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

[King of Kensington]

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.  

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

True.  While my ancestry is mostly British, if pressed to call myself a hyphenated American, it would be as a Canadian-American since that is where my most recently immigrated ancestors came from.

[memphis]

With the exception of some very insular Pennsylvania Dutch types, they're not discrete groups. And they haven't been for so long that any attempt at making a distinction is meaningless. The contents of the pot have long since melted together.

[Green Line]

The English are so assimilated into America that I'm sure there are millions of people that have long ago stopped identifying themselves as English, but can trace their ancestry back there.  Now they just simply see themselves as American

[King of Kensington]

With the exception of some very insular Pennsylvania Dutch types, they're not discrete groups. And they haven't been for so long that any attempt at making a distinction is meaningless. The contents of the pot have long since melted together.

Of course, but that didn't stop 50 million (including 30%+ in virtually every Southern state) from declaring it in 1980. 

[jimrtex]

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.

[Mr. Morden]

With the exception of some very insular Pennsylvania Dutch types, they're not discrete groups. And they haven't been for so long that any attempt at making a distinction is meaningless. The contents of the pot have long since melted together.

Right.  But if I'm understanding the OP's point correctly, if you were to somehow research the family tree of every person living in the USA, and tracked who all of their ancestors were in the 17th or 18th century or so, would you find more people who have at least some ancestors from what is currently England or Germany?  If you were to quantify each person's heritage by what fraction of their DNA comes from people who in 1700 lived in England or what is now Germany, for which would you find the higher average fraction, England or Germany?

I guess the idea is that the answers to both questions would be England, but that many people are either unaware of their English ancestry because it's so distant, or for whatever reason identify with other parts of their ancestry, and thus wouldn't answer "English" on a census form about their ethnicity.

[morgieb]

It does surprise me given the nature of other English colonial countries and looking at American surnames. I guess it's because most people choose American or something else?

[politicus]

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.

This sounds a bit odd. Who did the remaining WASP men marry? If WASP women married immigrants in higher numbers than WASP men, this would leave a rump of males from the dominant WASP group with no partners.

[minionofmidas]

If you've got three or four or more ancestries, English is probably the first thing most people would not report. That's in addition to the "American" stuff.

Oh, and Jim? John Cabot was not an Englishman.... oh wait. I see what you did there (ie neither was Columbus a Spaniard.)

Not only had the earlier Censi asked questions about parents' birthplace as well as own birthplace, data was presented in background tables about "Americans of Foreign Stock" - ie native-born children of immigrants. It is this table that stopped working right when even the residents of clearly recognized "ethnic" urban enclaves were now often of Native Stock, and led to the advent of the Ancestry question.
It seems not much thought was given to the people of long-established American ancestry and their confusion whether their ancestry was actually English, or Scottish, or Irish Protestant, or Welsh, or German, or Dutch, or all these things mixed. And hence the "uh, I dunno... American?" replies.

[Benj]

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.

This sounds a bit odd. Who did the remaining WASP men marry? If WASP women married immigrants in higher numbers than WASP men, this would leave a rump of males from the dominant WASP group with no partners.

It definitely sounds like it's based on dubiously true stereotypes. Though not all the stereotypes are followed (i.e., while white woman-black man is a stereotype couple [mostly because it arouses racial resentment rather than because there's any truth, but it is a stereotype], Asian woman-white man is also much more of a stereotype than the converse).

I seriously doubt there's much difference in gender balance of couples. If anything, I'd expect it to go the other way. Immigrants are likely to be poorer than long-time residents. Especially in the past but also today, you're probably going to get more women able to "marry up" in wealth than men because men were/are expected to be breadwinners. There's also the "family scandal" angle--especially in the past, it would be far more scandalous for a local woman to bring home an immigrant boyfriend/husband than for a local man to bring home an immigrant girlfriend/wife. That kind of social pressure will also affect things.

[minionofmidas]

Asian woman, White man is more common than the other way round simply because a lot of these women are in America because of the marriage. Same with post early 50s German (and no doubt some other Western European) immigrants to the US - women brought home with them by soldiers.

[jimrtex]

If you've got three or four or more ancestries, English is probably the first thing most people would not report. That's in addition to the "American" stuff.

Oh, and Jim? John Cabot was not an Englishman.... oh wait. I see what you did there (ie neither was Columbus a Spaniard.)

Washington Irving and myth of belief in flat earth

[jimrtex]

Asian woman, White man is more common than the other way round simply because a lot of these women are in America because of the marriage. Same with post early 50s German (and no doubt some other Western European) immigrants to the US - women brought home with them by soldiers.

You are right.  Based on the 2010 Census, there are 177K Asian-White marriages vs 561K-177K White-Asian marriages.  There are about 450K more married Asian females than married Asian males.

There are 300K Black-White marriages vs. 122K White-Black marriages, with about 300K more married Black males than married Black females.

There are 929K Hispanic-White marriages v, 858K White-Hispanic marriages (treating Hispanic as a race, and using "White" to mean non-Hispanic White).

[Benj]

Asian woman, White man is more common than the other way round simply because a lot of these women are in America because of the marriage. Same with post early 50s German (and no doubt some other Western European) immigrants to the US - women brought home with them by soldiers.

To an extent, certainly. The number of Asians who came to the US from the '50s to the '70s is miniscule compared to those who came after the '70s immigration reforms, though, so you're really only talking about older couples (in their 50s or older). Who are definitely not the largest group of Asian-white interracial relationships these days.

[minionofmidas]

There are still lots of US soldiers in Korea, the Philippines etc. These marriages still occur and continue to warp the table (not to even get into "mailorder brides" and such). It's just that 'normal' interracial marriages are now also occurring in much greater numbers.

