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.
Kentucky and Tennessee have the most British DNA out of any states. Infact the entire South has alot of Britsh. Judging by this map(which again is based on DNA) theres more British DNA in the South than there is western european DNA(which includes both Germany and France).
Look again at the map and compare Irish DNA with British DNA in the South and you'll see that theres almost twice as much British DNA than Irish DNA.
Ancestry is not about "what you want" to identify as. You are what you are.
And besides, I have already given you plenty of figures of the prevalency of English descent in previous censuses(espc in the South) and how it's now switched to "American" in the most recent censuses. But you come up with your own "explanations" to "dissprove" it.
I have given plenty of facts, sources, proof and now DNA proof.
Excerpts from your Genetic Census link.
1:
So to start, AncestryDNA estimated the genetic ethnicities of over 250,000 U.S. customers* as percentages in 26 regions across the world. These percentages show where a person’s ancestors may have lived hundreds to thousands of years ago. People of the United States, a nation settled by immigrants, often have a surprising diversity of ethnic backgrounds and collectively have ancestors who lived nearly all over the globe. - See more at: A Genetic Census of America
2: GREAT BRITAIN AND WESTERN EUROPE ETHNICITY
If you look at the maps for Great Britain and Europe West, you see that other ancestries are more widespread across the whole country. Leading up to the Boston Tea Party and the Declaration of Independence in 1776, large numbers of Europeans arrived in what is now the U.S., in some cases to escape religious persecution. While there were subsequently many waves of immigration, individuals primarily from Western Europe and Great Britain were our first Americans.
That we see British ancestry in many people of the U.S. may be evidence of the long history of individuals from Great Britain migrating to the United States, and far and wide across those states.
- See more at: A Genetic Census of America
Plus, the DNA scale they use for GB runs from a low of 0.075 to a high of 0.345.
You kind of do, if you goto Orlando you'll hear British accents everywhere. I was on a flight from Newark to Orlando and there were 50 people on the plane from Belfast.
Trust me America is a very popular destination from Ireland as a whole. Virgin Atlantic flies a 747 alongside Thomas Cook's A330 from Belfast each week in July and August and Belfast is a regional airport.
Anyway, I get what you are saying about the culture but I am talking about the climate and the landscape. I don't think that Australia has any location that has a similar climate or landscape to me.
America is ALOT closer and easier to get to, it's also got places that have climates more similar to ours.
I don't know I've never been to Australia, it's a hassle to get to so I can't really say what it's like. Also I feel like we share more foods with America, what Australian foods are available in Britain? Other things that we share commonalities are tv shows and music.
You must be the most obtuse person on this forum. Of course a lot of Brits go to Orlando. They go on holiday to Disney and the other parks. That is hugely different to the Brits who emigrate to Australia.
Australians eat pretty much the same things we do. Go to Woolworths (it is a supermarket) in Sydney and you won't see too much difference. As it is a huge country you get tremendous variations in climate. Last time I was in Sydney it rained almost every day. Just like Northern Ireland.
Like you say, you have never been there. But that doesn't seem to stop you having an opinion albeit uninformed. You would do well to listen and learn from those who have rather than being argumentative.
The most UK like place outside the UK itself? New England in the US and the eastern provinces of Canada. - the climate and landscape, the design of cities and buildings, character, age. Where is Australia most similar to? The western provinces of Canada and Pacific coast of the US.
But I don't see a direct equivalent for places like Darwin or Cairns, although change the heat and monsoon for cold and blizzards and I suspect the parallel is northern Canada.
What I was referring to in my earlier post is culture, the foundation, a nation's roots, not so much its look. The American colonies where by and large GB first colonies that where chartered many years ago, long before Australia was even discovered. I truly believe GB and the US really didn't particularly like each other at all just before WW1. Really, not too long ago. The US culture is different than Canada because of its relationship with GB. Canada was french, then conquered by GB. Before the American colonies rebelled Canada wanted nothing to do with the patriots and that included the French locals, not just British transplants. America was able to brake away, and brake away in other ways counter to English culture.
So, jump forward in time we all have many things in common but deep under the hood, because of the relationship we had with our early founders, we are very different in many ways.
