Just wondering.... Where are everyones ancestores from?


Please post your resoponse.

You should have added "Other European" instead of some of these options... For example Sweden has only 6 million people, yet Turkey has well over 10 times as much and it's not there (even just European Turkey has almost twice as much as Sweden, because yes, I know Turkey is not fully in Europe).

Ukraine and Poland are other very big European countries that could have well been in before many of those.

All my ancestors as far as I can look back are from Romania, although my great-grandmother was from a Romanian village in Bulgaria (just a few km from where I live actually, only on the other side of the Danube).

voted german, then saw "cultural" :lol:

Vietnam. However... it is 99.99% very likely I have Chinese blood somewhere, 12.5% chance i have Mongol blood, and there is even the remote possiblility i may have Indian blôd somewhere deâp in my past

Mostly English, a bit Welsh and Scottish with a dash of Gibraltese - though I dont know the flavor. A disputed drop of Irish blood too. As I've posted before this makes me almost exactly as British as it is possible to be.

Hungarian, Minor French nobility, German, and some, a little drop, of irish.

Mum's half is pure Blighty, migrated to Western Australia in the early 20th century. Dad's half is mongrel Catholic, with a strong Cornish presence, some Irish and some Anglo, and one German dude who, thanks to patrilinearity, passed down his last name to me.

Mom's from New Zealand, with the average mix of Scot, Welsh, and English. Dad's half is German and Irish. Probably a tad more German, but my surname is Irish.

Italian (Sicilian), Irish, and German.

Italian and Armenian.

Almost all English but with some Irish and Welsh relations further back.

I'm the only one yet that's only from one country? :dubious:

I voted Italian, Dutch, Austrian, German, Spanish, Portuguese and Other. Other beign Belgian (Flemish, after they split). Unlike most brazilians, I only have one very distant portuguese ancestor.

Almost pure French, except for a dash of native american ancestry.

Polish.

It is likely that I also have some of the following blood in me:
Czech, German, Mongolian, Russian

South East Asian.

You should have added "Other European" instead of some of these options... For example Sweden has only 6 million people, yet Turkey has well over 10 times as much and it's not there (even just European Turkey has almost twice as much as Sweden, because yes, I know Turkey is not fully in Europe).
According to the Swedish National Bureau of Statistics (the SCB), it's closer to 9,2 million you know. (Btw with almost the exact same GDP as Turkey, for added curiosity value.):scan:
http://www.scb.se/templates/tableOrChart____25891.asp
No need to try to make the place more insignificant than it already is.:p

Voted Swedish, French, German, Scotish and "Other", meaning Norwegian, but that's going back to the 17th century.

we really get around!!! I;'m Irish as far back as is known, but my half sister is far more intersting, a Jewish Greek German American mix...

My parents are English, and I'm fairly sure my grandparents were, and that's as far back as I know (and rather further back than I really care). However, the question is rather vague. Which ancestors are you talking about? If you go back a few generations probably almost everyone has ancestors from all over the place; and if you go back far enough everyone's ancestors are African. Also, I think it's a bit odd in the poll to differentiate between all those European countries (even England and Wales and Scotland) and then lump the whole of Africa together.

we really get around!!! I;'m Irish as far back as is known, but my half sister is far more intersting, a Jewish Greek German American mix...

Finally someone else that voted for just one option!



My parents are English, and I'm fairly sure my grandparents were, and that's as far back as I know (and rather further back than I really care). However, the question is rather vague. Which ancestors are you talking about? If you go back a few generations probably almost everyone has ancestors from all over the place; and if you go back far enough everyone's ancestors are African. Also, I think it's a bit odd in the poll to differentiate between all those European countries (even England and Wales and Scotland) and then lump the whole of Africa together.

I think the point was to get as far back as you know. :) For example, I probably have some distant Gypsy and German blood, with the intermixing that happened in the areas from which some of my relatives are, but I don't know for sure as I only know my ancestors from 5-6 generations back.

Yet if we base it on looks then I have nothing in common with anyone except my great-grandfather from my mother's/grandmother's side. :p I definitely don't look like your average southern European, which is very weird IMHO.

You forgot Norwegian. I have some Swedish blood too, so I voted Sweden and other.