[Indy Texas]

Unless you or your parent is an immigrant from England (which is highly unusual these days), your most recent English antecedents probably came here during the 18th or 17th century. That's a lot of remove and most people probably aren't aware of that connection unless they're into genealogy.

And keep in mind that Germans immigrated to America from the 17th century up through the late 19th century. And the German empire was a lot bigger and covered more population than modern Germany does. A lot of the people whose ancestors spoke German but actually came from what was then Austria-Hungary may also identify as German.

And to the extent that WASPs didn't want to marry people of other ancestries, and the relative willingness of Continental Europeans in America to marry each other regardless of nationality, it's likely that the German ancestry got "spread around" more than English ancestry.

[Brittain33]

It's also because colonial English ancestry is less common than one would expect. After the initial settlement of New England, Virginia, etc. in the 1600s, the UK heavily discouraged emigration from England in the 1700s because the government preferred to keep the population at home. Most immigration then was Scots-Irish, German, or African-American.

[memphis]

There are still lots of US soldiers in Korea, the Philippines etc. These marriages still occur and continue to warp the table (not to even get into "mailorder brides" and such). It's just that 'normal' interracial marriages are now also occurring in much greater numbers.

Back in the 70s, my uncle was in the Navy in the Philippines and brought a bride home. He did very well for himself, until she left him
Here they are:

[Indy Texas]

Oh, and Jim? John Cabot was not an Englishman.... oh wait. I see what you did there (ie neither was Columbus a Spaniard.)

I had to Wiki this and it completely blew my mind. Though I knew Columbus wasn't from Spain.

Does anyone know why we insist on changing historical figures names that way? I mean, why is it so difficult to refer to Christopher Columbus as Christoforo Colombo? Why is Friedrich the Great (the German ruler) referred to as Frederick? It's very ethnocentric and misleading. I doubt textbooks in Mexico refer to the 43rd President of the United States as Jorge Caminador Arbusto.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Oh, and Jim? John Cabot was not an Englishman.... oh wait. I see what you did there (ie neither was Columbus a Spaniard.)

I had to Wiki this and it completely blew my mind. Though I knew Columbus wasn't from Spain.

Does anyone know why we insist on changing historical figures names that way? I mean, why is it so difficult to refer to Christopher Columbus as Christoforo Colombo? Why is Friedrich the Great (the German ruler) referred to as Frederick? It's very ethnocentric and misleading. I doubt textbooks in Mexico refer to the 43rd President of the United States as Jorge Caminador Arbusto.

Probably not, but I expect they call the European discover of the Americas by the name Cristóbal Colón just as the Spanish Wikipedia article names William the Conqueror as Guillermo el Conquistador.

Let's not forget that while we tend to think of personal names as semi-random groupings of sound, they once were all words of meaning, so it's no surprise that at one time people translated names just as they would any other word.  After all, whether translated as 진지한 or transliterated as 어니스트 I'd still be Ernest in Korea.

[Indy Texas]

Oh, and Jim? John Cabot was not an Englishman.... oh wait. I see what you did there (ie neither was Columbus a Spaniard.)

I had to Wiki this and it completely blew my mind. Though I knew Columbus wasn't from Spain.

Does anyone know why we insist on changing historical figures names that way? I mean, why is it so difficult to refer to Christopher Columbus as Christoforo Colombo? Why is Friedrich the Great (the German ruler) referred to as Frederick? It's very ethnocentric and misleading. I doubt textbooks in Mexico refer to the 43rd President of the United States as Jorge Caminador Arbusto.

Probably not, but I expect they call the European discover of the Americas by the name Cristóbal Colón just as the Spanish Wikipedia article names William the Conqueror as Guillermo el Conquistador.

Let's not forget that while we tend to think of personal names as semi-random groupings of sound, they once were all words of meaning, so it's no surprise that at one time people translated names just as they would any other word.  After all, whether translated as 진지한 or transliterated as 어니스트 I'd still be Ernest in Korea.

Yes, but while all names mean something, your name is that specific name. It's not just some word that refers to something like a chair or an apple. The fact that we insist on referring to the Chinese philosopher Kung Fu-Tzi as Confucius and to the Arab physician Ibn Rushd as Averroes just suggests we can't abide dealing with foreign-sounding names and have to call people things that are more "convenient" for us. 

If I went to another country and people referred to me by a name in their language that simply meant the same thing as my name, I'd be all...

[pbrower2a]

People are more likely to know about German ancestry than about English ancestry. It is far easier to identify with the most recent immigrants -- especially if those define your culture.

Until I took genealogy seriously and started examining records I thought that I was more German than anything else with much Irish ancestry. Many of the "Germans" are really Swiss, and the "Irish" are Scots-Irish. The English and Welsh parts are bigger than I thought -- a majority. Maternal grandparents that I thought were completely  German as were about half English.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Unless you or your parent is an immigrant from England (which is highly unusual these days), your most recent English antecedents probably came here during the 18th or 17th century. That's a lot of remove and most people probably aren't aware of that connection unless they're into genealogy.

Actually there was a fair amount of emigration from Britain to the U.S.A. in the 19th century; often of skilled workers.

[Indy Texas]

Unless you or your parent is an immigrant from England (which is highly unusual these days), your most recent English antecedents probably came here during the 18th or 17th century. That's a lot of remove and most people probably aren't aware of that connection unless they're into genealogy.

Actually there was a fair amount of emigration from Britain to the U.S.A. in the 19th century; often of skilled workers.

Does that include Ireland as a part of Britain during that time period? I don't see what motivation a skilled worker in 19th century Britain would have for emigrating. It's not as if there was a shortage of opportunity there.