American Jews and the ancestry question

[King of Kensington]

Unlike in Canada or Australia, the US Census Bureau doesn't count Jewish ancestry.  I'm guessing a plurality write Russian*, with good numbers writing Polish as well.  Good numbers for German, Austrian, Hungarian and Romanian as well (not to mention Israeli, Iranian or Syrian for those whose families didn't immigrate to the US from Europe).

A good number may "defy" it and write Jewish anyway or leave it blank.

* Most pre-WWI "Russian" Jews came from Ukraine or Belarus and few from Russia proper of course.

[jimrtex]

Unlike in Canada or Australia, the US Census Bureau doesn't count Jewish ancestry.  I'm guessing a plurality write Russian*, with good numbers writing Polish as well.  Good numbers for German, Austrian, Hungarian and Romanian as well (not to mention Israeli, Iranian or Syrian for those whose families didn't immigrate to the US from Europe).

A good number may "defy" it and write Jewish anyway or leave it blank.

* Most pre-WWI "Russian" Jews came from Ukraine or Belarus and few from Russia proper of course.

The ACS ancestry question is a fill in the blank, with some suggestions made. The instructions in a different booklet do say to not specify a religious group. The Census Bureau codes religious groups as Other.

The Census Bureau does not report many ancestries. Some smaller groups such as Lilliputians may not be reported for statistical reasons and confidentiality. Ancestries associated with ethnic and racial groups are not shown in the tables (eg Mexican and Chinese). Persons may include these as ancestries, and the examples include Cambodian and Korean, but they are also included as sub-class of race.

So a person might report that they are White and Asian:Chinese and then for the Ancestry report Irish and Chinese. They will be shown in tables as reporting multiple ancestries, but only counted in the tables as Irish and Other ancestry. In a state like California bazillions of people will be listed as Other.

In comparing the ACS to the 2000 Census, they have switched the wording:

In the 2000 census, they had one, two, or no ancestries.
In the ACS they have one, multiple, or no ancestries. The instructions say to only report two ancestries, but the wording was clearly changed, and I suspect that some have reported more than two.

[angus]

Milton Berle had a really good bit about this.  Any of you old enough to remember Uncle Miltie?  Before the Great War, they asked us what nationality we were, and we said German.  We're all German, they said.  Then, after the war started, we were suddenly Jewish.  But ma, aren't we German.  No, Milton, we're Jewish.  Anyone asks, we're not German, we're Jewish.  So, all of the sudden, we're not German any more, we're Jewish.  My grandparents suddenly aren't from Germany, they're from Jewelery.  (Ba da boom)  Or something like that.

Anyway, JimRTex is right.  Take a look at the long form:  they're not interested in ethno-religious identity.  You can be Jewish or Catholic or Zoroastrian, but they're more interested in the nation of origin of your ancestors.  Russia is a legit answer, as is Poland.  (Germany used to be, before the war.  FWIW, many prots and cathosics got the same advice.  When I was young it wasn't uncommon to hear people say, "If they ask you about your ancestry, say English."  If you're a Jew in 1918, and one parent is from Russia and the other is from Germany, you say "Jewish" in conversation, "Russian" on official forms.  If you're a Catholic in 1918 and one parent is from Germany and the other is from Italy, you say Italian.  If both parents are from Germany, you say England.  As a result, probably German has become undercounted for some time.)

[jimrtex]

Milton Berle had a really good bit about this.  Any of you old enough to remember Uncle Miltie?  Before the Great War, they asked us what nationality we were, and we said German.  We're all German, they said.  Then, after the war started, we were suddenly Jewish.  But ma, aren't we German.  No, Milton, we're Jewish.  Anyone asks, we're not German, we're Jewish.  So, all of the sudden, we're not German any more, we're Jewish.  My grandparents suddenly aren't from Germany, they're from Jewelery.  (Ba da boom)  Or something like that.

