Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
At first I guessed it was a regional dialect you sport to add "r" in some words. We, here in New England, freely remove and introduce "r" at will. LOL
Well, you people around the Boston area do. The rest of us pronounce R.
Just got an email from my sister who says she is reading a book called DNA USA by Brian Sykes who wrote the Seven Daughters of Eve.
She says, " Anyway, it was amazing that all the New Englanders were really all European, but the other white folks all had traces of African or Asian (probably from Native American roots) And a lot of African Americans had a lot of European and some also had the Asian/Indian markers too."
"He also showed his own chart and it's interesting that even though he is British, he has a trace of African in him, which he says isn't all that unusual for English folks because when the Romans invaded Britain they had Africans along with them. He was actually surprised by how pure the New Englanders turned out to be, but concluded that when these Europeans mixed with Indians, the children must have been raised as Indians, instead of living with the European colonists."
So it does seem that most whites in the USA are mutts except for the New Englanders. (I'm a mutt though because I am recent English immigrant on one side and who knows *what* is in that. I have no way to find out.)
I would guess that initial indicators suggest mostly European origins for "white" New Englanders because New England saw many waves of European immigrants beyond the initial colony settlers. Many of these newer immigrants from the British Isles, Italy, and Eastern Europe tended to maintain more insulated communities based on language groups. From my own experience, though, growing up in Boston and living most of my life in Maine, there is more admixture than meets the eye because of the melding with Native American communities that had freely mixed with African-Americans during the years of miscegenation laws.
I would guess that initial indicators suggest mostly European origins for "white" New Englanders because New England saw many waves of European immigrants beyond the initial colony settlers. Many of these newer immigrants from the British Isles, Italy, and Eastern Europe tended to maintain more insulated communities based on language groups. From my own experience, though, growing up in Boston and living most of my life in Maine, there is more admixture than meets the eye because of the melding with Native American communities that had freely mixed with African-Americans during the years of miscegenation laws.
The early settlers would have been the true British (is that the equivalent of European?) That book I mentioned a few posts back about USA DNA says that those purely European=British New Englanders, descended from the colonial settlers, do not usually have native American blood. He thinks that if they married a native American, they went to live with the Native Americans and were not considered white.
That's his theory anyway. I would have thought that especially in far northern NE, intermarriage between whites and Native Americans would have been more common. It was pretty rugged up there and there were still tribes even after they had been mostly eliminated more to the southern areas. This is going to require some reading on my part, it's interesting. Good reading for the (*%$#@@!! blizzard today and tomorrow.
In Massachusetts many towns were established as separate communities for Native Americans converted to Christianity. There were also anti -miscegenation laws up until 1843. But through the years there had been a substantial number of African-American intermarriage with Native Americans in response to the decimation that the tribal population suffered from war and disease since colonialism. Later generations of some of these mixed individuals were more assimilated into the general Massachusetts population.
The industrial revolution saw many Canadians and northern New Englanders of French-Canadian descent come south for work in the textile, furniture and shoe mills. Even though many of these remained isolated as French-speaking communities for some time, eventually there was the predictable assimilation into the general White population. The early 20th century ushered in waves of many immigrants to northern New England, including Eastern ?European Jews, Italians, Irish, Lebanese, Russian, and other Mediterrean peoples.
That's why I think as more gene phenotype data is collected there will be seen more of an admixture in New England as evidenced in other parts of America.
White Americans of Southern background are probably more "British" than a lot of people in Britain, let alone Australia. The coastal/lowland areas were predominantly settled by English indentured servants and the highland/"Mid-South" areas were settle by Ulster Scots (or Scots-Irish in American vernacular). Most settlement ended in the 18th Century and the region (because of its poverty and slave/sharecropper based economy) missed the great waves of 19th and early 20th Century European immigration. Of course there are some other groups who settled there and Southern Louisiana doesn't follow the same pattern. As a whole though, the region had a pretty limited and then static European settlement pattern.
During a trip to Britain in the late 80s I remember remarking to my parents how many of the people I saw look very familiar to me (my family is of Southern background). I remarked to them after the trip that you could dress them in American brand clothes/fashion and drop them down in any Southern town and no one would know the difference until they opened their mouths.
In Australia a good majority of people (well around 60% is my own guess) are 100% English, Scottish, Irish or a mix of the three. That's probably the most common situation, although mixes with other groups such as Italians are certainly pretty common.
But when look at demographic statistics, and the ancestries of say celebrities, it seems the majority of Americans have at least 4-5, often 6-7+ European ethnic groups in their ancestries. Of course in 1900 neither Germany or Italy existed as independent nations, but their ancestors came from those regions.
Do you think this gives Americans a more continental European look than say Australians? A lot of Australians basically look just like the British because they are. Not all are even tanned. I think that's why I personally notice that Americans often have a certain physical look that is different from a lot of white Australians.
How rare is it to have 'pure' or predominant British ancestry? I assume that's confined mostly to certain regions, like New England and say Utah? If your last name is say Smith, I suppose it's pretty likely you're not even 50% English?
For the most part yes we are mutts...my father's side is 100% Irish, but my mom's side is a Scandinavian and German orgy. It is a mix of German, Norwegian, Danish, and possibly some Swedish in there.
As for the British purity with a British last name, I guess it is unlikely in most cases to be 50% or more British ancestry.
Here in Georgia there was also a significant German contribution to the mix. Most branches of my family have been in Georgia for generations, and 23AndMe has me at about 35% British (some of which is Scots) and Irish.
First you have to define terms. Some just say 'British' as in someone from the British isles. In that case I've very overwhelmingly of that origion. But some refer to the British as those who live in England, especially the western side where the Anglo saxon invaders and then later the Danes settled, pushing the former settlers west. If you tell someone from Cornwall they are English, they will correct you. The overall term Britan covers a variety of people.
But if you get specific, you have the Irish, Scots Irish, Scots, Cornish, Welch, and so on.
I have a reliable tree back to great great grand parents. There is one English line of anglo-danish origion. There are several full Scots. My great grandmother was born there. The name origion is scandanivian. One back there's lots of ulster scots. I'd rather say I'm predominantly of Scots/Ulser scots/English origion with apparently multiple scandinavian beginnins. Still haven't done the dna, which will be interesting, but Dad's family is solidly southren and mom's solidly midwest/Iowa.
It was interesting that once a guy from Scotland told me I could go there and everybody would think I was local. Apparently there is a lot of it in me. Maybe where the stubborn streak which runs through both families comes from. :-)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
