German or Swedish ancestors and forget about plain vanilla English.

But yeah, English + American is probably the measure we have.

[catographer]

Why is there an easily findable ancestry map for the 2000 census, but not for the 2010 census? Was ancestry asked in 2010?

[RINO Tom]

Why is there an easily findable ancestry map for the 2000 census, but not for the 2010 census? Was ancestry asked in 2010?

I don't believe it was ... I'm working on getting a county ancestry map put together for just European ancestry (so, % of Whites in that state who identify with each European ancestry, pretty much) and with English and American added together, but I have only JUST finished Illinois.

[Technocracy Timmy]

My moms side of the family made a big deal about being of Polish and German ancestry. My dad's side did the same with Irish and German.

Turns out I'm 73% British according to a DNA test. Only 3% German, 3% Irish, and 11% East European. I think that British ancestry is so distant in many peoples family trees that they forget how much of it is actually present in their bloodlines.

[jimrtex]

Why is there an easily findable ancestry map for the 2000 census, but not for the 2010 census? Was ancestry asked in 2010?

The ancestry question was on the long form, asked of a sample (about 1/6 of households). The short form only asks:

Tenure for dwelling: (owned, rented, mortgaged, squatting)

For each individual:
Relationship (to first person on form, spouse, child, parent, sibling, etc.)
Sex,
Age,
Ethnicity: Not Hispanic or Hispanic: (Mexican, Puerto Rican, etc.)
Race: (White, Black, AIAN: enrolled tribe, (Asian), (NHOPI), other

The Long Form has been replaced with the American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS is a monthly survey, which over a five-year period has the same sampling rate as the Long Form. Because it is done monthly, only about 300,000 households are sampled each month, vs. 20,000,000 households one month every ten years. This means that the Census Bureau can have full-time staff to follow up for non-response, etc; compared to the regular census, when they are also having to follow up on the short form.

Because responses over a five-year period are combined, the ACS is more like a time-lapse photo. But it may also be combined on a sliding basis.

Instead of a sharp image every 10 years, you get a somewhat smeared image, updated annually 2007-2011, 2008-2012, ..., which may provide better trend information.

In 2004, following the 2000 Census, the Census Bureau issued a special report on Ancestry - which generated the 2000 maps showing the largest ancestry in each county.

It would be possible to do the same for the ACS, but the Census Bureau has not put together a comprehensive report.

[jimrtex]

Why is there an easily findable ancestry map for the 2000 census, but not for the 2010 census? Was ancestry asked in 2010?

I don't believe it was ... I'm working on getting a county ancestry map put together for just European ancestry (so, % of Whites in that state who identify with each European ancestry, pretty much) and with English and American added together, but I have only JUST finished Illinois.

Responses of non-white ancestry are recorded by the Census Bureau, but their tabular ancestry in American Fact Finder, excludes Asian, NHOPI, Hispanic, AIAN, and African American, most of which are included under the racial or ethnic categories.

The Census Bureau does not actually ask if someone is of "Asian" race. They have a number of specific "races" such as Chinese, Japanese, etc. which they aggregate as Asian. Presumably, most people who say that their "race" is Vietnamese also indicate Vietnamese ancestry. There are similar separation for Hispanic (Mexican, Puerto Rican, Dominican, Hispanic/Spanish). African American ancestry is not included in the ancestry data, but other ancestries generally considered black, such as Jamaican or Nigerian are). So you could estimate African American ancestry as being the same as Black-non Hispanic excluding other black ancestries.

In 2000, German was the largest ancestry from Pennsylvania through the Midwest and pushing out to the West Coast, excluding only Utah. By 2000, German was also the largest ancestry in Alaska, Oklahoma, and Florida.

African American was the largest ancestry along the southern coast from Louisiana to Maryland.

Irish was the largest ancestry in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Delaware, English the largest in Maine, Vermont, and Utah, Mexican in the four border states; and Japanese the largest in Hawaii. Italian is the largest in Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey.

American was the largest in the Inland South: West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Arkansas. These areas have seen particularly large drops in reported English ancestry.

[RINO Tom]

Why is there an easily findable ancestry map for the 2000 census, but not for the 2010 census? Was ancestry asked in 2010?

