PDA

View Full Version : R1b of European-Americans



Tomenable
11-07-2015, 10:43 PM
I wonder which R1b is more common among European-Americans, P312 or U106 ???

Do we have any clues concerning this? And what about European-Canadians ???

MitchellSince1893
11-07-2015, 11:03 PM
I wonder which R1b is more common among European-Americans, P312 or U106 ???

Do we have any clues concerning this? And what about European-Canadians ???

P312 by far.

In the American Centric FTDNA R1b project there are:

-U106: 897 confirmed SNPs
P312: 266
P312>DF27: 427
P312>L21: 1290
p312>U152: 369

72% P312
28% U106

Krefter
11-07-2015, 11:21 PM
P312 by far.

In the American Centric R1b project there are:

-U106: 897 confirmed SNPs
P312: 266
P312>DF27: 427
P312>L21: 1290
p312>U152: 369

72% P312
28% U106

British/Irish is biggest ethnic contributor in America. That's why there's more L21 than U106.

MitchellSince1893
11-07-2015, 11:28 PM
British/Irish is biggest ethnic contributor in America. That's why there's more L21 than U106.

Also the Italian U152 and Spanish DF27 immigrants contribute the P312 advantage over U106.

gruder
11-07-2015, 11:47 PM
I'm a U106 in America :)

kinman
11-08-2015, 01:41 AM
I would agree with those percentages,

I'm a somewhat typical U.S.-Canadian (thus West European) "mutt" with many early colonial lines. So far I know that 15 of my lines are P312 and 5 lines are U106 (75% vs. 25%). Of the P312, I have six U152, five L21, two DF27, and two uncertain. However, of the six U152, three (50%) are French Canadian, so my Quebec ancestry pushed my U152 a bit past my L21.
Compared to my R1b ancestors, my Haplogroup I ancestors take second place ( mostly I-M253 / DF29 ). R1a is in third place.

-----------Ken

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


P312 by far.

In the American Centric R1b project there are:

-U106: 897 confirmed SNPs
P312: 266
P312>DF27: 427
P312>L21: 1290
p312>U152: 369

72% P312
28% U106

Dubhthach
11-08-2015, 10:33 AM
British/Irish is biggest ethnic contributor in America. That's why there's more L21 than U106.

2 of the 3 biggest contubitors, the third is german. If I recall census data German-American as an identifier is larger than both British/English-American and Irish-American.

Dubhthach
11-08-2015, 10:35 AM
Also the Italian U152 and Spanish DF27 immigrants contribute the P312 advantage over U106.

We even have Hispanic L21 contributing, in the DF41 project we have members from Puerto Rico and others who are Mexican-American who have ancestry back to Northern Spain ;)

Gray Fox
11-08-2015, 10:41 AM
2 of the 3 biggest contubitors, the third is german. If I recall census data German-American as an identifier is larger than both British/English-American and Irish-American.

Only because the British population is so much older that subsequent generations have lost touch with their ancestral lands and refer to themselves as American. American ethnicity is highly correlated with British ancestry, specifically Scots Irish, English, Welsh immigrants who settled during Colonial times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_ethnicity

Dubhthach
11-08-2015, 10:48 AM
Only because the British population is so much older that subsequent generations have lost touch with their ancestral lands and refer to themselves as American. American ethnicity is highly correlated with British ancestry, specifically Scots Irish, English, Welsh immigrants who settled during Colonial times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_ethnicity

Oh sure well plain old "American" usually tops the pile at census time, but applying British to "Scots Irish" doesn't seem right in context that it's anarchonistic to Act of Union of 1801 (eg. most of heavy migration was before Ireland became part of United Kingdom in 1801)

Gray Fox
11-08-2015, 10:52 AM
Oh sure well plain old "American" usually tops the pile at census time, but applying British to "Scots Irish" doesn't seem right in context that it's anarchonistic to Act of Union of 1801 (eg. most of heavy migration was before Ireland became part of United Kingdom in 1801)

No, I am referring to the collective group of ethnicities (Heavily Scots-Irish, English, Welsh) which referred to themselves as American during Colonial times. Not the standard, catch-all for American these days. These Colonial descendants, myself included, refer to themselves as Americans in that sense.

rms2
11-08-2015, 12:46 PM
No, I am referring to the collective group of ethnicities (Heavily Scots-Irish, English, Welsh) which referred to themselves as American during Colonial times. Not the standard, catch-all for American these days. These Colonial descendants, myself included, refer to themselves as Americans in that sense.

Right, and a whole lot of them really have no clue where their ancestors came from. Of course, many of them couldn't care less.

Gray Fox
11-08-2015, 12:56 PM
Right, and a whole lot of them really have no clue where their ancestors came from. Of course, many of them couldn't care less.

Yes.. Unfortunately there's a sort of willful ignorance towards such matters. Assimilation at the cost of individuality.

rms2
11-08-2015, 01:07 PM
Unfortunately my dad is in that "couldn't care less" category. He doesn't mind listening while I tell him what I have found, and he gave up samples for an FTDNA 12-marker STR test, the Geno 2.0 test and Family Finder, but if it were left up to him, we'd never know anything beyond we're a bunch of white people.

I was talking about genealogy once long ago when my father asked, "Why do you care about all those old dead people?"

Gray Fox
11-08-2015, 01:25 PM
Unfortunately my dad is in that "couldn't care less" category. He doesn't mind listening while I tell him what I have found, and he gave up samples for an FTDNA 12-marker STR test, the Geno 2.0 test and Family Finder, but if it were left up to him, we'd never know anything beyond we're a bunch of white people.

I was talking about genealogy once long ago when my father asked, "Why do you care about all those old dead people?"

Because I am them.. I've said that numerous times to people who have said the same to me. I feel it is almost a civic duty to keep record and more importantly, memory, of the people I descend from. Rolled eyes and looks of bewilderment are the calling card of the uninformed.. Be it willful or of true ignorance.

rms2
11-08-2015, 01:31 PM
Well, my dad is a really bright guy (aviation electronics engineer); genealogy just doesn't float his boat. I don't completely understand it, but it probably goes back to the fact that he was raised in an orphanage after his father died during the Great Depression. His mother couldn't keep the kids, and apparently none of the numerous relatives stepped up. I'd say that last part is the root of it.

alan
11-08-2015, 03:09 PM
Well, my dad is a really bright guy (aviation electronics engineer); genealogy just doesn't float his boat. I don't completely understand it, but it probably goes back to the fact that he was raised in an orphanage after his father died during the Great Depression. His mother couldn't keep the kids, and apparently none of the numerous relatives stepped up. I'd say that last part is the root of it.

Ouch - that last bit must really hurt.

ADW_1981
11-08-2015, 03:27 PM
I'm a U106 in America :)

If you got tested with 23andMe...and you're using their nomenclature in your profile, you are actually U106-....

ADW_1981
11-08-2015, 03:29 PM
2 of the 3 biggest contubitors, the third is german. If I recall census data German-American as an identifier is larger than both British/English-American and Irish-American.

That's because a large number of Americans from the "Thirteen Colonies" identify as American. However, if you go back these are all British-Irish for the most part, not German. If they didn't identify as "American", then the number for British specifically, would be much higher.

razyn
11-08-2015, 03:40 PM
That's because a large number of Americans from the "Thirteen Colonies" identify as American. However, if you go back these are all British-Irish for the most part, not German.

That's grossly overstated, and not very well informed. The colonial Germans, Dutch, Swedes, Finns, Huguenots and several others that have colonial societies of one sort or another would beg to differ.

ADW_1981
11-09-2015, 12:57 AM
That's grossly overstated, and not very well informed. The colonial Germans, Dutch, Swedes, Finns, Huguenots and several others that have colonial societies of one sort or another would beg to differ.