You forgot Norwegian. I have some Swedish blood too, so I voted Sweden and other.

He didn't "forget" it, there are tens of European countries not in there. Which is normal because the polls on this forum have a limit on options, you know. :)

On my mother's side a mixture of (Ulster) Scots and Moravian Czechs who settled in Ireland at a place called Grace Hill centuries ago. Last ancestor who considered themselves Moravian would've been my great grandmother.
On my father's side I don't really know, but I think English.


I voted "Austrian" because I think Moravia was under their control at the time my ancestors left ;), and also because neither Moravia, Bohemia, Czechia or even indeed "central European" aren't on the poll. I also voted Irish because hey, it's possible some unscrupulous Celt hopped into my gene pool at some point. Also living in my Ireland for *a while* probably makes us part Irish anyway.

On my mother's side a mixture of (Ulster) Scots.

The Ulsters were not Scotts but Irish, I too am Ulster.

A sort of jumble of Irish and Scots... Mostly Irish Catholic, but some Scottish Catholic and Scottish Presbyterian. After 5 generations backs I don't known any specifics, but I doubt it gets particularly interesting. Most you'll get is a little Norse maybe 1000 or so years ago, but that applies to 90% of British people...

The Ulsters were not Scotts but Irish, I too am Ulster.
He's talking about Ulster Scots- the descendants of Scottish Protestant immigrants to Ulster. Some of them consider themselves Irish, sure, but that doesn't invalidate the concept of "Ulster Scots".

Note my location: south of the Yalu, west of the Shannon.

I am 100% Greek as far as i Know.

Voted Indian. But it's really a blend of Dravidian (south Indian), Persian, Arabic and, highly contended as it is, some Portuguese too, maybe. But I certainly carry a surname from them at least.Also, I think it's a bit odd in the poll to differentiate between all those European countries (even England and Wales and Scotland) and then lump the whole of Africa together.When I saw the options I thought: Yo, can we get some brothers on the poll?!

Well, previous "where you from" polls, only revealed one African guy, so to be fair its highly probable that the take up of African ancestry is going to be fairly low.

A sort of jumble of Irish and Scots... Mostly Irish Catholic, but some Scottish Catholic and Scottish Presbyterian. After 5 generations backs I don't known any specifics, but I doubt it gets particularly interesting. Most you'll get is a little Norse maybe 1000 or so years ago, but that applies to 90% of British people...


He's talking about Ulster Scots- the descendants of Scottish Protestant immigrants to Ulster. Some of them consider themselves Irish, sure, but that doesn't invalidate the concept of "Ulster Scots".

My mistake, Dunno what kind of Scott I am, just know we're Highlanders!

My family came to Australia, if I remember correctly, on the First Fleet. Before that, Cornish (where my family gets its surname, Trevorrow, from), Scottish, Irish and German.

Italian (50%), English (40%), Scottish (9%), Irish (1%).

England, Ireland, Scotland, Germany. That's as much as I know. I think that is it for me.

BTW, I am Irish (Ulster), English, Welsh, Scottish (Highlander), German, Polish, Russian, and Italian.

4º generation of germans in Brazil, but i have some austrian and spanish blood.

Catalan.

XCL

I'm really the quintissential American mix. Irish, German, and English; the top three most common backrounds in the U.S.

I'm really the quintissential American mix. Irish, German, and English; the top three most common backrounds in the U.S.

Hello my Germano-Anglo-Irish brother!

Though I also have Scottish. My percentage is:

50% English
25% Irish
12.5% Scottish
12.5% German

Minor Dutch(Frisian) Royalty, Canadian, Native America, Lowland and Highland Scot Criminals, Irish Criminals, English, Welsh, German, French and Jewish.

Italian and Austrian.

My parents and family are from El Salvador but my family are a mix(mestizo's) of mayan/pipil and spanish.

All of my dads ancestors have English surnames and go back to colonial New England except for one lonely Scott in the late 17th century, most came in the Puritain migration prior to the English civil war. There are some gaps in the records thought so their might be some other stuff, the Puritains were meticulous record keepers but sometimes such things were lost in fires and the like. My mom's are Norwegian and Swedish.

Dalarna and Västmanland... - Swedish only as far as I know. For the record, Sweden has approximately 9 million inhabitants.