I don't believe it was ... I'm working on getting a county ancestry map put together for just European ancestry (so, % of Whites in that state who identify with each European ancestry, pretty much) and with English and American added together, but I have only JUST finished Illinois.

Responses of non-white ancestry are recorded by the Census Bureau, but their tabular ancestry in American Fact Finder, excludes Asian, NHOPI, Hispanic, AIAN, and African American, most of which are included under the racial or ethnic categories.

The Census Bureau does not actually ask if someone is of "Asian" race. They have a number of specific "races" such as Chinese, Japanese, etc. which they aggregate as Asian. Presumably, most people who say that their "race" is Vietnamese also indicate Vietnamese ancestry. There are similar separation for Hispanic (Mexican, Puerto Rican, Dominican, Hispanic/Spanish). African American ancestry is not included in the ancestry data, but other ancestries generally considered black, such as Jamaican or Nigerian are). So you could estimate African American ancestry as being the same as Black-non Hispanic excluding other black ancestries.

In 2000, German was the largest ancestry from Pennsylvania through the Midwest and pushing out to the West Coast, excluding only Utah. By 2000, German was also the largest ancestry in Alaska, Oklahoma, and Florida.

African American was the largest ancestry along the southern coast from Louisiana to Maryland.

Irish was the largest ancestry in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Delaware, English the largest in Maine, Vermont, and Utah, Mexican in the four border states; and Japanese the largest in Hawaii. Italian is the largest in Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey.

American was the largest in the Inland South: West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Arkansas. These areas have seen particularly large drops in reported English ancestry.

Which, again, while not perfect ... is one of the main reasons I chose to add American and English ancestry together into one "English" category in my own, personal, just-for-fun "study."  The states with the highest American ancestry totals seemed to also have the highest English totals in past Census studies, so I thought it was a pretty fair (if simplistic) assumption.

[KingSweden]

Ja, ist gut

[jimrtex]

I've been looking at the 1980 ancestry results, and there are some interesting results.

The Census Bureau reported certain triple groups as separate numbers. These were largely from the Big 3 (English, German, and Irish), with a 3rd group added in. It does not appear that Scotch-Irish were recognized as a unique group. but rather as persons of Irish and Scotch ancestry.

1. English, German, Irish 1618K
2. English, Irish, Scottish 897K
3. German, Irish, Scottish 668K
4. English, French, German 623K
5. French, German, Irish 496K
6. English, French, Irish 431K
7. Indian, German, Irish 328K
8. Dutch, German, Irish 247K
9. Indian, English, Irish 247K
10. German, Irish, Italian 227K
11. Indian, English, German 169K
12. Dutch, Irish, Scottish 113K
13. English, German, Swedish 102K
14. German, Irish, Swedish 91K
15. Indian, English, French 78K
16. Dutch, French, Irish 43K
17. English, Scotch, Welsh 28K

Scottish ancestry is usually reported in conjunction with another ancestry. Only 12% of Scots report only a single ancestry, Welsh is only reported alone by 19%, and Irish 26%.

English is 48%, which suggests to me that those of mixed ancestry that includes English, are more likely to omit "English" than those of other ancestries. While some who says they are Irish American or Italian American may be an affectation, someone who said they they were English American seems weird. The Census Bureau transformed Irish American and Italian American to Irish and Italian. While those who might be inclined to say English American, might report they were American.

Other single ancestry shares: Dutch 22%, French 24%, Swiss 24%, Irish 26%, Danish 28%, AIAN 29%, and Swedish 30%. Smaller groups or who immigrated long ago have a harder time maintaining a separate identity. More exotic ancestries can stick around longer, family might remember the gg-grandmother who was a Cherokee princess, and not be aware that a gg-grandmother came from Liverpool was part English.

Continuing, Belgian 34%, Austrian 36%, German 36%, Norwegian 37%. Germans do a little better because they are such a large group, it is easier to find marriage partners, and Norwegians are particularly concentrated in North Dakota and Minnesota.

Hungarian 41%, Slavic 41%, Hawaiian 42%, Finnish 43%, Croatian 43%, Lithuanian 46%, Polish 46%, English 48%, Canadian 49%, Serbian 49%, Russian 50%.

