The Isles in America
It’s easy to find maps of American ancestries, but I wanted to play around with the data, and in particularly the visualization myself. So I went to the Census and got the county level numbers. The first thing I wanted to do was look at non-Hispanic white ethnicities as a proportion of non-Hispanic whites. That would for example increase the Anglo-Saxon character of the lowland South because it would remove African Americans from the equation.
All the data was from the 2000 Census, and I simply divided the % of each European ancestry group by the non-Hispanic white percentage to reweight appropriately. Here are some correlations I found:
English X Scots-Irish = 0.34
English X Irish = 0.30
English X American = -0.20
Scots-Irish X Irish = 0.37
Scots-Irish X American = -0.25
Irish X American = -0.45
I left the Scottish and Welsh out of this because their numbers were relatively small. One of the main issues with look at the “Irish” and “American” category is that both of these are probably heavily loaded with Scots-Irish. Below the fold are some maps I generated.
Blue = above the median for the frequency of that group nationally (the median being calculated again with non-Hispanic whites only included).
Red = below the median.
The distributions of frequencies by county tend to be positively skewed, so the shading is covering a larger spectrum of frequencies in the blue than the red.
Min = 1.6%
25% = 8.5%
Median = 11%
75% = 14%
Max = 48%
Min = 0%
25% = 1%
Median = 2%
75% = 3%
Max = 10%
Min = 2%
25% = 10%
Median = 12%
75% = 14%
Max = 37%
Min = 0%
25% = 7%
Median = 14%
75% = 22%
Max = 70%
“Isles” includes Scottish & Welsh, as well as “American.”
Min = 9%
25% = 39%
Median = 44%
75% = 51%
Max = 85%
Finally, here’s a map where those of “Isles” origin are 50% or more of the non-Hispanic white population.
The shading for the “Isles” doesn’t look right. But here’s the histogram:
The median is 0.45. So that’s probably why the blue is relatively homogeneous, the distribution is negatively skewed.
Labels: geography
One of the main issues with look at the “Irish” and “American” category is that both of these are probably heavily loaded with Scots-Irish.
Well it’s complicated in the case of the Irish vs Scots-Irish vs Anglo-Irish. For one thing the first wave of Presbyterians coming from Northern Ireland to the Americas labelled themselves simply “Irish”. When Church of Ireland (aka Anglican aka Episcopal) Irish, from all over the country especially the East, came over they labelled themselves Irish too.
However when the masses of uneducated, impoverished, Catholic, famine Irish came over, that label changed to “Scots-Irish” for Presbyterians and sometimes “English” for Anglicans.
However, based on DNA evidence I’ve seen especially Y-DNA, it would seem that a good number, maybe a majority of the “Scots-Irish” were in fact native Irish, though Presbyterian. What I’m referring to is native Irish anglicizing their names, switching to Presbyterianism and emigrating with their neighbors from Northern Ireland to the Southern US States.
To illustrate the above, on 23AndMe, they have a new feature called “Relative Finder”, and of the 11 of 172 Relatives found so far that I have contacted, I have 2 as follows:
1. German name, who says he is almost entirely German with a little Scots-Irish – yet 23AndMe identifies us as 5th cousins.
2. English name, who says all his ancestors are old colonial English, Mayflower and such – yet 23AndMe identifies us as 5th cousins. He does say however that “For some unknown reason, he doesn’t match any of the other people in his surname project”?!
I’ve been arguing for quite awhile that MN, WS, and parts of IA and the Dakotas, despite their original settlement, don’t fit into the New England “nation” (though they do contrast with the two Southern “nations”.)
This was historical. Many of the first wave of settlers (1850-1880) were Yankee speculators who moved on, and there were already plenty of Germans and Scandinavians during the Civil War.
By 1920 (when the state was 70% first or second generation American) even Minnesota’s Republican Party was half assimilated Germans and Scandinavians (the Heffelfingers have been party leaders since 1865 or so).
Because of nativist abuses during WWI (and for other reasons), Scandinavian-dominated third parties arose in MN and ND, and a somewhat similar party in WS. That really broke the Anglo-Saxon power, though the Irish retained a foothold in the Democratic Party (which was Minnesota’s third party 1920-1948).
Around here the Presbyterian Church is the Anglo-Saxon church, but all the local Presbyterian names I can think of are German or Scandinavian.
I’ve been arguing for quite awhile that MN, WS, and parts of IA and the Dakotas, despite their original settlement, don’t fit into the New England “nation” (though they do contrast with the two Southern “nations”.)
well, that depends. the argument isn’t that a preponderance of the original settlers remain, but that subsequent immigration didn’t erase a strong effect of the initial founding. perhaps the test would be where the upper midwest accent comes from. it is a synthesis from the germanic immigration?
Ja, it is.
There is even a grammatical form: “So…..then? or “So then…….?” which you are taught in German (So……denn?”)
A contrast could be made with Texas Germans and they would come out much differently, but the German-Scandinavian-Slav zone covers the majority of 3 states and parts of 3 others (South Dakota, Montana, and Iowa), whereas the Texas Germans are pretty well boxed in by SOutherners.
A friend of mine who teaches down there says that the Germans are noticeably less crazy than other Texans.