Anyway, JimRTex is right.  Take a look at the long form:  they're not interested in ethno-religious identity.  You can be Jewish or Catholic or Zoroastrian, but they're more interested in the nation of origin of your ancestors.  Russia is a legit answer, as is Poland.  (Germany used to be, before the war.  FWIW, many prots and cathosics got the same advice.  When I was young it wasn't uncommon to hear people say, "If they ask you about your ancestry, say English."  If you're a Jew in 1918, and one parent is from Russia and the other is from Germany, you say "Jewish" in conversation, "Russian" on official forms.  If you're a Catholic in 1918 and one parent is from Germany and the other is from Italy, you say Italian.  If both parents are from Germany, you say England.  As a result, probably German has become undercounted for some time.)

Though 'Pennsylvania Dutch' and 'Chaldean' are valid ancestry responses, and Yiddish is a valid language.

American Community Survey and Puerto Rico Community Survey
2015 Code List (PDF)

Irish Scotch
Scotch Irish

Have separate codes.

Aggregated Codes (XLSX)

Flemish, Prussian, and Sicilian are not aggregated with Belgian, German, and Italian, though Walloon, Bavarian, and Neapolitan are.

48 of the individual states are aggregated with American. Hawaii and Texas are not.

[King of Kensington]

Take a look at the long form:  they're not interested in ethno-religious identity.  You can be Jewish or Catholic or Zoroastrian, but they're more interested in the nation of origin of your ancestors.  Russia is a legit answer, as is Poland.

True, though it gets tricky with border changes, ethnic groups and the like.

For example, those descended from Germans from Russia certainly write "German" in most cases, and that's likely the case of descendants of ethnic Germans from Romania or Hungary as well.  Those descended from ethnic Germans in the Sudetenland would likely write "Austrian" I suspect, but someone with Czech roots would write "Czech."

With Jews, I guess it could go either way.  Were John Kerry's paternal ancestors - German-speaking Jews from what is now Czechoslovakia - "Austrian" or "Czech"?  

Those with roots in Galicia (Austrian Poland) could be either Austrian or Polish.

Jews in the Kingdom of Hungary - even the least assimilated Jewish communities like those in Subcarpathian Ruthenia (which went from Hungary to Czechoslovakia to Ukraine) - did have a Hungarian identity to some degree - so I suspect those with roots outside today's Hungary would report Hungarian among their ancestries.  

Most Ashkenazis of Eastern European descent I know would likely say their ancestors came from Russia or Poland.  Few will specifically say Ukraine or Belarus and I think very few write "Ukrainian" on the census.  Poland of course became an independent country after WWI, and Congress Poland was somewhat independent of the Pale of Settlement in the Russian Empire, even though that became blurred over time.

[angus]

I had no idea there were so many choices. 

I always assumed that John Kerry's ancestors were probably from Ireland.  If they were from czechoslovakia, they could choose Bohemian, Moravian, Czech, Czechoslovakian, or Slovak, according to the long list jimrtex posted.  They might also pick Austrian or German.  If they did pick German, they have all these to choose from:  German, West German, East German, German from Russia, Pennsylvania German, Germanic, and French German. 

If you think that's impressive, look at all the choices under Hispanic.  (Why do they need separate listings for Gallego and Galician?!)

I always choose U.S. or American on those things, if given the option.  If not, I check "other" and write in "U.S.A."  None of my grandparents were born in the USA, but both my parents were, and I was, and I don't feel any connection to or affiliation with any of those other countries. 

[Brittain33]

I had no idea there were so many choices. 

I always assumed that John Kerry's ancestors were probably from Ireland. 

He got a lot of mileage in his political career in Massachusetts on that misperception.

Jews in Bohemia-Moravia mostly spoke German, not Czech, so I would imagine that unless the emigrated in 1938-1939 they identified as Austrian.

[King of Kensington]

And many Jews in Vienna came from or were descended from migrants from Bohemia and Moravia.

[jimrtex]

Take a look at the long form:  they're not interested in ethno-religious identity.  You can be Jewish or Catholic or Zoroastrian, but they're more interested in the nation of origin of your ancestors.  Russia is a legit answer, as is Poland.

True, though it gets tricky with border changes, ethnic groups and the like.

For example, those descended from Germans from Russia certainly write "German" in most cases, and that's likely the case of descendants of ethnic Germans from Romania or Hungary as well.  Those descended from ethnic Germans in the Sudetenland would likely write "Austrian" I suspect, but someone with Czech roots would write "Czech."