You don't think the bulk are? I work a good deal out of the southern states. Didn't suggest everyone was, but the majority are. The surnames would suggest it.

rms2
11-09-2015, 04:58 PM
Ouch - that last bit must really hurt.

I should correct that. According to my dad, my grandfather on his deathbed made my grandmother promise not to split the kids up. Relatives offered to take the children, but no one would take all of them together, and they did not offer to help support my grandmother if she kept the kids.

Rather than break her promise to my grandfather, my grandmother surrendered her children to an orphanage, which, according to my dad, was a dog-eat-dog sort of environment in which the big kids mercilessly bullied the little kids, and there were all sorts of harsh rules and draconian punishments.

Tomenable
11-10-2015, 08:36 PM
When it comes to self-reported ancestry in the USA:

In 1980 (the 1st census with ancestry question) more people reported English than German - a graph showing Euro ancestries with ~10 million or more declarations (ACS = American Community Survey - AFAIK, actual census data has not yet been published for 2010 census):

In 2000 census the number of people who didn't report ancestry at all was 53,673,566 (I couldn't find such data for 2010 census):

http://s14.postimg.org/lu7evx03l/Ancestries_1980_to_2010.png

Detailed numbers (note that in each census millions of people reported more than just one ancestry, due to which the total number of ancestry declarations was always higher than the number of people who reported their ancestry; also for example while the number of German ancestry declarations was always within the range of 43-58 million, the number of people who reported "German Alone" was +/- 17 million, and the number of people who reported German as "First Ancestry" was +/- 30 million, while the remaining ones reported it as "Second Ancestry" or as one of "Multiple" ancestries, depending on census and how reports containing more than two ancestries were counted in a particular census*):



People declaring ancestry:
1980 (census)
1990 (census)
2000 (census)
2010 (ACSurvey)


German =
49,224,146

57,947,374

42,839,711

47,901,779



Irish =
40,165,702

38,735,539

30,524,799

34,669,616



English =
49,598,035

32,651,788

24,509,692

25,926,451



American =
13,298,761

12,395,999

20,188,305

19,975,875



Italian =
12,183,692

14,664,550

15,635,567

17,235,941



Polish =

9,366,106
8,228,037

8,977,173

9,569,207



French =
13,672,246

12,488,062

10,167,636

10,849,466



People with no ancestry =
23,182,019

23,921,371

53,673,566





*Here is what they write on www.census.gov website about people who declare more than 2 ancestries:

"(...) The ancestry question was added to the census form in 1980, so the earliest information available from this question is from 1980. Currently [since when exactly, though?], when someone reports more than two groups for their ancestry in the American Community Survey, only the first two ancestries are tabulated. Some people identify their ancestry as American. This could be because their ancestors have been in United States for so long or they have such mixed backgrounds that they do not identify with any particular group. (...) There are many reasons people may report their ancestors as American, and the growth in this response has been substantial. (...)"

Tomenable
11-10-2015, 09:48 PM
Immigration from all of Europe amounted to 32,468,776 people in period 1820-1940 (on average 270,500 per year) and 3,941,676 more in period 1941-1996. But contrary to what many people imagine, most of the increase of European-derived populations in the USA was still due to natural growth of the "old stock" population, rather than due to immigration. Immigration from Germany was 6,021,951 in period 1820-1940, and 1,083,350 more in period 1941-1996, but not all of those people were ethnic Germans, many belonged to ethnic minorities (for example a lot of Poles and Jews came from Germany, especially before 1918, when there was no independent Poland and eastern provinces of the German Empire were inhabited by Poles). On the other hand, ethnic Germans were also among immigrants from other countries (such as the multi-ethnic Austrian Empire, in which ethnic Germans were the minority of population, but a very sizeable minority):

See the immigration figures here: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0201398.html

Michael R. Haines calculated, how much of population growth in the USA in each decade (between each two decennial censuses) was due to immigration, and how much due to natural growth. His data shows that between 1790 and 1970 there was no decade in which immigration accounted for more than 1/3 of the total population growth.* And RNIs (rates of natural increase - live births over deaths) were constistently very high in the USA throughout that period. Average RNI for entire period 1790 - 1980 was 17.05 per 1000 people per year - so the population was increasing by over 1,7% each year due to natural growth alone.

*The first decade in U.S. history, in which immigration accounted for more than 1/3 (40%) of pop. growth, was 1970-1980.

I calculated, that had there been no immigration from Europe and Africa at all between years 1790 and 1980, the population of the USA would have most likely still increased to 78,456,469 White Americans in 1980 (up from 3,172,444 in 1790) and the population of Black Americans would have still increased to 18,725,548 in 1980 (up from 757,181 in 1790) - assuming that Black natural growth rate was the same as White rate (which was probably the case during most of that period, in slavery times Black rate was probably even smaller, while it surpassed White rate only in the 2nd half of the 20th century - when European-American fertility rates declined).

My calculation (for White and Black Americans combined): http://s2.postimg.org/q2udff2q1/USA_Pop_Growth.png

http://s2.postimg.org/q2udff2q1/USA_Pop_Growth.png

While in reality (= with immigration from Europe taking place), in 1980 the population of the USA was less than 181 million Non-Hispanic White Americans and slightly over 26 million Black Americans (so further immigration gradually taking place between 1790 and 1980 apparently accounted for additional +/- 102 million Non-Hispanic European-Americans as of 1980, and just over 7 million additional Black Americans).

BTW - do Spanish-Americans from Europe also count as "Hispanic", or are they counted as Non-Hispanic?

Data for 1980 population structure (total population was 226,545,805 - including Native Americans):

http://www.censusscope.org/us/chart_race.html

http://www.prb.org/Source/54.3AmerRacialEthnicMinor.pdf?q=543-minorities

The additional 7 million African-Americans in 1980 compared to my calculation of how numerous they would have been had there been no immigration from Africa after 1790 (i.e. my calulation - 19 million; real number of Afro-Americans in 1980 - 26 million) probably account for descendants of Africans who came to the USA after 1790 (additional slaves imported between 1790 and 1860, as well as immigration of free Africans in the 20th century; possibly some minor influx in the 19th century) - or to higher than national average natural growth rates.

====================

Figures from Michael R. Haines:

The highest share of immigrants among the total population growth before WW2 was in the decade 1850-1860, when new immigrants accounted for almost 1/3 of the total increase during that decade, while natural growth accounted for 2/3:

http://www.nber.org/papers/h0056

http://www.nber.org/papers/h0056.pdf

http://s14.postimg.org/75db485r5/RNI_USA.png

Using RNIs for each decade given above by Haines, and applying them to the 1790 "old stock" European-Americans, gives:

http://www.metamorphosisalpha.com/ias/population.php

1790 - 3,172,444
1800 - 4,120,417
1810 - 5,370,457
1820 - 6,854,544
1830 - 8,941,018
1840 - 11,297,613
1850 - 14,165,554
1860 - 17,327,074
1870 - 20,637,967
1880 - 24,547,716
1890 - 28,682,886
1900 - 32,566,719
1910 - 36,994,705
1920 - 41,455,652
1930 - 46,855,645
1940 - 50,345,679
1950 - 56,774,529
1960 - 66,110,204
1970 - 73,541,777
1980 - 78,456,469

But when it comes to German-Americans - there was already a sizeable number of ethnic Germans in the USA in year 1790.

I've found two different estimates of 1790 ethnic composition of American population:

I. First estimate is from:

"A Century of Population Growth: From the 1st Census of the U.S. to the 12th 1790-1900", published in 1909:

Black African - 19,27%

Whites - 80,73% - including:

English & Welsh - 66,31%
Scottish - 5,64%
Irish - 1,57%
============
British-Irish total - 73,52%
============
German - 4,47%
Dutch - 2,01%
French - 0,45%
all other whites - 0,29%

Almost identical data in: S. P. Orth, "Our Foreigners: A Chronicle of Americans in the Making".