Mother side:
- Grand mother born in Istanbul, from a Romanian father and a Russian mother
- Grand father from Vendée, France

Father side:
- From Savoy

I'm the only one yet that's only from one country? :dubious:

Im a 100% Chinese. Hundreds of generations and generations of my family married only chinese people.

Though linguisticly im very varied. My father Teochew and Faichun(I think) My mom is Cantonese, Hwa Kak and something else

wow, I could only pick other and chinese...

1. Chinese
2. Danish
3. Czechslovakian
4. Fijian

It seems that the Irish grand father was quite active

I wish I was him:groucho:

My parents and grandparents are English, but beyond that I don't know, besides the eventual African connection we all share.

50% Indian (if you think Native American i will slaughter you) 12.5% French (medium nobility) 12.5% Dutch (my French ancestors mostly fled around the French revolution)

Mostly English and German, with Irish, French, and Native American mixed in. I suppose Canadian falls under English (my great-grandmother is from Newfoundland).

50% Indian (if you think Native American i will slaughter you) 12.5% French (medium nobility) 12.5% Dutch (my French ancestors mostly fled around the French revolution)
Missing a quarter, there... :p

Missing a quarter, there... :p

He's an amputee.

Hungarian plus a pinch of Croat and German

My mother's family was Irish and Catholic, my father's family was English and protestant, and here we are, having a family.

I'm also 1/16 Danish, but that's as far as it goes.

that's kinda small fraction....

Wow, the Irish are still winning the poll. For such a small island we sure do get around.

Well the Irish are drunk about 80% of the time.

And when you are drunk...

1/4 Austrian- Paternal Grandfather
1/4 German- Maternal Grandfather and Grandmother
1/8 Slovak- Paternal Grandmother
1/8 Ukranian- Paternal Grandmother
1/8 English- Maternal Grandmother
1/8 Either Scottish or Swiss- Maternal Grandfather. (I'm pulling for Scottish!!!... :p)

1/8 English- Maternal Grandmother
1/8 Either Scottish or Swiss- Maternal Grandfather. (I'm pulling for Scottish!!!... :p)
Does it mean your grandmother was with a Scottish and a Swiss at the same time... And so your mother is not sure who exactly is her father?

Polish.

:cheers:

My father's side of the family is Polish-American.

Does it mean your grandmother was with a Scottish and a Swiss at the same time... And so your mother is not sure who exactly is her father?

Heheh, no, we know who my grandfather is, he just isn't sure. He went most his life thinking he was Scottish, but at a family reunion a few years ago someone said they were Swiss. Confusing? Yes. His last name is Castor but may have been bastardized along the way, so we're really not sure. If I put more time into it I'm sure I could find out.

Ignore Me!!!

Heheh, no, we know who my grandfather is, he just isn't sure. He went most his life thinking he was Scottish, but at a family reunion a few years ago someone said they were Swiss. Confusing? Yes. His last name is Castor but may have been bastardized along the way, so we're really not sure. If I put more time into it I'm sure I could find out.

Doesn't he know where he's from?? The mystery deepens...

Doesn't he know where he's from?? The mystery deepens...

This is more difficult than it should be :lol: He was born here, in the US, and I actually don't know when his ancestors came over but I'm sure his parents were born here too. It might have been his grandparents that moved here, but I don't know- I believe when they did come it was through either New York or Philadelphia- again, I'm not sure... point being, he doesn't know what he is for sure. What I do know about my ancestors isI know for sure that on my dad's side my great-grandparents were the ones who came over.

Lucky Americans and Europeans, able to trace their lineage far far back. :(

Americans seem to do it far more than Europeans - in fact it's often a point of amusement to Europeans that Americans always seem to be claiming to be all kinds of nationality, but never American. Whereas I don't think I know anyone who's interested in their family trees or regards themselves as any nationality other than the one they were born with. The exception to that is first-generation children of immigrants, who often seem to regard themselves as (say) Nigerian without even ever having been there. But I think that wears off after a generation or two. But in any case, what stops Asians from tracing their ancestry if they want to? In Singapore people call themselves "Chinese", "Indian", and so on even though they're all Singaporean, so they're well aware of where their forebears came from.