You can see out of place English are.

Scandinavian 50%, Slovene 50%, Ukrainian 52%, Hispanic Central&South American 54%, Yugoslavian 55%, Italian 56%, French Canadian 57%, Lebanese 58%, Portuguese 60%, Greek 64%.

And finally:

Japanese 84%, Chinese 85%, Hispanic Other 88%, Korean 91%

[Mr. Morden]

English is 48%, which suggests to me that those of mixed ancestry that includes English, are more likely to omit "English" than those of other ancestries. While some who says they are Irish American or Italian American may be an affectation, someone who said they they were English American seems weird. The Census Bureau transformed Irish American and Italian American to Irish and Italian. While those who might be inclined to say English American, might report they were American.

Other single ancestry shares: Dutch 22%, French 24%, Swiss 24%, Irish 26%, Danish 28%, AIAN 29%, and Swedish 30%. Smaller groups or who immigrated long ago have a harder time maintaining a separate identity. More exotic ancestries can stick around longer, family might remember the gg-grandmother who was a Cherokee princess, and not be aware that a gg-grandmother came from Liverpool was part English.

I think you're right about English not sticking in people's minds because it's less exotic, and also people being more likely to go with ancestries from more recent immigrants.

But is there also an effect here that would see the average amount of English ancestry in Americans being higher than that of other ethnic groups, yet less likely to be the plurality contribution?  After all, if you're getting your European ancestry from a grandparent immigrant, then it's contributing either 25% or 0%, and there's no in between.  Whereas if you have ancestry from European immigrants from the 1600s or 1700s, then you're going enough generations back to get much smaller increments of contributions.

For example, in my own case, I'm a mix of different European ethnicities, but English would be the plurality, at probably something like 27%.  But 25% of that is from English immigration to Canada in the late 1800s.  With only the remaining ~2% from the Colonial period (and those folks mixed with Scots and Northern Irish and others to eventually produce my great great grandmother).  Few Americans are going to be in my boat of having English ancestry largely based on recent (if the late 1800s counts as "recent") English immigration to Canada.  Much more common, I would think, would be folks with distant English ancestry that might well be a significant fraction of their ancestry, but not a plurality.  I wonder for how many Americans would English actually represent the plurality contribution to their ethnic mix.

[RI]

My ancestry is plurality English, but my last name is definitely not English nor are either of my parents's last names. I'd be more apt to choose the ancestry associated with those names than my actual genetic composition.

[Gass3268]

I'm pretty sure I'm plurality English, but I identify as German.

[jimrtex]

English is 48%, which suggests to me that those of mixed ancestry that includes English, are more likely to omit "English" than those of other ancestries. While some who says they are Irish American or Italian American may be an affectation, someone who said they they were English American seems weird. The Census Bureau transformed Irish American and Italian American to Irish and Italian. While those who might be inclined to say English American, might report they were American.

Other single ancestry shares: Dutch 22%, French 24%, Swiss 24%, Irish 26%, Danish 28%, AIAN 29%, and Swedish 30%. Smaller groups or who immigrated long ago have a harder time maintaining a separate identity. More exotic ancestries can stick around longer, family might remember the gg-grandmother who was a Cherokee princess, and not be aware that a gg-grandmother came from Liverpool was part English.

I think you're right about English not sticking in people's minds because it's less exotic, and also people being more likely to go with ancestries from more recent immigrants.

But is there also an effect here that would see the average amount of English ancestry in Americans being higher than that of other ethnic groups, yet less likely to be the plurality contribution?  After all, if you're getting your European ancestry from a grandparent immigrant, then it's contributing either 25% or 0%, and there's no in between.  Whereas if you have ancestry from European immigrants from the 1600s or 1700s, then you're going enough generations back to get much smaller increments of contributions.

For example, in my own case, I'm a mix of different European ethnicities, but English would be the plurality, at probably something like 27%.  But 25% of that is from English immigration to Canada in the late 1800s.  With only the remaining ~2% from the Colonial period (and those folks mixed with Scots and Northern Irish and others to eventually produce my great great grandmother).  Few Americans are going to be in my boat of having English ancestry largely based on recent (if the late 1800s counts as "recent") English immigration to Canada.  Much more common, I would think, would be folks with distant English ancestry that might well be a significant fraction of their ancestry, but not a plurality.  I wonder for how many Americans would English actually represent the plurality contribution to their ethnic mix.