II. Second estimate is from:

"United States Ethnic Groups in 1790: Given Names as Suggestions of Ethnic Identity", published in 1989:

Black African - 19,0%

Whites - 81,00% - including:

English - 48,00%
Welsh - 3,50%
Scottish & Scotch-Irish - 12,80%
Irish - 4,70%
============
British-Irish total - 69,00%
============
German - 7,20%
Dutch - 2,50%
French - 1,70%
Jewish - 0,25%
Swedish - 0,20%
other whites - 0,15%

Anyway, British-Irish is by far the most numerous ancestry in the USA, even if many of them identify as "German-Americans".

I've heard for example, that Brad Pitt is only 1/512 German, but his answer to ancestry question in the census was "German".

At least this is what one of comments in Talk page of the Wikipedia article about German-Americans claims:


How is the English American number so low, when literally all of the German American examples (Actors, entertainers etc) on this page also have either English, Scottish, Irish, or Welsh ancestry? Sometimes multiple British ancestries? That right there alone should make me people question the legitimacy of the number.

======================

This is a known issue that results because the numbers are self-identifications. And German is usually more recent and more distinctive than UK ancestry.

======================

But see thats what I don't get. Usualy the people who claim the German ancestry have some miniscule ancestry of it making it even less "distinct" than the British isles ancestries (although genetically Germans aren't that different from the British) German-Americans largely blended in and assimilated with the Anglo-American WASP population pretty easily which resulted in a lot of them having their German ancestry diluted by British Americans. Take Brad Pitt for example, he's one of the Americans who claims German ancestry but a look at his family tree reveals that he's about 1/512 German the rest of his ancestors being British isles descended (English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh). This happened to a large portion of Americans. Logically the numbers should be as high, but I guess thats the problem with self identification, people decide what they want to identify with regardless of what they are.

======================

Actually there's no way to tell just how much German Brad Pitt is. You're forgetting that most German immigrants changed their surnames. So just because one of Brad Pitt's ancestors may have an Anglo surname doesn't make that ancestor not a German themselves.

I've been surprised, when I found out, that Brad Pitt identifies as German - before that I was almost convinced, that he is Italian: :biggrin1:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aXIFFaWNjM

I guess people identify with whatever portion(s) of their ancestry they want, usually what they find as the most "attractive" part(s).

Tomenable
11-10-2015, 10:40 PM
P312 by far.

In the American Centric FTDNA R1b project there are:

-U106: 897 confirmed SNPs
P312: 266
P312>DF27: 427
P312>L21: 1290
p312>U152: 369

72% P312
28% U106

Thanks for this data!

This is what I suspected as well (see my posts above - British-Irish is in reality the largest portion of Euro-American ancestry).

BTW - I have found only one "professional" study on American Y-DNA - this 2005 study by M. Hammer:

https://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/HammerFSIinpress.pdf

And a 2006 study by M. Hammer and Alan J. Redd, which uses exactly the same sample from 2005:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/211979.pdf

It has a total sample of 2517 male Americans, including 927 of European descent.

There are also 651 African-Americans, 479 Hispanic-Americans, 398 Native-Americans and 62 Asian-Americans.

When it comes to European-Americans (EA) their sample of 927 contains:

Vermont - 199
South Dakota - 182
Ohio - 99
Virginia - 97
North Carolina - 87
Connecticut - 85
Phoenix, Arizona - 56
Mesa, Arizona - 43
New York City - 42
Florida - 37

And here are their (EA) haplogroups of Y-DNA according to this study:

R1b1a2 (R-M269) - 58.3% [judging from that FTDNA data, we can break this down into ~42% P312 and ~16% U106, I guess]
I1 (I-P30) - 11.7%
R1a1 (R-M17) - 7.2%
I (I-P19*) - 4.9%
E1b1b (E-M78) - 2.9%
I2 (I-P37.2) - 2.7%
G2a (G-P15) - 3.6%
G - (G-M201*) - 0.2%
E-P1 (E-P1) - 0.9%
E1b1b1 (E-M35*) - 0.8%
E (E-SRY4064*) - 0.2%
E3 (E-P2*) - 0.1%
J2 (J-M172*) - 1,6%
J (J-12f2) - 1,0%
J2e (J-M12) - 0,8%
R1b1 (R-P25) - 0,6%
R1* (R-M173*) - 0,1%
Q (Q-P36) - 0,6%
Q (Q-M3) - 0,1%
K-M70 (K-M70) - 0,5%
O3 (O-M122*) - 0,3%
O (O-P31*) - 0,1%
O (O-MSY2b) - 0,1%
N (N-P43) - 0,1%
N (N-Tat) - 0,1%
L (L-M20) - 0,1%
P (P-M207*) - 0,1%
A (A-M13) - 0,1%
B (B-M152) - 0,1%
C (C-P39) - 0,1%

Unfortunately, there is no info on subclades - which would be useful especially for R1b1a2.

I also do not think that this sample of 972 European-Americans is representative in terms of European ethnic groups (ancestries). Proportions of people declaring various European ancestries in this sample are probably different than among all European-Americans. That's because people for this sample were collected only from 10 places (U.S. states and cities) listed above, which are not representative of the whole of the USA. Especially that samples from some places are disproportionately large (for example as many as 199 people from Vermont in a sample of 972 - or 20,5% of entire sample - when Vermont has 626,500 inhabitants - or just 0,2% = 1/500 of entire population of the USA).

There is no info whether those 972 EA people were asked about their ancestries, and what were their answers.

====================

I have also found this website:

https://www.usystrdatabase.org/

https://www.usystrdatabase.org//pdf/DatabaseDescriptiveStatistics.pdf

Lirio100
11-10-2015, 11:22 PM
I have a rather mixed family tree but sometimes the identity is chosen because of what branch one grows up near. The German Lutherans "won" in my childhood simply because that's the family group that was closest!

Krefter
11-10-2015, 11:25 PM
@Tomenable,

I agree British+Irish is certainly the biggest regional ancestry in White Americans. Although Irish was one of the major immigrant groups in the 1800s so shouldn't count. I still think colonial British is the biggest or one of the biggest types of ancestry. You made a good point saying colonial British became American and so future generations would only remember the ethnicity of the immigrant.

The vast majority of White Americans have surnames that are in the English language, but some immigrants did Englishisfy their surnames. Most immigrants settled in the MidWest and East Coast. Very few immigrants came to the south. I've seen 23andme results for White southerners and all had results that looked 100% British/Irish or with a little bit of other European.

Tomenable
11-10-2015, 11:35 PM
@Krefter,

Irish immigration, even though a bit less numerous than German, was definitely the most impressive one in per-capita terms. See the first link in my post #24 - from 1820 to 1940 as many as 4,580,557 people came from tiny Ireland (and 200,334 more in 1941-1996). According to the census of 1900, out of the total of 76.2 million pop. of the USA, 1.6 million were Irish-born, another 5 million were born to Irish-born parents (2nd generation Irish immigrants) - the sum already being 6.6 million - and there were also 3rd and 4th generation Irish immigrants, but no figures are given on them. Plus, already in 1790 an estimated 50,000 up to 150,000 Irish lived in the USA (1,57% up to 4,7% of the total White pop.).

No surprise, that today there are several times more Irish-American people, than Irish-Irish people... :biggrin1:

=====================

As for ancestry reports in 1980:

Irish ancestry in 1980 was reported by 40,165,702 people but of them only 10,337,353 reported Irish alone, while 29,828,349 reported Irish in combination with some other ancestry or ancestries.

In 1980 English ancestry was reported by as many as 49,598,035 Americans, of whom 23,748,772 reported English alone, while 25,849,263 reported it in combination with other ancestry or ancestries.