The most notable influence would be in town planning and architecture, since most towns were laid out under Yankee influence.
one of the issues with the upper midwest germans is that many of them maintained german as their first language into the first half of the 20th century. this would naturally mitigate against acculturation.
The most notable influence would be in town planning and architecture, since most towns were laid out under Yankee influence.
what about historical contingency in policy? e.g., yankee settled states like wisconsin started off by community provisioning of public schools, while others like arkansas did not. even if the yankees disappear the public school system and the custom of taxation for their maintenance remains.
Also, one of the more recently famous Scots-Irish, John McCain, has direct male relatives on FTDNA who have had their Y-DNA tested, and have been shown to be related to The native Irish O’Cathain family, usually rendered Kane, Keane, Cain (+/- either a Mac or O’), which are the closest family to the Ui Neill dynasty. So baring a NPE, John McCain is almost certainly R-M222 too and native Irish rather than Scots-Irish. He joins others famous Americans, like Joseph Smith – Mormon founder, who have also been proven to have native Irish heritage.
paul, give me a number on the proportion of “scotch-irish” ancestry which is native irish (not scottish or border english).
Razib,
From what I’ve seen, if you believe you are Scots-Irish and your paper trail ends in Northern Ireland, the chances that you are native Irish is 70-100%, whereas if your paper trail goes back to Scotland then 5-10%. Most Scots-Irish just list their place of origin as Scotland, with no information on any kind on location, and when pressed can only name someplace in Northern Ireland.
Many Scots-Irish have an English or Scottish sounding name and have no idea that it is just an anglicized native Irish name.
For instance if you met someone with the name “Livingstone”, would you be surprised that it once was “Mac Duinnshleibhe”, and shortly after the English invasion of Ireland, the chiefs of this clan moved to Scotland and changed their name. Other descendants of Mac Duinnshleibhe are Dunlevy, Dunlief, Dunlop and Levingstone.
According to the Wikipedia entry linked to in this post, it is estimated that 53% of the U.S. white population is descended from colonial ancestors. Since 85% of the colonial white population was British in origin, this would mean that 45% of the U.S. white population is descended from colonial British stock. Considering that Great Britain was one of the primary sources of immigrants throughout most of American history (even during the Ellis Island period), it is not unlikely that a majority of U.S. whites, even today, are British in origin. This is definitely true if one is referring to descent from the British Isles as a whole (including Ireland).
One problem with using Census Bureau data regarding ancestry is that it is based on self reported answers to the question “What is your ancestry or ethnic origin?” In my experience working for the Census Bureau, a large number of the people that we interviewed had only a vague idea where their ancestors came from. One of the more common answers that we got to this question was simply “I don’t know” and many of the answers that we did get seemed to be educated guesses or referred only to the branches of their families that had immigrated here recently.
Since most of those in the U.S. who are British in origin have been here for generations and have no memory of their ancestors immigrating, it is likely that the Census data underestimates the percentage of the population that is of British descent.
In my high school class in the early 60s there were two kids who spoke German at home, out of about 70 total. My guess is that they were late immigrants from during the 30s who had been sponsored by family.
The public school system was greatly appreciated by German, Scandinavian, and Dutch immigrants, as I know from some local history and memoirs. Norway at least, and probably the others, already had pretty good educational outreach and very high literacy.
Before 1900 or even later it was very rare for a farmer’s child to finish 12 years of public school full time. There are several well known leaders who went to major law schools (Michigan and Yale) after only 5 or 6 years of formal education.
We’re getting close to the one-drop rule here. As of 1850 I have 8 ancestors in Iowa: 3 German, 3 British, and 2 Dutch, so I am unmistakably in three different demographics. When you say that 53% of Americans are British in ancestry, that means that 47% of Americans are not at all British and 53% are in some part British. (And the 53%, if the data were good, would include a significant proportion of black Americans.)
All my ancestors were Northern and Protestant, which is probably the only significant thing. (3 generations of my family were raised in 3 different Protestant sects). I grew up in a Scandinavian area (still Protestant) and that’s been more influential than the Dutch in my actual life despite the lack of Norse genes.
Peoples are made by history. Linguistically and genetically the Swiss, Dutch and Germans are as close as two nations can be, for example, but there are enormous historical differences.
For another example, Singapore is institutionally Chinese and British and ethnically also Malay and Tamil, but the experience, education, and daily life of people in Singapore are sharply different than that of Chinese, British, Malays, or Tamils elsewhere. If Singapore lasts another 50 years, and there’s no reason to doubt that it will except for the possibility of a major war, Singaporeans will have as firm a national identity as the Swiss or the Dutch.
“(And the 53%, if the data were good, would include a significant proportion of black Americans.)”
The 53 percent only includes white Americans. I do not know if that includes all self-identified whites or just non-Latino whites.
I’m just curious how much British/colonial you must have to be included in the figure. Only a minority of my ancestors were British colonists, but they still comprise a significant chunk of my ancestry (likely over a quarter).
This reminds me of a dilemma I had when I registered for the NHS as a visiting student in the UK. There were basically four choices for whites on the race/ethnicity section: British (or mixed British), Irish, and other European. Technically I could be considered “mixed British,” or Irish if you really wanted to stretch things (I’m only like 1/16 Irish), but I ended up putting down “other European” because that probably includes most of my ancestry.