Location: Northern Ireland and temporarily England
7,668 posts, read 5,267,317 times
Reputation: 1392
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaggy001
You must be the most obtuse person on this forum. Of course a lot of Brits go to Orlando. They go on holiday to Disney and the other parks. That is hugely different to the Brits who emigrate to Australia.
Australians eat pretty much the same things we do. Go to Woolworths (it is a supermarket) in Sydney and you won't see too much difference. As it is a huge country you get tremendous variations in climate. Last time I was in Sydney it rained almost every day. Just like Northern Ireland.
Like you say, you have never been there. But that doesn't seem to stop you having an opinion albeit uninformed. You would do well to listen and learn from those who have rather than being argumentative.
You called me Obtuse. I'm not going to bother replying.
1:
So to start, AncestryDNA estimated the genetic ethnicities of over 250,000 U.S. customers* as percentages in 26 regions across the world. These percentages show where a person’s ancestors may have lived hundreds to thousands of years ago. People of the United States, a nation settled by immigrants, often have a surprising diversity of ethnic backgrounds and collectively have ancestors who lived nearly all over the globe. - See more at: A Genetic Census of America
2: GREAT BRITAIN AND WESTERN EUROPE ETHNICITY
If you look at the maps for Great Britain and Europe West, you see that other ancestries are more widespread across the whole country. Leading up to the Boston Tea Party and the Declaration of Independence in 1776, large numbers of Europeans arrived in what is now the U.S., in some cases to escape religious persecution. While there were subsequently many waves of immigration, individuals primarily from Western Europe and Great Britain were our first Americans.
That we see British ancestry in many people of the U.S. may be evidence of the long history of individuals from Great Britain migrating to the United States, and far and wide across those states.
- See more at: A Genetic Census of America
Plus, the DNA scale they use for GB runs from a low of 0.075 to a high of 0.345.
Puh-leeze!
And DNA scale they use for western Europe is only around 0,2 in Wisconsin for example... Are you really this dense? Are 99,8% of Wisonsins population of non-Western European background? It must be, judging by the way you interpret the DNA study(which you're not doing correctly). I guess they are all African and Asian up there
What point are you even trying to make? Because I'm not sure anymore. That British/English descent is close to non existant in the US? Then you're wrong... Even the excerpts you quoted directly disproves you.
Last edited by blindstealer; 10-12-2015 at 10:22 AM..
Why would it? You're neither British nor a New Englander, you're a UKer.
more BS.
there are 4 distinct countries that make up the British Isles, England, Wales, Scotland and (Northern) Ireland , there is no such thing as a UKer.
And DNA scale they use for western Europe is only around 0,2 in Wisconsin for example... Are you really this dense? Are 99,8% of Wisonsins population of non-Western European background? It must be, judging by the way you interpret the DNA study(which you're not doing correctly). I guess they are all African and Asian up there
What point are you even trying to make? Because I'm not sure anymore. That British/English descent is close to non existant in the US? Then you're wrong... Even the excerpts you quoted directly disproves you.
The point is, that in the context used by Ancestry.com the tiny DNA scale tells you very little about a specific ancestry group of any cohort, English or otherwise.
I've never claimed that English descent is non-existent, or anywhere close to. I am countering your so far unsubstantiated claims that English representation in the US population at large is severely under counted.
The point is, that in the context used by Ancestry.com the tiny DNA scale tells you very little about a specific ancestry group of any cohort, English or otherwise.
I've never claimed that English descent is non-existent, or anywhere close to. I am countering your so far unsubstantiated claims that English representation in the US population at large is severely under counted.
I have given you plenty of substaniated claims, I have show various censuses, sources and studys. You just counter with what is basicly a "nuh huh" and make the point that none of it is valid
How about you starting proving your case? Because so far most of your arguments are just opinions with the odd wikipedia link thrown in Even your own links and claims don't dissprove any what I have said.
more BS.
there are 4 distinct countries that make up the British Isles, England, Wales, Scotland and (Northern) Ireland , there is no such thing as a UKer.
So, at one and the same time, you want to claim that N.I is part of the "British Isles" and that RoI is not?
The term "British Isles" is a geographic not a legal construct. Nor is the term "Great Britain" co-terminus with the term "British Isles" You can have it one way or the other, but not both ways.
Complete this sentence. The United Kingdom of Great Britain & N.I. is......
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.
