What is with all the manjaw women in the media?

[giblets]

I don't even know where these English-Americans are. That map shows Maine and Utah. Sounds about right. It's rare to find a white person with an Anglo name like Johnson or Smith in Philly.

Those are the most common surnames in the US. They obviously are widespread.

[giblets]

http://www.census.gov/genealogy/www/...mes/index.html
Smith, Johnson, Williams, Brown, Jones, Davis? Sounds English.

[Barnabas]

Alby, what about German protestants? And Brits and Scots? The USA received lots of immigrants of that kind.


I think only among Catholics in the USA. be them hispanics, poles, italians or irish you find lots of people with non english ancestry. You think most americans don't have any ancestor who lived during the XVIII century in the thirteen colonies?

[Al B. Sure!]

http://www.census.gov/genealogy/www/...mes/index.html
Smith, Johnson, Williams, Brown, Jones, Davis? Sounds English.

Black people.

[Al B. Sure!]

You think most americans don't have any ancestor who lived during the XVIII century in the thirteen colonies?

Absolutely not. Most (non-Black) Americans came to this country in 1850 or later.

Looking for references, I only found this textbook entry so far which does not include a citation.
A People and a Nation Volume 1

"Conversely, most European Americans are descended from the massive European migrations of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries."

[Al B. Sure!]

Here's some more visual data:



The English are concentrated in Maine, upstate New York, and Utah. Sparse otherwise.

[giblets]

Black people.

Who have some english ancestry from teh plantation days.

[Al B. Sure!]

Who have some english ancestry from teh plantation days.

And they're 12% of the US population, outnumbered recently by Hispanics.

[giblets]

How much immigration has the US had from Africa since 1840? If 38 million black people could be descended from the 2.5 millions slaves that were around in 1840, that kind of undermines your argument that most Americans must be descended from people who came there since then.

[Al B. Sure!]

How much immigration has the US had from Africa since 1840? If 38 million black people could be descended from the 2.5 millions slaves that were around in 1840, that kind of undermines your argument that most Americans must be descended from people who came there since then.

Explain this then:

Populations in 1900 vs. 2000
UK: 38.2M... 59.1M +55% in 100 years (no mass emigration as far as I know)
France: 40.7M... 59M +45% in 100 years (no mass emigration as far as I know; the wars probably were costly though)
US: 75.9M... 281.4M +270% in 100 years

Why the huge variance in US population growth? Is there any reason to suspect Americans ****ed more than the British and French counterparts in the 20th century?

Oh wait. One of these countries was all about giving me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses...

[Al B. Sure!]

**** let's even compare it to the prolific Catholics... Ireland saw virtually no population growth in the past century, probably due to all the emigration... Spain and Portugal aren't known for much emigration in this time period, though:

Spain: 18.5M... 40.2M +117% in 100 years
Portugal: 5.4M... 10.2M +88% in 100 years

American population growth even far outstrips them! Did Anglo-Americans really have that many babies?! Or is it the immigrants?


You get some people who claim to be part-Cherokee or had ancestors supposedly come from off the Mayflower but once they do some digging, they're surprised to learn their family first set foot in America in like 1905 or something.

Except for Blacks, we are a nation of immigrants from 1850 on.

[Egbert]

How did a pointless arguement about the masculinity of female jawbones turn into a pointless argument about the ethnic origins of the American population?

[giblets]

Explain this then:

Populations in 1900 vs. 2000
UK: 38.2M... 59.1M +55% in 100 years (no mass emigration as far as I know)
France: 40.7M... 59M +45% in 100 years (no mass emigration as far as I know; the wars probably were costly though)
US: 75.9M... 281.4M +270% in 100 years

Why the huge variance in US population growth? Is there any reason to suspect Americans ****ed more than the British and French counterparts in the 20th century?

Oh wait. One of these countries was all about giving me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses...

It really isn't that hard for people to reproduce enough that the population grows at an average rate of 1.3% per year. Just because it doesn't happen everywhere doesn't mean that all substantial increases in population are caused by immigration. The natural rate of population increase was definitely a lot higher than 0.4% a year in 20th century America.

[giblets]

If you use this data along with total populations in the US census, I can easily conceive of the population of the US increasing by +150% over the course of the 20th century if you factor out immigration. Having children isn't simply a matter of religious beliefs or how much you enjoy sex, contrary to Al's insinuations.

[Al B. Sure!]

Why did Americans supposedly reproduce far more than their French, British, Spanish, and Portuguese counterparts? Is there any reason to explain such a difference? Was such a dramatic and apparent difference (which would amount to several more children per family and would surely be noticeable) ever noted by contemporaries?