German alone accounted for 17,943,485 in 1980, while 31,280,661 people reported two or more ancestries, with German among them.

Scottish in 1980 was reported by 10,048,816 but only 1,172,904 of them reported Scottish alone, others reported two or more ancestries.

=================

The total number of people who reported ancestry in 1980 census was 203,363,786 (out of the total population of 226,545,805) - of whom 13,298,761 reported "American ancestry", 1,762,587 were counted as "Other responses - indicating religious groups or unclassifiable responses" (people who answered "Jewish" were also counted as "religious response" - for some reason according to U.S. Census Bureau, Jewish is only a religious group and nothing more - not an ethnic group, for example), 118,564,678 reported one, single ancestry and 69,737,760 reported multiple, two or more, ancestries. And 23,182,019 people failed to report even a single ancestry (they just left that question blank).

miiser
11-11-2015, 12:08 AM
Tomenable has a made very nice summary.

Another factor to consider. Around the time of the World Wars, quite a few Americans of German ancestry stopped reporting themselves as German, for obvious reasons. According to documentary research, my grandfather has quite a lot of German ancestry. But he harbored a strong dislike of Germans and refused to acknowledge any German ancestry in his past. A large number of people with German ancestry stopped self identifying as German and consciously rejected their German heritage.

Side commentary: I think the "Brad Pitt phenomenon" is a recent effect. People, especially celebrities, want to be something unique and different. In a modern culture where English or Mexican is the norm, German makes you special.

Also, people who are English or Irish might consider themselves as "null ancestry" in a sense. It's like if you ask a kid what kind of bread they want. If they want white bread, they might say "normal bread". They only consider non-white bread to be a special kind of bread. White bread is just bread. Similarly, English isn't considered an ethnicity or ancestry or culture. English is the non ethnicity non culture default. The same sort of mindset leads many people to say that their own language or dialect has no accent. It is only the other people who have accents. So the majority, who have British ancestry, consider themselves as nothing at all, whereas the non British are the exception who warrant a special identification.

Also, I think there is a note worthy effect in which minority cultures have much less effect on the identity of future generations than the majority culture. The majority culture becomes the dominant culture, even if it is only a slight majority. The early colonies had a mix of Dutch, English, French, German, etc. But the English won the early battles, and English became the dominant language. After this, the minority cultures mostly were absorbed into, and culturally conformed to, the majority culture. For the most part, the minority cultures did not have a large effect on later generations, except for some scattered place names. Even though the early colonies were fairly mixed, after a few generations a person whose ancestry included English, Dutch, French, German, and Native American would probably just consider themselves American, and if asked about their ancestry would probably just say English.

Krefter
11-11-2015, 12:38 AM
British was the main type of ancestry in American colonies. Tomenable posted identified ancestry for the first US census and almost 70% identified as English or Welsh and less than 5% for anyother European ethnicity. They were British colonies that conquered some Dutch colonies and had a some people settle in from other countries, but for most part it was British, like Australia is.

miiser
11-11-2015, 12:42 AM
British was the main type of ancestry in American colonies. Tomenable posted identified ancestry for the first US census and almost 70% identified as English or Welsh and less than 5% for anyother European ethnicity. They were British colonies that conquered some Dutch colonies and had a some people settle in from other countries, but for most part it was British, like Australia is.

I agree that British makes up the largest fraction of the colonies. The purpose of my comment was not to argue that the colonies were not majority British, but just to point out some other factors that may cause the ethnicity of record to not be a perfectly accurate representation.

Keep in mind that by the time of the first US census in 1790, the colonies had already been populated for well over a hundred years. Plenty of time for someone to forget that their great grandfather was Dutch.

Also, the 1790 census did not include any formal ethnicity or origin record. The 1790 table that Tomenable shared was based on apparent ethnic associations of given names. Unless a family made a conscious effort to retain their former heritage, the given names will likely reflect the dominant culture into which the children are born, not the origin of their grandparents. An American in New York in 1790 with a Dutch grandparent will probably not name their children Aries and Riet. And even if a child is given an "ethnic" name by their parents, they will likely, for practical reasons, chose a more English sounding nickname which may likely end up being the name recorded on the census.

Nowadays, there is a much stronger consciousness and emphasis on retaining one's native culture after settling in a new place. But this was not so in the past, except in the case of religious communities that were closed off from outside influence. Most early American settlers didn't care about preserving their native culture.

Lirio100
11-11-2015, 02:56 PM
Re the world wars--my paternal grandmother's family was German, she spoke German as a child but as she entered school she told me the children were told that they were Americans now, and they would speak English now. She and her older siblings, however, were in school when WWI broke out and I suspect there was another reason. My dad knew a few phrases, and I was taught a child's prayer but the family deliberately suppressed the language. Some of my other great grandparents left Europe and chose not to remember--I had a hard time finding one great grandfather's birthplace because he told everyone the wrong town.

British ancestry did tend to overwhelm in colonial America, but it also depends on geographical areas; places with high settlement numbers do still show it. My home state of Michigan had a good number of Cornish miners in the UP and that is still apparent. Too, after several generations and as many nationalities it's just easier to "pick" one!

can't_lurk_no_mo'
11-11-2015, 03:26 PM
Due to Hispanic immigration, I believe R1b-DF27, a subclade or P312, will drastically increase among the R1b population in the USA. This increase will be rapid and will continue over the next century or so. Of course, many other haplogroups will be affected due to this immigration but that's how R1b will be.

Webb
11-12-2015, 03:06 PM
In the last two census, I reported American. I am roughly 2/3 British and 1/3 German. So I am not going to report English ancestry and forget about my German ancestry or the opposite. Plus, I have three grandparents who's ancestry go back to colonial times. I would think that after being here for almost 300 years by the time I am close to death, I am American, first and foremost. My ancestors, for whatever reason, chose to turn their backs on their former countries and start over here.

AnnieD
11-13-2015, 06:38 AM
@Tomenable,
The vast majority of White Americans have surnames that are in the English language, but some immigrants did Englishisfy their surnames.
As a partially Colonial American with "English" no. 1 population match at latest, greatest PuntDNAL K11 calculator, "Englishify" gave me quite a hoot. ;) I have at least one "Englishified" ancestor, and sadly, I could tell you his British coat-of-arms for a long time until I finally discovered his true migration trail from continental Europe.

R.Rocca
11-13-2015, 12:36 PM
In the last two census, I reported American. I am roughly 2/3 British and 1/3 German. So I am not going to report English ancestry and forget about my German ancestry or the opposite. Plus, I have three grandparents who's ancestry go back to colonial times. I would think that after being here for almost 300 years by the time I am close to death, I am American, first and foremost. My ancestors, for whatever reason, chose to turn their backs on their former countries and start over here.

I wasn't even aware that there was such a break down on the census outside of "white"???

Tomenable
11-13-2015, 01:20 PM
As a partially Colonial American with "English" no. 1 population match at latest, greatest PuntDNAL K11 calculator, "Englishify" gave me quite a hoot. ;) I have at least one "Englishified" ancestor, and sadly, I could tell you his British coat-of-arms for a long time until I finally discovered his true migration trail from continental Europe.

I guess a migration from continental Europe to Britain, then - several generations later - from Britain to the USA?

For some reason many Americans have this strange idea, that European peoples remained "pure", until getting to America, the unique, unprecedented melting pot. Nothing farther from the truth, Europe has also always been a melting pot on it's own. I guess it is a way to simplify things for them, because they already have ancestors from so many European ethnic groups and countries. And if they started to research, from which countries had originated people in each of those countries, many generations ago. That would be really just too much to encompass.

Webb
11-13-2015, 02:19 PM
I wasn't even aware that there was such a break down on the census outside of "white"???

