Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 07-08-2020, 09:00 AM
 
Location: California
29 posts, read 26,739 times
Reputation: 32

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by geriatricfairy View Post
This is an utterly stupid way of putting it. They do not report the most "exotic" ancestry, they usually report the most prevalent or recent.

Much English and wider British ancestry, where it exists in the US, is old. Britain ceased being the primary sender of immigrants in the very early 1800s (like, the 1810s), and since then, the country has been swamped by multiple waves of immigration. To most Americans, British ancestry isn't very meaningful, and it isn't even apparent physically, often; many of the 45 million African Americans, for example, have British ancestry.



Total immigration from Britain to America from 1820-2018: 5,550,955.

Also, the majority of Canadians that went to the Midwest or West were of British stock. The Canadians that came to New England were French descendants.

The gap between British and German immigration numbers is exaggerated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by geriatricfairy View Post
For others, they have a list of ancestries that are far more prevalent and/or recent;
German, Italian, Jewish, Irish, French, Polish, Czech, Slovak/Slovene, Greek, Scandinavian, Hungarian, Macedonian, Dutch, Romani, Russian, Native, any number of Latino or Hispanic ethnicities, such as Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Guatemalan, Salvadoran, etc, all of which are countries of massive ethno-racial mixes themselves (Puerto Rican also being subsumed under the American identity) - so the US isn't lily-white British, and less so than Australia, New Zealand, and even Canada are.

French, Dutch, Czech, Greek? You thought immigrants from those countries were more prevalent and recent? Really?

Number of immigrants of each ethnic group from 1820-2018:

French: 973,114
Dutch: 437,577
Greek: 774,060
Czech: 206,379 (I'm sure most people of at least partial Czech descent put down German.)

I can't be bothered to go through them all, these are the ones that matter:

German: 7,339,709
Irish: 4,809,151
Italian: 5,494,782

More British immigrants than either Italian or Irish, who would have thought that? If we add the Canadians of British stock to the overall British number, there really is nothing between British and German immigration.

 
Old 07-29-2020, 12:32 AM
 
87 posts, read 49,183 times
Reputation: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMoore36 View Post


Total immigration from Britain to America from 1820-2018: 5,550,955.

Also, the majority of Canadians that went to the Midwest or West were of British stock. The Canadians that came to New England were French descendants.
Uh, this doesn't disprove the point. The number of total British immigrants and expatriates to the US throughout history doesn't dispute the fact Britain stopped being the primary sender of immigrants to the US very early, in the early to mid 1800s.

Canadians that came to the US don't really make a dent. There are nearly 60 million Hispanic and Latino Americans of all sorts of mixed Spanish, Native, and other European descent...

Quote:
French, Dutch, Czech, Greek? You thought immigrants from those countries were more prevalent and recent? Really?

Number of immigrants of each ethnic group from 1820-2018:

French: 973,114
Dutch: 437,577
Greek: 774,060
Czech: 206,379 (I'm sure most people of at least partial Czech descent put down German.)

I can't be bothered to go through them all, these are the ones that matter:

German: 7,339,709
Irish: 4,809,151
Italian: 5,494,782

More British immigrants than either Italian or Irish, who would have thought that? If we add the Canadians of British stock to the overall British number, there really is nothing between British and German immigration.
What is it with British people attempting to claim some ethnic ownership of not just American culture, but Americans themselves? It's very bizarre.

German, Irish, and Italian were more plentiful in recent times, and German and Irish Americans do outstrip the number of Americans with British ancestry...

The un-sourced data you left:
"French: 973,114
Dutch: 437,577
Greek: 774,060
Czech: 206,379 (I'm sure most people of at least partial Czech descent put down German.)"

is utterly wrong. There are 10 million Americans of French descent, 4 million Americans of Dutch descent, 3 million Americans of Greek descent, and 1.5 million Americans of Czech descent.

"German: 7,339,709
Irish: 4,809,151
Italian: 5,494,782"

Question, what kind of numbers are these? There are 46 million German Americans, 40 million Irish Americans, and nearly 20 million Italian Americans.