With Jews, I guess it could go either way.  Were John Kerry's paternal ancestors - German-speaking Jews from what is now Czechoslovakia - "Austrian" or "Czech"?  

Those with roots in Galicia (Austrian Poland) could be either Austrian or Polish.

Jews in the Kingdom of Hungary - even the least assimilated Jewish communities like those in Subcarpathian Ruthenia (which went from Hungary to Czechoslovakia to Ukraine) - did have a Hungarian identity to some degree - so I suspect those with roots outside today's Hungary would report Hungarian among their ancestries.  

Most Ashkenazis of Eastern European descent I know would likely say their ancestors came from Russia or Poland.  Few will specifically say Ukraine or Belarus and I think very few write "Ukrainian" on the census.  Poland of course became an independent country after WWI, and Congress Poland was somewhat independent of the Pale of Settlement in the Russian Empire, even though that became blurred over time.

The ancestry question was first asked in 1980.

When the place of birth and place of parent's birth was asked, it was asked by the enumerator. The Census would change policy from time to time. In one census, there were Poles (from Austria, Russian, and Germany), and the next Census there were no Poles, but a lot more Austrians, Russians, and Germans. My Alsatian ancestors became German on US Census forms after the Huns invaded in 1873.

I suspect that one reason for including the ancestry question was that more and more people were being reported as born in the USA with parents born in the USA.

In the Census test that I took, the racial question included sub-"racial" categories, so I could denote under "White" that I was also Alsatian, Swedish, etc. This might indicate that the Ancestry question may be on the way out.

The Census Bureau appears to be going toward the practice of asking the question as:

Is the person (check all that apply):

[ ] White
German [ ], English [ ]. other _____
[ ] Black
African American [ ], Haitian [ ], Nigerian [ ], other ______
[ ] Hispanic
Mexican [ ], Mexican American [ ], Salvadoran [ ], other ______
[ ] Asian
Chinese [ ], Korean [ ], Asian Indian [ ], other ______
[ ] AIAN
Print name of tribe
[ ] NHOPI
[ ] Native Hawaiian [ ], Guamanian [ ], Samoan [ ], other _____
[ ] MENA
[ ] Egyptian [ ], Algerian [ ], Yemeni [ ]
[ ] Other
Specify _____

For Spanish Speakers, even a fairly neutral classification of "category" was confusing.

[jimrtex]

I had no idea there were so many choices. 

I always assumed that John Kerry's ancestors were probably from Ireland. 

He got a lot of mileage in his political career in Massachusetts on that misperception.

Jews in Bohemia-Moravia mostly spoke German, not Czech, so I would imagine that unless the emigrated in 1938-1939 they identified as Austrian.

His maternal background was definitely Brahmin. It may have helped to be seen as Irish by the time he was running for office.

John Kerry's paternal grandparents converted to Catholicism in 1901 when living in Moedling, near Vienna. They were baptized at the same time that John Kerry's uncle was. They emigrated to the USA in 1905, living first in Chicago, and then somewhat ironically moving to Brookline. John Kerry's father was born in 1915, after they were clearly established in the US. He may not have known anything about the family background. The family was reasonably prosperous, and John Kerry's father was educated at Phillips Academy, Yale, and Harvard Law.

John Kerry's grandparents (according to Wikipedia) were born in Austria and and Hungary so the Moravian or Bohemian connection was more remote. John Kerry's grandmother's siblings were killed in concentration camps. John Kerry said he was unaware of this until 2003. It is conceivable that his grandmother's family may have considered her to be apostate, or that she may have cut links from them as she and her husband were forging a new identity in the US.

[King of Kensington]

Frederick Kerry's birthplace is in Moravia.

Moravian Jews remained more loyal to German, while the Czech language made more inroads among Bohemian Jews.

[King of Kensington]

In 1900, the US census made the following exceptions for country of birth:

"Write Ireland, England, Scotland or Wales rather than Great Britain.  Write Hungary or Bohemia rather than Austria for persons born in Hungary or Bohemia, respectively.  Write Finland rather than Russia for persons born in Finland."

"In case the person speaks Polish, as Poland is not now a country, inquire whether the birthplace was what is now known as German Poland or Austrian Poland or Russian Poland, and enter the answer accordingly as Poland (Ger.), Poland (Aust)., or Poland (Russ)."