There is an area that you select your ancestral background. I will post the color coded map of the 2000 census results and try to locate the 2010. In my opinion, filling out the census, fully, every ten years is just as important as voting.

6625

Lirio100
11-13-2015, 02:53 PM
As a partially Colonial American with "English" no. 1 population match at latest, greatest PuntDNAL K11 calculator, "Englishify" gave me quite a hoot. ;) I have at least one "Englishified" ancestor, and sadly, I could tell you his British coat-of-arms for a long time until I finally discovered his true migration trail from continental Europe.

My 2x great grandfather came here with his brother from Sweden--it is extremely fortunate for our family tree that we know about this event. The story goes that he and his brother (Jonas and Johan) got tired of being mistaken for each other my 2x great grandfather changed the name entirely! Jonas Tjernlund became Jonas Chandler!

Tomenable
11-13-2015, 03:13 PM
Webb, is there a similar map for 1980 census ???


I am roughly 2/3 British and 1/3 German. So I am not going to report English ancestry and forget about my German ancestry or the opposite.

You can always reported two ancestries, or can't you ??? ;)

Some people report even more than two, but the Census Bureau counts only 1st and 2nd responses for statistical purposes.

I think that only in 1980 census they counted all responses.

Webb
11-13-2015, 03:26 PM
Webb, is there a similar map for 1980 census ???



You can always reported two ancestries, or can't you ??? ;)

Some people report even more than two, but the Census Bureau counts only 1st and 2nd responses for statistical purposes.

I think that only in 1980 census they counted all responses.

In the 2010 survey you could only choose one. I am not sure about the 2000 census survey. I can only find a map of 2000. Apparently the map I saw previously of 2010 was not issued using 2010 census data. I also can't find a map of 1980 or 1990. I would like to find all four and compare the changes of reporting. According to wiki, German ancestry is the largest percentage for 2000 and 2010, which I think was posted earlier a few pages ago.

Tomenable
11-13-2015, 03:38 PM
Ancestry data from 2010 census has not yet been officially published, AFAIK. What circulates in the net as 2010 ancestry figures, is American Community Survey from 2010 - they asked a representative sample of Americans about their ancestry, but this is not true census data.

Data from 2010 is extrapolated - they asked just a sample of Americans, and based on that they estimated ancestries for entire population.

From 2000 there is actual census data, but almost 54 million Americans did not report any ancestry in that census (not even "American"):

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5795-R1b-of-European-Americans&p=119852&viewfull=1#post119852

In 1980 English ancestry was declared by 49,598,035 Americans and German by 49,224,146 - but "English Alone" (without any other ancestries) was reported by 23,748,772 while "German Alone" was reported by 17,943,485 (Irish total - 40,165,702 including 10,337,353 "Irish Alone"):

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5795-R1b-of-European-Americans&p=119876&viewfull=1#post119876

For some reason, from 1980 to 1990 the number of people claiming English ancestry declined sharply, and further declined by 2000.

In 1980 there were 3 European ancestries with over 40 million declarations, in 1990 and 2000 only German surpassed 40 million.

Any ideas why declaring English ancestry became so much less popular after 1980 ???

Maybe as someone has already suggested in this thread, English is now considered a "non-ancestry" in the USA.

Tomenable
11-13-2015, 04:31 PM
What I also find strange about U.S. ancestry question, is that there are supposedly 6 - 7 million Jewish-Americans in the USA, and 62% of them think that "being Jewish is more about ancestry than religion", with another 23% thinking that it is equally the matter of ancestry and religion (SOURCE (http://www.pewforum.org/2013/10/01/jewish-american-beliefs-attitudes-culture-survey/)), yet you cannot find "Jewish ancestry" in the census (some people did answer "Jewish" but they are counted by the Census Bureau as "Other responses indicating religious group or unclassifiable responses", rather than among ancestries). I think that a lot of Jewish-Americans answer "Russian" or "American", or don't answer at all. Wiki claims, that also 5% or 1/20 of Polish-Americans are Jewish. And some percent of German-Americans are also Jewish (wiki claims, that 1% - but I guess it doesn't include irreligious people of Jewish origin). "One Nation Under God: Religion in Contemporary American Society", page 120, is given by Wiki as source for those figures.

I'm not one of these who easily believe in "conspiracy theories". :)

But if 85% of U.S. Jews think that being Jewish is about ancestry, then why is there no Jewish ancestry in the census? We all know from studies on genetic ancestry, that Jews have a genetic distinctiveness. They are not "random converts to Judaism from all over", but an ethnic group.

Webb
11-13-2015, 04:56 PM
Ancestry data from 2010 census has not yet been officially published, AFAIK. What circulates in the net as 2010 ancestry figures, is American Community Survey from 2010 - they asked a representative sample of Americans about their ancestry, but this is not true census data.

Data from 2010 is extrapolated - they asked just a sample of Americans, and based on that they estimated ancestries for entire population.

From 2000 there is actual census data, but almost 54 million Americans did not report any ancestry in that census (not even "American"):

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5795-R1b-of-European-Americans&p=119852&viewfull=1#post119852

In 1980 English ancestry was declared by 49,598,035 Americans and German by 49,224,146 - but "English Alone" (without any other ancestries) was reported by 23,748,772 while "German Alone" was reported by 17,943,485 (Irish total - 40,165,702 including 10,337,353 "Irish Alone"):

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5795-R1b-of-European-Americans&p=119876&viewfull=1#post119876

For some reason, from 1980 to 1990 the number of people claiming English ancestry declined sharply, and further declined by 2000.

In 1980 there were 3 European ancestries with over 40 million declarations, in 1990 and 2000 only German surpassed 40 million.

Any ideas why declaring English ancestry became so much less popular after 1980 ???

Maybe as someone has already suggested in this thread, English is now considered a "non-ancestry" in the USA.

The only thing I can think of is that because of the fact we were a former colony of England, maybe it isn't a popular choice. The English were the bad guys for two wars fought in the United States. Could it be a stigma of identifying with the bad guys? However, we are now close allies with England, so this could counter my other opinion. Americans are funny though, as we root for the underdog and are a bit defiant against authority, so it is hard to say. I know my British ancestry is mixed as far as Welsh, Scottish, Cornish, and English, so it would be difficult to choose the best fit.

AJL
11-13-2015, 05:22 PM
I find the assumptions in 19th-century censuses very interesting. They still seemed to have a "one-drop rule" that extended to all ethnicities other than English. So I have an ancestor who was one-quarter German and (nearly) 3/4 English, who is "German."

It starts to get even "mussier" when you have someone from two different non-English ethnicities, like Irish and German, or French and Dutch. There's no sensible reason to put one over the other, of course, but people seem to have usually gone with the father's ethnicity in these cases, or with the ethnicity of the person who happened to be talking to the census taker.

The earliest and largest waves of European Canadians were French, English, Scots, Irish, and Americans. I would expect P312 to predominate. If I look at my (fairly typical) Anglo-Canadian mother's and aunt's matches in RF, L21 is the single most common terminal SNP.

MacUalraig
11-13-2015, 05:37 PM
The only thing I can think of is that because of the fact we were a former colony of England, maybe it isn't a popular choice. The English were the bad guys for two wars fought in the United States. Could it be a stigma of identifying with the bad guys? However, we are now close allies with England, so this could counter my other opinion. Americans are funny though, as we root for the underdog and are a bit defiant against authority, so it is hard to say. I know my British ancestry is mixed as far as Welsh, Scottish, Cornish, and English, so it would be difficult to choose the best fit.

I think in general people love having ancestry who were 'oppressed', popular choices are Jewish, Hugeonot and Irish. This view isn't limited to Americans.