I speculate that there is a similar effect for Germans, who have a higher percentage than other groups of similar immigration history. Even if growing up on a homestead in the Midwest, they may be able to find a mate who was also German. This might be even more true if the community was large enough to have ethnic-based Lutheran churches.

My guess on why German-Irish-Italian is the only triple group including Italians is that these were mostly Catholics, who found a mate in church away from the east coast or larger cities where there was not an Italian community.

Growing up, my understanding of the word "nationality" was it meant "ancestry". Since everyone was American, there was no reason to refer to American nationality. I recall a real English person being bemused by this.

I do have the data for states and counties, so I will look to see if there are regional effects. One would expect the west to be further mixed. This is for the 1980 Census, so the older boomers would be 35. Someone who grew up in California might have visited their grandparents in Illinois and Arkansas, with their parents meeting during or after WWII.

[Mr. Morden]

You know, this discussion also makes me wonder things like...

1) What percentage of white Americans today have at least one ancestor who lived in North America at the time of the Revolutionary War?

2) What is the average %age of ancestry for such people today that comes from the Revolutionary War era (and earlier)?

3) And then, out of curiosity, repeat the above questions for the Civil War.

Like I said, in my case, I did have some ancestors living in North America during the Colonial period, though the majority of my ancestors didn't come to North America until after the Civil War.  I think ~10% of my Mom's ancestry is from folks living here in the Colonial Era, while for my Dad it would be 0%.  But what's average?  Are there really many people left where it's >50%?  And where do they tend to live?  In the South?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You know, this discussion also makes me wonder things like...

1) What percentage of white Americans today have at least one ancestor who lived in North America at the time of the Revolutionary War?

2) What is the average %age of ancestry for such people today that comes from the Revolutionary War era (and earlier)?

3) And then, out of curiosity, repeat the above questions for the Civil War.

Like I said, in my case, I did have some ancestors living in North America during the Colonial period, though the majority of my ancestors didn't come to North America until after the Civil War.  I think ~10% of my Mom's ancestry is from folks living here in the Colonial Era, while for my Dad it would be 0%.  But what's average?  Are there really many people left where it's >50%?  And where do they tend to live?  In the South?

I get to be an oddball here as I have ancestors who lived in the future United States at the time of the so-called Revolution, but not during the so-called Second Revolution as the ones who'd been here fr the first had had to escape to Canada afterwards.

[Mr. Morden]

You know, this discussion also makes me wonder things like...

1) What percentage of white Americans today have at least one ancestor who lived in North America at the time of the Revolutionary War?

2) What is the average %age of ancestry for such people today that comes from the Revolutionary War era (and earlier)?

3) And then, out of curiosity, repeat the above questions for the Civil War.

Like I said, in my case, I did have some ancestors living in North America during the Colonial period, though the majority of my ancestors didn't come to North America until after the Civil War.  I think ~10% of my Mom's ancestry is from folks living here in the Colonial Era, while for my Dad it would be 0%.  But what's average?  Are there really many people left where it's >50%?  And where do they tend to live?  In the South?

I get to be an oddball here as I have ancestors who lived in the future United States at the time of the so-called Revolution, but not during the so-called Second Revolution as the ones who'd been here fr the first had had to escape to Canada afterwards.

Same with me.  I have some ancestors who were living in NY, MA, and CT at the time of the Revolution, then fled to Canada at the end of the war.

I don't *think* I have any ancestors who were living in the US at the time of the Civil War, though I'm not 100% certain, because of one branch on the family tree that's kind of a mystery: I have a great grandmother who was born in Chicago in 1879 to Norwegian immigrants, and I don't really know when her parents immigrated, or even if they immigrated together as adults or separately when they were younger.  I suppose it's possible that one or both immigrated with their families as children, in which case they might have arrived before or during the Civil War.  But my recollection is that immigration from Norway ramped up a lot post-Civil War, so it's probably unlikely.