"If the birthplace reported in Canada or Newfoundland, ask whether the person is of French or English descent.  Write Canada English or Canada French, according to the answer."

[angus]

For Spanish Speakers, even a fairly neutral classification of "category" was confusing.

Well it is confusing.  Not just for spanish-speakers either.  Note that MENA and Algerian are separate boxes.  I know it reads "check all that apply" but do you really need to have Egypt/Algeria separate from others of hamito-semitic stock?  

Hispanic is particularly confusing and should probably go away.  Two people born a mile apart, one in Verin, Spain and one in Chaves, Portugal, would not likely consider themselves of a different race.  One would identify as a Galician, the other as portuguese, ethnically, but if they move to the USA, they would be expected to both check White and the one from Verin also to check Hispanic then write in Galego.

Or, let's consider two people from the mountains eastern Peru, both of 100% Aymara stock.  Suppose one was raised wealthy parents with a Spanish surname and sent to catholic school and taught spanish by nuns and communicates always in spanish.  He eats paella, ceviche, and tapas, and drinks rioja.  The other is from a poor village and doesn't even hear a word of spanish until he's 15 years old.  He has an Aymara name and Aymara is his native language.  He eats cuy, potatoes, and corn, and he drinks chicha.  They both immigrate to the united states in their 20s and happen to live here when the 2010 census long form arrives in their mailboxes.  As immigrants, they don't want to break any rules so they're trying hard to fill the form out correctly.  After scratching their heads and googling AIAN, they finally figure out that this probably best describes them.  The wealthy one also checks Hispanic since he thinks in Spanish, whereas the the impoverished one only thinks in Aymara.  Yet, as much as the construct can be argued to exist, they are of the same race.

[King of Kensington]

In 1900, the US census made the following exceptions for country of birth:

"Write Ireland, England, Scotland or Wales rather than Great Britain.  Write Hungary or Bohemia rather than Austria for persons born in Hungary or Bohemia, respectively.  Write Finland rather than Russia for persons born in Finland."

"In case the person speaks Polish, as Poland is not now a country, inquire whether the birthplace was what is now known as German Poland or Austrian Poland or Russian Poland, and enter the answer accordingly as Poland (Ger.), Poland (Aust)., or Poland (Russ)."

"If the birthplace reported in Canada or Newfoundland, ask whether the person is of French or English descent.  Write Canada English or Canada French, according to the answer."

Which means Jews from Poland wouldn't get a Polish birthplace in 1900, since they didn't speak Polish.  The bulk would have been Yiddish speakers from "Russia" and "Austria."  Jews from Posen would have spoken German by then.

[jimrtex]

If you think that's impressive, look at all the choices under Hispanic.  (Why do they need separate listings for Gallego and Galician?!)

Gallego is Hispanic
Galician is not.

Galician is considered to be either a dialect of Portuguese, or a separate language. Brazilian and Purtuguese are not Hispanic.

[jimrtex]

Frederick Kerry's birthplace is in Moravia.

Moravian Jews remained more loyal to German, while the Czech language made more inroads among Bohemian Jews.

According to this article Kerry's Grandfather Left Judaism Behind in Europe, Fritz Kohn was born in Horni Benesov (now in the Czech Republic), but at the time Bennisch, Austria. It appears that Horni Benesov is in eastern Bohemia, but more importantly in Sudetanland. Given its German name, it appears to be a Germanic town, and with a Jewish population of about two dozen.

In any case, Fritz's father died when he was three, and his mother and her three children moved to Moedling, near Vienna where she had relatives. Fritz grew up in Austria, and served in the military. In 1896, a younger brother converted to Catholicism, and changed his surname to Kerry, in hopes of advancement in the military.

[angus]

If you think that's impressive, look at all the choices under Hispanic.  (Why do they need separate listings for Gallego and Galician?!)

Gallego is Hispanic
Galician is not.

Galician is considered to be either a dialect of Portuguese, or a separate language. Brazilian and Purtuguese are not Hispanic.