Reith
11-13-2015, 06:07 PM
British/Irish is biggest ethnic contributor in America. That's why there's more L21 than U106.
The German American ethnic group (German: Deutschamerikaner) comprises Americans who have full or partial German heritage. It is the largest ethnic group comprising about 50 million people,[1] making them the largest self-reported ancestry group in the United States, ahead of Irish Americans, African Americans, English Americans, Mexican Americans and Italian Americans.[6][7][8][9][10][11] They comprise about 1⁄3 of the German diaspora in the world.[12][13][14]

rms2
11-13-2015, 07:21 PM
I know when I was a kid everyone, including me, wanted to have some kind of exotic ancestry, and by that I mean anything other than British or Irish - not because being British or Irish was a bad thing, but because those seemed like default American: plain vanilla, everybody-and-his-brother-are-British-or-Irish-or-some-combination-of-the-two, in other words.

Táltos
11-13-2015, 07:55 PM
I guess a migration from continental Europe to Britain, then - several generations later - from Britain to the USA?

For some reason many Americans have this strange idea, that European peoples remained "pure", until getting to America, the unique, unprecedented melting pot. Nothing farther from the truth, Europe has also always been a melting pot on it's own. I guess it is a way to simplify things for them, because they already have ancestors from so many European ethnic groups and countries. And if they started to research, from which countries had originated people in each of those countries, many generations ago. That would be really just too much to encompass.
Maybe because a whole generation of us was brought up on catchy Schoolhouse Rock songs on Sat.morning TV? :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZQl6XBo64M

You are right. Europe is a melting pot. Never did I realize how complex my ancestry was until I became serious about researching it.

AJL
11-13-2015, 09:44 PM
I think in general people love having ancestry who were 'oppressed', popular choices are Jewish, Hugeonot and Irish. This view isn't limited to Americans.

In fact, even though all three of those feature prominently in my ancestry, and all those groups were oppressed, the irony is that members of any other group of my ancestors you focus on were oppressed in some way, and the same is probably true of everyone here.

Some of my English ancestors for example are in Poor Law books, or received excessively harsh penalties for relatively minor offences of poaching or theft. Others were discriminated against because they were Catholic or Methodist.

My Scots ancestors were displaced from farming in their ancestral homes in the Highlands and forced into squalid parts of Glasgow.

My German ancestors had to flee because of religious wars and repeated French invasions, going first to England and Ireland, then the US. Some of my colonial American ancestors were evicted from Connecticut for religious reasons. Others in New Jersey were persecuted for siding with the British in 1776.

Do enough research on your ancestors, you'll find some way a large number of them were oppressed.

miiser
11-13-2015, 10:14 PM
The only thing I can think of is that because of the fact we were a former colony of England, maybe it isn't a popular choice. The English were the bad guys for two wars fought in the United States. Could it be a stigma of identifying with the bad guys? However, we are now close allies with England, so this could counter my other opinion. Americans are funny though, as we root for the underdog and are a bit defiant against authority, so it is hard to say. I know my British ancestry is mixed as far as Welsh, Scottish, Cornish, and English, so it would be difficult to choose the best fit.

In my experience, most Americans don't have a very global perspective, and don't have the sort of negativity toward England that one might encounter in Ireland, India, South Africa, etc. History taught in US school tends to focus on US History and the major wars. I haven't observed much, if any, bitterness over the war for independence from England. After all, this was a situation of mostly formerly English people rebelling against English people. It wasn't a situation of English people lording over some other pre-existing people. (Ignoring Native Americans for the purpose of this discussion.) I think this phenomenon of declining English identity relates more to the perception of English as a non-ancestry, and the fact that most people nowadays want to be unique rather than conform, so they will often choose the more unusual option when given the choice of identity.

Tomenable
11-13-2015, 10:15 PM
Krefter is right. In Germany, L21 is only 2% of all Y-DNA and 5% of all R1b (according to N. Myres 2010).

Among European-Americans, L21 is up to 23% of all Y-DNA and 40% of all R1b (M. Hammer 2005 & FTDNA).

In Germany the most common branch of R1b is U106 (about half of all R1b in Germany), followed by U152.

rms2
11-14-2015, 01:52 PM
. . . I think this phenomenon of declining English identity relates more to the perception of English as a non-ancestry, and the fact that most people nowadays want to be unique rather than conform, so they will often choose the more unusual option when given the choice of identity.

I think that's it in a nutshell. English ancestry, or British Isles and/or Irish ancestry in general, is considered the default American ancestry.

I was a little kid when the rock-n-roll "British Invasion" took place. My impression during that time was that one of the things that facilitated the success of those bands (aside from the catchy music) was that, to us, they weren't foreigners. That may sound strange, but it's true. People were able to identify with them, and I think it was more than just the shared language.

Take the name of the British band, The Dave Clark Five (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-hL7ryCy3Y), for example. Geez, there must have been at least a hundred Dave Clarks in every American town. Hard to hear that one and think "foreigners".

Lirio100
11-14-2015, 02:27 PM
Depends on geography a little bit though, and how "mixed" the ancestry is. Away from the coasts more of the original settlements exist, and I couldn't answer ethnicity meaning ancestry by descent.

AnnieD
11-15-2015, 06:31 PM
I guess a migration from continental Europe to Britain, then - several generations later - from Britain to the USA?
Good guess! From family records, this ancestor appeared to migrate from Germany to Scotland, of all places, nab a Scottish wife, and then migrate to Colonial Pennsylvania in the mid-1700s. He was a man-on-the-move! Apparently, one of his progenitors had some real estate success in the small mill town where my father grew up as the side street by my grandparent's home is named after him, or him with the "Englishified" surname. Thank goodness that side of the family was really into documenting their roots as I've discovered no less than 3 Englishified versions of their original surname. However, in checking my match with his ancestor on FTDNA (he is a 4th cousin match to me) he is a bit of an interloper on this thread with I-1 haplogroup. My father descends on his maternal line and was R1B if that counts. :)

Tomenable
03-29-2016, 03:18 PM
This study tested 125 European-American men and found 58 with R1b-M269, including 19 with U106 (one of them U198):

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6645653_Sub-populations_within_the_major_European_and_African_ derived_haplogroups_R1b3_and_E3a_are_differentiate d_by_previously_phylogenetically_undefined_Y-SNPs

And here some studies about African-American Y-DNA:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51709545_Paternal_Lineages_Signal_Distinct_Genetic _Contributions_From_British_Loyalists_and_Continen tal_Africans_Among_Different_Bahamian_Islands

http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0029687&representation=PDF

http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/525/art%253A10.1007%252Fs00439-006-0261-7.pdf?originUrl=http%3A%2F%2Flink.springer.com%2Fa rticle%2F10.1007%2Fs00439-006-0261-7&token2=exp=1459265500~acl=%2Fstatic%2Fpdf%2F525%2F art%25253A10.1007%25252Fs00439-006-0261-7.pdf%3ForiginUrl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Flink.spring er.com%252Farticle%252F10.1007%252Fs00439-006-0261-7*~hmac=0ee6d0703dfe491cb760bfcaf3f66fe65fda7c3093 7434d9db38bdd104046626

Tomenable
03-29-2016, 03:41 PM
So it seems that the ratio of U106 to P312 is between 28:72 (link below) and 33:67 (Sims 2007):

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5795-R1b-of-European-Americans&p=119363&viewfull=1#post119363

ADW_1981
03-29-2016, 04:19 PM
I think that's it in a nutshell. English ancestry, or British Isles and/or Irish ancestry in general, is considered the default American ancestry.

I was a little kid when the rock-n-roll "British Invasion" took place. My impression during that time was that one of the things that facilitated the success of those bands (aside from the catchy music) was that, to us, they weren't foreigners. That may sound strange, but it's true. People were able to identify with them, and I think it was more than just the shared language.

Take the name of the British band, The Dave Clark Five (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-hL7ryCy3Y), for example. Geez, there must have been at least a hundred Dave Clarks in every American town. Hard to hear that one and think "foreigners".