I think sometimes people dont refer to themeselves as the locals(ex.American,) because they are not really accepted by the majority as being like them. Only when you drop all you're customs,and share the same views do they accept you. Like for instance i was born in washington d.c but when some one ask : Hey where you from? If i say d.c then they'll be like no what country you from ill tell them from el salvador(iv'e lived they're for like 2 years but not enough to make me from there).
I guess because if you still talk you're family's native languange and still practice you're family's custom you find more in common with the people who migrated here then with the local population. You can't really do that the other way around because most people will be like im from philly,new york or cali even though they are decended from immigrant's too just lost some of they're customs through each generation.

Americans seem to do it far more than Europeans - in fact it's often a point of amusement to Europeans that Americans always seem to be claiming to be all kinds of nationality, but never American.
Except in the South, of course.
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/2030/census2000datatopusancezf1.jpg
Although, to be fair to them, most of them are probably such a jumbled mixture of English, Scottish and Ulster Scots, among other things, that it'd be impossible to state one overriding ethnicity other than "British-American", which is unlikely to be a popular self-identification in most of the US, let alone in that particular region.

But in any case, what stops Asians from tracing their ancestry if they want to? In Singapore people call themselves "Chinese", "Indian", and so on even though they're all Singaporean, so they're well aware of where their forebears came from.

Well for singaporeans, the lack of records. My Grandfather just jumped into a boat and landed here. No passport, no immigration paper, no receipt for the boat ride. Sure I still have the ancestral village in China, but I think it got destroy during the Cultural revolution

Scottish and English, with a bit of Mexican and allegedly a dash of Native American. I never delved into my ancestry that much, so I guess there could be bits and pieces in there that I do not know about. All I know is one grandfather claimed Scot background, the other was Mexican, one grandmother was English descended and the other was crazy.

Eireannach all the way back, except for a mysterious ancestor who was Protestant, but I don't know if she was British, Ulster-Scots, or just converted for food during An Gorta Mór. In any case, she converted to Catholicism later on.

Was it Robinson or MacAleese that said there were 72,000,000 people who could claim Irish citizenship?

About that information above, I bet if the Southerners had been asked if they were 'Native American', they would have all said yes.

Except in the South, of course.
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/2030/census2000datatopusancezf1.jpg
Although, to be fair to them, most of them are probably such a jumbled mixture of English, Scottish and Ulster Scots, among other things, that it'd be impossible to state one overriding ethnicity other than "British-American", which is unlikely to be a popular self-identification in most of the US, let alone in that particular region.

There is nothing wrong with people identifying as "American" any more than there is something wrong with someone writing in a census form that their ancestry is "English" rather than "Anglo-Jutish-Saxon-Celto-Roman" or "Italian" rather than "Latin-Etruscan-Greek-Gallo-German" or Rift-Valleyite. Really, I know it's trendy to make fun of people from the American-South but their choice in self-identification makes just as much sense as any other.

Further more, many people in Australia self-identify as unhyphenately Australian and the situation is similar situation in many other areas around the world. For example, Quebecois/Canadiens, African-American, Boers, Taiwanese, Palestinians, Moldovians and Montenegrins are all examples of national self-identifications that have been considered more "artificial" or inferior to another national identity at one point in time (please don't let this start a flame-war about national myths and origins).

There is nothing wrong with people identifying as "American" any more than there is something wrong with someone writing in a census form that their ancestry is "English" rather than "Anglo-Jutish-Saxon-Celto-Roman" or "Italian" rather than "Latin-Etruscan-Greek-Gallo-German" or Rift-Valleyite. Really, I know it's trendy to make fun of people from the American-South but their choice in self-identification makes just as much sense as any other.

Further more, many people in Australia self-identify as unhyphenately Australian and the situation is similar situation in many other areas around the world. For example, Quebecois/Canadiens, African-American, Boers, Taiwanese, Palestinians, Moldovians and Montenegrins are all examples of national self-identifications that have been considered more "artificial" or inferior to another national identity at one point in time (please don't let this start a flame-war about national myths and origins).