"Gallego is Hispanic.  Galician is not."  Not sure what you're getting at here.  Gallego is simply the Spanish word for what English people call Galician.  (Galego, with one L, is their own word for it.)  Thus, Gallego, Galego, and Galician are the same thing.  I'm aware that there's an argument over whether it is a dialect of Portuguese or its own language, but that's not the point.  Galicia is in Spain, is it not?  Do we exclude galicians, catalonians, valencians, and asturians because they're not castellano?  That's just as confusing. 

[King of Kensington]

As a result, probably German has become undercounted for some time.

I'm almost certain that English ancestry is far more undercounted than German ancestry. 

[angus]

As a result, probably German has become undercounted for some time.

I'm almost certain that English ancestry is far more undercounted than German ancestry. 

maybe.  There was a time when English names were shunned.  People named their babies Emily and George and such in profusion till about 1776, then it became very unfashionable, kinda like it became unfashionable to name babies Adolf in Germany starting in about 1945.  I knew about that, but I didn't know that they went so far as to disclaim English ancestry.  They may have, though.  Or, the anglo-American population may simply identify as USA or American.  I guess you could look at those claiming English ancestry before and after the American label was introduced.  It can't have been that long ago.  2000, maybe?

[King of Kensington]

In 1980, English ancestry was the largest group in the US at 50 million.  By 2000 it had dropped to 32 million I think.

Even with massive 19th century German immigration, English would have had a massive head start (and something like 60% of whites in 1790 were of English descent I believe). 

[King of Kensington]

This may help with the initial question I posed:

http://research.policyarchive.org/10031.pdf

[Mr. Morden]

In 1980, English ancestry was the largest group in the US at 50 million.  By 2000 it had dropped to 32 million I think.

Even with massive 19th century German immigration, English would have had a massive head start (and something like 60% of whites in 1790 were of English descent I believe). 

Has any genealogical statistician ever attempted to quantify the "right answer" on what %age of modern day Americans' ancestors from 400+ years ago lived in which country?  Self-reporting seems highly problematic, and as noted in the other thread, there's the problem of people having many different ethnicities at once, but only reporting the top one or two (which they'll often get "wrong").

[angus]

Even with massive 19th century German immigration, English would have had a massive head start (and something like 60% of whites in 1790 were of English descent I believe). 

They could still have been outdone by German, Italian, and Irish.  Consider this:  the US population in 1790 was 3929214.  That is less than one-fifth of the number of immigrants who entered the USA in the 1800s, and most of those were not from England.  That is also less than one-third of the number of immigrants in the US in the year 1900.  According to the census bureau, in the year 1900, the total number of foreign-born residents in the US was 10341276.  The number generally rises as you play it forward.  In the decade from 1991 to 2000, eleven million immigrants entered, the majority of whom were from Mexico.  As of 2014, the rankings, by country, for the number of foreign born are:

Mexico
China
India
Phillipines
Viet Nam

UK is not in the top five.  It is currently at 13th.  Also, between 1850 and 1930, about 5 million Germans migrated to the United States.  During that same period, about 3 million British and about 4.5 million Irish entered America.  About 2.4 million Italians entered the US during that period.

If one assumes, as you say, that 60% of whites were of UK origin, and subtracting 3/5 persons per 1 million negroes (or about 600 thousand) from the 3 million, then about 1.4 million were of UK origin in 1790.  1.4 million + 3 million is 4.4 million.  That's still less than the 4.5 million Irish and less than the five million who were German.  And we're not even counting the post-1900 immigration, largely from the Eastern Europe, Asia, and Latin America.

[King of Kensington]

There were 25 million white Americans in 1900 who were immigrants or had at least one immigrant parent (out of 67 million).  8 million were of German birth or parentage.  The Third generation from the 19th century immigration + Germans from Russia + descendants of colonial era Germans wouldn't have outnumbered the 8 million first and second generation immigrants from Germany.  I don't see how it could have been larger than the population of English ancestry at the time. 

It seems reasonable to estimate that half of white Americans at the time could trace some ancestry to the colonial period, and a majority of that group would have had at least some English ancestry.   Plus there was immigration from England and many Canadians of English descent as well that came in the 19th century.  There had to have been at least 20-25 million Americans with some English ancestry then. 

[King of Kensington]

Though maybe the discussion of this should return here?:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=172392.0