And what do Canadian's of British stock have to do with it? They're a different people. There hasn't been more British immigration to the US than other nations have offered, the British ethnic stock of the US, were it exists, is relatively old, and most of it dates from colonial times to only about the 1830s at latest. Britain stopped being a top sending country of immigrants to the US by the 1810s, much, much earlier than for the commonwealth countries of Canada and Australia.

Most African Americans also have British blood...

Last edited by olgabolga; 07-29-2020 at 12:41 AM..
 
Old 07-29-2020, 08:29 AM
 
Location: Gatineau, Québec
26,758 posts, read 37,644,012 times
Reputation: 11527
Quote:
Originally Posted by olgabolga View Post
Uh, this doesn't disprove the point. The number of total British immigrants and expatriates to the US throughout history doesn't dispute the fact Britain stopped being the primary sender of immigrants to the US very early, in the early to mid 1800s.

Canadians that came to the US don't really make a dent. There are nearly 60 million Hispanic and Latino Americans of all sorts of mixed Spanish, Native, and other European descent...



What is it with British people attempting to claim some ethnic ownership of not just American culture, but Americans themselves? It's very bizarre.

German, Irish, and Italian were more plentiful in recent times, and German and Irish Americans do outstrip the number of Americans with British ancestry...

The un-sourced data you left:
"French: 973,114
Dutch: 437,577
Greek: 774,060
Czech: 206,379 (I'm sure most people of at least partial Czech descent put down German.)"

is utterly wrong. There are 10 million Americans of French descent, 4 million Americans of Dutch descent, 3 million Americans of Greek descent, and 1.5 million Americans of Czech descent.
The vast majority of "French" origin Americans are actually people who originally settled in Canada and lived there for 150-300 years before moving on or being forcibly moved to the U.S.

My guess is that this applies to perhaps 75-85% of the people who check off French ancestry on the U.S. census.

There are about as many descendants of France's colonies in what is today Canada that are now living in the U.S., as there are in Canada itself.
 
Old 07-29-2020, 06:44 PM
 
Location: Brisbane
5,021 posts, read 7,426,595 times
Reputation: 4476
History plays its part, the the UK was by far the worlds most powerful navy by the time Australia was settled, but was not so dominate during american colonization, there was never any kind of settlement or claims made on the Australian mainland by Spain, Portugal or the Dutch etc partly because this, of course there was no war of independence against the British in Australia either.

France apparently did show keen interest in taking the British settlements that existed in Australia by force while under Napoleons rule, we could easily have had something like Quebec in Australia. Napoleons decision to invade Russia and the subsequent routing of his army is sometimes credited as the reason why any potential french rule in Australia came to nothing.

Last edited by danielsa1775; 07-29-2020 at 06:55 PM..
 
Old 07-29-2020, 08:05 PM
 
Location: Brisbane
5,021 posts, read 7,426,595 times
Reputation: 4476
Of course the USA was also a well established country with a large industrial base by 1850 when various events in Germany France and Poland etc occurred leading to a mass migration to the USA. At that time Australia as a country did not exist, it was a largely unexplored by Europeans, and had a total about 400,000 Europeans who were mostly ex British/Irish soldiers or convicts, living in or around modern Sydney or Hobart.

There is no doubt that the USA was way more desirable destination for immigrants in the 1850's than Australia.
 
Old 07-29-2020, 08:40 PM
 
12,003 posts, read 11,799,181 times
Reputation: 22680
Maybe I am an outlier, but while my ancestry is primarily English, I am also Scots-Irish, Irish, Huguenot French, German, Welsh, and Channel Islander (Jersey).

All my known ancestors were here well before 1790 = the NC Scots-Irish were the latecomers; the English and Channel Islanders the early birds: 1648 or so. French in 1700, on the heavily laden Mary and Ann, bound for Manakintown in Virginia (two branches, one in each paternal grandparent). Germans in colonial PA.

Many of my central Kentucky friends whose families settled here in pioneer days could report similar ancestry.

Not all of us have ancestors who came through Ellis Island.
 
Old 07-29-2020, 10:21 PM
 
Location: Oakville, Ontario, Canada
120 posts, read 69,463 times
Reputation: 203
More British people migrated to the US after US independence than to Canada, Australia, NZ and South Africa combined. Just because more Germans went to the US doesn't discount the fact that as a number way more British went there than British going to Australia, etc. British ancestry is also seriously undercounted, as Americans tend to identify with the more exotic ancestry or the part of their family that most recently immigrated. This isn't even mentioning the people in the colonies who were overwhelmingly British and bred like rabbits, spreading across the continent.