There is a tendency in Canada at least, to define oneself as "Irish-Canadian", but it's a bit of a taboo to state you are English-Canadian, we usually just refer to ourselves as Canadian. We know where we came from, we don't need to always wear it on our sleeve.

MitchellSince1893
03-29-2016, 04:52 PM
I never hear the term "English American", but Irish/Italian/Polish/Greek/etc American is often heard.

You do hear "Anglo-American" but this is usually in reference to something the Brits and Americans are doing together, or related to the New World English speaking culture (i.e. most of the US and Canada minus French speakers) as opposed to Latin American culture.

As to why "English American" isn't used, I think it's in part because we were at War with England to gain our independence and there was a desire to separate ourselves and not be associated with England. Plus early on (1700s and early 1800s), it was a given that most European Americans ancestors were in large part from England; so there was no need to state the obvious.

wombatofthenorth
04-13-2016, 04:42 AM
I wonder which R1b is more common among European-Americans, P312 or U106 ???

Do we have any clues concerning this? And what about European-Canadians ???

Dunno by I'm P312, U152.

wombatofthenorth
04-13-2016, 05:04 AM
In fact, even though all three of those feature prominently in my ancestry, and all those groups were oppressed, the irony is that members of any other group of my ancestors you focus on were oppressed in some way, and the same is probably true of everyone here.

Some of my English ancestors for example are in Poor Law books, or received excessively harsh penalties for relatively minor offences of poaching or theft. Others were discriminated against because they were Catholic or Methodist.

My Scots ancestors were displaced from farming in their ancestral homes in the Highlands and forced into squalid parts of Glasgow.

My German ancestors had to flee because of religious wars and repeated French invasions, going first to England and Ireland, then the US. Some of my colonial American ancestors were evicted from Connecticut for religious reasons. Others in New Jersey were persecuted for siding with the British in 1776.

Do enough research on your ancestors, you'll find some way a large number of them were oppressed.

Yeah. I was surprised that Latvians were actually still held under medieval serfdom well into the 1800s! (As far as we'd been taught in school in the U.S. African Americans were the only people held as serfs or slaves so recently in the Western world.) For a few years, in a few areas, some were even out and out slaves as recently as maybe even 1790ish. (And then of course there was more nastiness again when first Stalin and then Hitler and then Stalin again came in during and at the end of WWII. Tens of thousand fled, were killed or sent to Siberia in the late 1940s by Stalin.) And in the Russian part of the Russian Empire they basically held anyone not rich as a serf until 1861.

wombatofthenorth
04-13-2016, 05:08 AM
In my experience, most Americans don't have a very global perspective, and don't have the sort of negativity toward England that one might encounter in Ireland, India, South Africa, etc. History taught in US school tends to focus on US History and the major wars. I haven't observed much, if any, bitterness over the war for independence from England. After all, this was a situation of mostly formerly English people rebelling against English people. It wasn't a situation of English people lording over some other pre-existing people. (Ignoring Native Americans for the purpose of this discussion.) I think this phenomenon of declining English identity relates more to the perception of English as a non-ancestry, and the fact that most people nowadays want to be unique rather than conform, so they will often choose the more unusual option when given the choice of identity.

I think it's more an American patriotism (and it seems like the parts of the map where American was put down tend to be conservative and even extra flag waving) or actually probably most of all just English is thought of as default and assumed so no need to bother unless it's something else. I don't think Americans tend to have any bad thoughts about England at all (unless you talk about 1776 and the war specifically and then it's people are super proud if they have Patriot ancestry and England was the bad guys, etc. but in any other scenario, I don't see it one bit, if anything people tend to be fond of England and see them almost as some sort of sister country (I was surprised to hear a few months ago though that many over there tend to look at us the bad children who left and nasty world dominators and hold negative feelings? not sure if that's really true or not).

Tomenable
04-28-2016, 05:03 PM
There is large regional variation, because each state has different proportions of European ancestries.

For example - a study by Lynn Sims 2007 found the following Y-DNA frequencies in White Americans:

R1b-P312 ---- 31,2%
R1b-U106 ---- 15,2%
I1 ------------- 25,6%
R1a ----------- 14,4%
other hgs ---- 13,6%

By contrast a study by Michael Hammer 2005 found much different Y-DNA frequencies in his sample:

R1b-M269 --- 58,3%
I1 ------------- 11,7%
R1a ----------- 7,2%
other hgs ---- 22,8%

Neither sample was perfect, Sims had a small sample, Hammer's one was not representative.

E.g. 20,5% of Hammer's sample was from Vermont, which has just 1/500 of U.S. population.

But proportion of U106 to P312 from Sims 2007 - which is like 33:67 - seems to be correct.

In the American centric FTDNA R1b project, this proportion is very similar - around 28:72.

TigerMW
04-28-2016, 05:29 PM
I think that's it in a nutshell. English ancestry, or British Isles and/or Irish ancestry in general, is considered the default American ancestry.
I think a lot of it is that Irish, Scots-Irish, Welsh immigrants, etc. were generally English-speakers from the git-go in North America. There is such a mixture anyway that it is hard to discern over here much of the time. I have several Gaelic-Irish lines, a couple of Welsh-Irish lines, Scots-Irish and English.

As far as history teaching in the U.S. goes, my experience is outdated but I definitely had to learn international history too. A lot of people forget or didn't pay attention to any kind of history, unfortunately.

It is clearly true that Irish lines in America don't have the engrained anti-English sentiment and I guess you could say that it is history education's fault as I learned of Oliver Cromwell in school but in no way understood the depth of a few sentences in a history book about his forays into Ireland. I have found some old family books from the 1800's put together by a Catholic priest in the family. Man, they did not like Oliver Cromwell.

... but what I am to do? Who knows, maybe on my English line I have a little Cromwellian blood flowing. I'm just glad I'm still not reporting to a monarch or a Cromwell. ummmm.

Tomenable
04-28-2016, 05:31 PM
The most numerous subclade of R1b among White Americans is R1b-L21.

R1b-L21 is 55% of American R1b-P312, and 40% of American R1b-M269:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5795-R1b-of-European-Americans&p=119363&viewfull=1#post119363

This likely reflects large-scale Irish immigration to the U.S. following 1845:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5795-R1b-of-European-Americans&p=119876&viewfull=1#post119876

As for immigration from England - this is a very interesting map, I think:

https://jaymans.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/uk-origins3.png

Tomenable
04-28-2016, 05:35 PM
Also it seems that Loyalists of the Civil War emigrated mostly to Southern states, Parliamentarians mostly to Northern states. So in the American Civil War descendants of Cavaliers = Confederates, descendants of Roundheads = Yankees. :)

More or less, at least:

https://s23.postimg.org/tjaowpv8r/Civi+War.jpg

Also Cavaliers & Confederates = more of Celtic ancestry, Roundheads & Yankees = more of Anglo-Saxon: :)

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160119/ncomms10326/pdf/ncomms10326.pdf

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160119/ncomms10326/extref/ncomms10326-s1.pdf

https://s22.postimg.org/59j4p7ffl/Celtic.png

lgmayka
04-28-2016, 06:26 PM
R1b-L21 is 55% of American R1b-P312, and 40% of American R1b-M269:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5795-R1b-of-European-Americans&p=119363&viewfull=1#post119363
That's an overstatement. Those percentages only apply to members of the FTDNA R1b project who have tested sufficient SNPs to determine their clade. Such a sample is not representative of the United States as a whole--it grossly favors those with both the motivation and the money for the expensive hobby of DNA testing. To a large extent, that means British Isles descendants.

ADW_1981
04-28-2016, 07:06 PM
That explains why I have so many relatives in the purple and yellow group states at 23andMe.