Ask yourself if a Black American who is 17% British (About which they are on average) is going to identify as English or Scottish on the US census. That doesn't mean that they still aren't of British ancestry.

Hence British last names like say Williams or Taylor being the most common and unremarkable last names in America.
 
Old 07-30-2020, 12:32 AM
 
1,764 posts, read 1,006,709 times
Reputation: 1941
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowhound View Post
More British people migrated to the US after US independence than to Canada, Australia, NZ and South Africa combined. Just because more Germans went to the US doesn't discount the fact that as a number way more British went there than British going to Australia, etc. British ancestry is also seriously undercounted, as Americans tend to identify with the more exotic ancestry or the part of their family that most recently immigrated. This isn't even mentioning the people in the colonies who were overwhelmingly British and bred like rabbits, spreading across the continent.

Ask yourself if a Black American who is 17% British (About which they are on average) is going to identify as English or Scottish on the US census. That doesn't mean that they still aren't of British ancestry.

Hence British last names like say Williams or Taylor being the most common and unremarkable last names in America.
That is true that the typical Black American has some British ancestry, plus many Indigenous people in the USA as well too.
 
Old 07-30-2020, 02:29 AM
 
302 posts, read 126,220 times
Reputation: 627
Quote:
Originally Posted by olgabolga View Post
Uh, this doesn't disprove the point. The number of total British immigrants and expatriates to the US throughout history doesn't dispute the fact Britain stopped being the primary sender of immigrants to the US very early, in the early to mid 1800s.

Canadians that came to the US don't really make a dent. There are nearly 60 million Hispanic and Latino Americans of all sorts of mixed Spanish, Native, and other European descent...
Actually, Canadians have been in the top ten countries of birth every census between 1800 and 2000. There is no other country that has been a top ten country every decade, including Germany.

Quote:
Originally Posted by olgabolga View Post

German, Irish, and Italian were more plentiful in recent times, and German and Irish Americans do outstrip the number of Americans with British ancestry...
According to the most recent census that is true, but no demographer believes it. It is universally agreed that the census greatly undercounts the number of Americans with British ancestry for reasons that have been outlined by other posters on this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by olgabolga View Post

The un-sourced data you left:
"French: 973,114
Dutch: 437,577
Greek: 774,060
Czech: 206,379 (I'm sure most people of at least partial Czech descent put down German.)"

is utterly wrong. There are 10 million Americans of French descent, 4 million Americans of Dutch descent, 3 million Americans of Greek descent, and 1.5 million Americans of Czech descent.

"German: 7,339,709
Irish: 4,809,151
Italian: 5,494,782"

Question, what kind of numbers are these? There are 46 million German Americans, 40 million Irish Americans, and nearly 20 million Italian Americans.
These are the total number of immigrants from various European countries since 1820. You'll note that the UK is second only to Germany. If you add the total number of immigrants / colonial settlers before 1820 and the UK will come out with the highest number.

50 million people (almost 25% of the total population) claimed English ancestry (so not even including Scottish or Welsh) in the 1980 census. Even then it was undoubtedly an undercount.
 
Old 07-30-2020, 05:45 AM
 
Location: SE UK
14,808 posts, read 11,874,969 times
Reputation: 9781
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielsa1775 View Post
History plays its part, the the UK was by far the worlds most powerful navy by the time Australia was settled, but was not so dominate during american colonization, there was never any kind of settlement or claims made on the Australian mainland by Spain, Portugal or the Dutch etc partly because this, of course there was no war of independence against the British in Australia either.

France apparently did show keen interest in taking the British settlements that existed in Australia by force while under Napoleons rule, we could easily have had something like Quebec in Australia. Napoleons decision to invade Russia and the subsequent routing of his army is sometimes credited as the reason why any potential french rule in Australia came to nothing.
I don't think Napoleon had the ability to take the British settlements in Australia, his navy was literally obliterated at Trafalgar which basically ended any ambitions he may have had overseas (including invasion of the UK).
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top