Eochaidh
04-28-2016, 08:34 PM
As for immigration from England - this is a very interesting map, I think:

https://jaymans.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/uk-origins3.png
The book "Albion's Seed" explores the 4 groups in this graphic. I think that is is a useful read for those interested in Early America.

GoldenHind
04-28-2016, 10:47 PM
The book "Albion's Seed" explores the 4 groups in this graphic. I think that is is a useful read for those interested in Early America.

I agree. It is an excellent read for those interested in the foundations of American culture in the colonial era and the regional differences.

rms2
04-28-2016, 11:25 PM
Albion's Seed is a good book. It's been awhile since I read it, but I don't recall that graphic being in it (but maybe it was). Anyway, as I recall, the book's author, David Hackett Fischer, talks about immigration to Tidewater Virginia from SW England but mentions the Welsh in connection with the Quaker influx into William Penn's colony of Pennsylvania rather than into "Virginia and the Lowland South".

I could be mistaken, but I think a lot of the Welsh who later went south went first to the Welsh Tract in Pennsylvania.

Similarly, there was a movement of Pennsylvania Germans into the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia. Many of the oldest families there have pretty obvious German surnames and anglicized German surnames.

Chad Rohlfsen
04-29-2016, 12:19 AM
My Quaker ancestors hit PA before NC, as well.

mbreedlove49
05-28-2016, 03:04 PM
This is my first visit to this site. My line (surname Breedlove) appears in Virginia ca 1708. The 'Old' geneologists (when they actually had to visit the courthouse) have established that 'all' Breedloves are related (some irregular birth or adoption exceptions) but they have all been stymied by 'the Pond'. I am participating in FamilyTree Y-DNA projects. I test U152 - Z56 - S47, currently classed as Italo-Gaulish. FamilyTree matches show a small group of apparently related surnames that share a set of genetic marker values that seem to point to a common ancestor within historic time frames. These names include Newton, Hoskins, Johnson and Fraser. The later two do not seem to match well to their own name groups. All of us have unique marker values that separate us from the standard, slow-mutating U152 markers, specifically dys391=10, dys392=15, dys454=12 and dys455=10. There is also a mysterious Morris, who seems to test closest of all, but has a 'tough' privacy wall. Obviously, these surnames are from the British Isles. So, while we may test Italo-Gaulish, some of these 'boys' found their way up north. I have read David Faux's papers on the Cimbris and Angles that seem to show a U152 component, which may have transferred to England in the Angle-Saxon waves. Others have suggested movement via Roman legionaries. There appear to be some Breedlove references pre-1700 in England via Ancestry records, but few and far between. If we could match our unique markers to some individuals whose families never left the Old World, we might get a little farther.
I too, have read Albion's Seed. Very good book. Our progenitor shows up in Essex County, VA as a witness on a document in 1708. He SIGNS his name (educated - unusual outside the gentry of the day). He marries well ... a Parr, whose father left her a Manor Plantation, but never owned any land in his own name. Also unusual given marriage as a social class contract. One of the 'Old Ones' has a pet theory of Huguenot. Perhaps, but we have those genetic connections to 'other' English surnames.
Anyway, I'm extremely interested in this topic and any information or comments are appreciated.

mbreedlove49
05-28-2016, 03:30 PM
As is 'American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America by Colin Woodard.

xlockx
06-19-2016, 12:22 AM
I am a U106 American.

RobertCasey
06-19-2016, 05:13 AM
Here is a recent breakdown of major R haplogroups of 67 marker tests (based on YSTR Terminal YSNP):

M269 - 30,262 (could be L21, U106, P312, DF27, U152 or M269*) - 64 %
L21 - 6,305 - 13 %
R1a - 4,277 - 9 %
U106 - 2,881 - 6 %
P312 - 1,151 (could be DF27, U152 or P312*) - 2.4 %
DF27 - 1,123 - 2.4 %
U152 - 1,106 - 2.3 %

M343/L278 - 407 - 0.9%
R2 - 66 - 0.1 %
M173/M207 - 54 - 0.1 %

I was really surprised that so many R-M269 still exist vs. being tested. Also surprised that R1a was 50 % larger than U106. It is interesting that P312 is one third DF27, one third U152 and one third all other P312 branches.

MitchellSince1893
06-19-2016, 02:36 PM
Here is a recent breakdown of major R haplogroups of 67 marker tests (based on YSTR Terminal YSNP):

M269 - 30,262 (could be L21, U106, P312, DF27, U152 or M269*) - 64 %
L21 - 6,305 - 13 %
R1a - 4,277 - 9 %
U106 - 2,881 - 6 %
P312 - 1,151 (could be DF27, U152 or P312*) - 2.4 %
DF27 - 1,123 - 2.4 %
U152 - 1,106 - 2.3 %

M343/L278 - 407 - 0.9%
R2 - 66 - 0.1 %
M173/M207 - 54 - 0.1 %

I was really surprised that so many R-M269 still exist vs. being tested. Also surprised that R1a was 50 % larger than U106. It is interesting that P312 is one third DF27, one third U152 and one third all other P312 branches.

Just curious as to the source for this info. Put out by FTDNA or manually compiled? Thanks

As to R1a vs U106; I found in a study I did for England that non R1b haplogroups were over represented in FTDNA projects.

Turns out non R haplogroups FTDNA members of the British Counties FTDNA project were more likely to do further SNP testing compared to the R haplogroup.
http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6154-Y-DNA-Haplogroup-Percentages-and-maps-for-England-Source-FTDNA-Y-DNA-projects&p=131977&viewfull=1#post131977

In addition, if R1a is an automatic designation from FTDNA after a STR test and U106 requires additional tests after automatic R-M269 designation, then that may explain the results above

RobertCasey
06-20-2016, 05:33 AM
Just curious as to the source for this info. Put out by FTDNA or manually compiled? Thanks

I pulled the information from FTDNA YSTR reports. I do not pull all reports as there are so many projects. Also, there are significant number of "project only" privacy settings for reports as well as the new default for individual profiles is "project only" for new testers in the last 18 months. So the pull is probably around 80 % complete for Haplogroup R with only 67 markers included.

L21 is probably over-sampled as well. I can also convert around 50 % of non-tested testers to predicted branches under L21 via my L21 YSNP predictor. If I had time or some assistance, I could probably predict around 80 % of non-tested that are L21. This predication could be expanded to all haplogroups as well since most single signature YSNPs are predictable via binary logistic regression. You really can not predict older YSNPs or very young YSNPs that well. I am not talking about the prediction of older branches that FTDNA and other tools predict - but single signature YSNPs that are around 1,200 to 2,500 years old.

Arch
07-16-2016, 09:48 AM
I think Reptilian is more likely.

Dewsloth
07-16-2016, 09:13 PM
Deleted

TigerMW
07-19-2016, 01:54 AM
I pulled the information from FTDNA YSTR reports. I do not pull all reports as there are so many projects. Also, there are significant number of "project only" privacy settings for reports as well as the new default for individual profiles is "project only" for new testers in the last 18 months. So the pull is probably around 80 % complete for Haplogroup R with only 67 markers included.

L21 is probably over-sampled as well. I can also convert around 50 % of non-tested testers to predicted branches under L21 via my L21 YSNP predictor. If I had time or some assistance, I could probably predict around 80 % of non-tested that are L21. This predication could be expanded to all haplogroups as well since most single signature YSNPs are predictable via binary logistic regression. You really can not predict older YSNPs or very young YSNPs that well. I am not talking about the prediction of older branches that FTDNA and other tools predict - but single signature YSNPs that are around 1,200 to 2,500 years old.

Could we talk about R1b subclade and haplogroup predictions over on the thread for R1b subclade predictions?

Tomenable
10-07-2019, 12:03 PM
Bump, any new data?