I'd entirely agree. If someone's from Australia they're Australian; if they're from America they're American; if they're from Britain they're British. End of story, unless they've naturalised somewhere else. If your ancestors came from somewhere else that might be a point of interest but it doesn't determine your nationality or whatever. What amazes me is that so many people in America know where their ancestors came from and seem to place so much importance upon it; I suppose it's got something to do with its being a fairly new country with not much sense of its own antiquity, so there's a psychological need to lay claim to history/culture/self-identification from other countries. Or something like that.

I'd entirely agree. If someone's from Australia they're Australian; if they're from America they're American; if they're from Britain they're British. End of story, unless they've naturalised somewhere else. If your ancestors came from somewhere else that might be a point of interest but it doesn't determine your nationality or whatever.

I don't think intelligent people from America, Britain or wherever think that their ethnicity determines their nationality. They are aware that people's ethnicity can be different to one's nationality.

I don't think intelligent people from America, Britain or wherever think that their ethnicity determines their nationality. They are aware that people's ethnicity can be different to one's nationality.
:goodjob:

Me, I've got some Junker Prussian in there (from Danzig, no less), some Rhenish German, some English, Irish, Norwegian, French, Dutch, Italian, Greek, Spanish, Swedish, Russian, and even a Sephardic Jew. Silly Europeans, trix are for kids.

:goodjob:

Me, I've got some Junker Prussian in there (from Danzig, no less), some Rhenish German, some English, Irish, Norwegian, French, Dutch, Italian, Greek, Spanish, Swedish, Russian, and even a Sephardic Jew. Silly Europeans, trix are for kids.

Having determined your ethnicities, what is your nationality?

I don't think intelligent people from America, Britain or wherever think that their ethnicity determines their nationality. They are aware that people's ethnicity can be different to one's nationality.

What do you mean by "ethnicity"? If you have an American whose ancestors were English, and another American whose ancestors were German, do you think that those two Americans are of different ethnicity? I thought this discussion was about the nationality of one's ancestors. Surely that isn't the same thing as ethnicity. Isn't ethnicity a matter of one's own culture, or something like that?

What do you mean by "ethnicity"? If you have an American whose ancestors were English, and another American whose ancestors were German, do you think that those two Americans are of different ethnicity? I thought this discussion was about the nationality of one's ancestors. Surely that isn't the same thing as ethnicity. Isn't ethnicity a matter of one's own culture, or something like that?

I mean ethnicity by the ethnicity of your ancestors. May seem like a circular argument, and I suppose to some extent the ethnicity of one person may be from the culture (another loose umbrella term, I know) of their ancestors. For example with your Americans, I would consider the two people both Americans but of different ethnicity due to the different slants of being American - being descended from people who were Germans and were Englishmen.

But if the only relevant difference between them is who their ancestors were, then surely there is no real difference between them at all, is there? I mean, if my ancestors came from France, that's not really a fact about me, it's a fact about them, and it is relevant to my own identity only if there is something about me that comes from that (if I open my presents on Christmas Eve, for example). But if it makes no difference at all to how I live my life then it's completely irrelevant. Similarly, if two Americans are culturally identical to each other then it seems rather odd to say that they have different ethnicities just because their great-great-whatevers lived in different countries. What I'm trying to say is that both ethnicity and nationality - whatever they are, exactly - are to do with you, not with your ancestors. They are completely different things; ethnicity is not a matter of what your ancestors' nationality was, it's a matter of who you are.

I know that really I'm just arguing about the definition of a word here but that doesn't make it unimportant.

But if the only relevant difference between them is who their ancestors were, then surely there is no real difference between them at all, is there? I mean, if my ancestors came from France, that's not really a fact about me, it's a fact about them, and it is relevant to my own identity only if there is something about me that comes from that (if I open my presents on Christmas Eve, for example). But if it makes no difference at all to how I live my life then it's completely irrelevant. Similarly, if two Americans are culturally identical to each other then it seems rather odd to say that they have different ethnicities just because their great-great-whatevers lived in different countries. What I'm trying to say is that both ethnicity and nationality - whatever they are, exactly - are to do with you, not with your ancestors. They are completely different things; ethnicity is not a matter of what your ancestors' nationality was, it's a matter of who you are.

I know that really I'm just arguing about the definition of a word here but that doesn't make it unimportant.

I agree with most of that. However, the only thing I will argue is how one could say that it is inevitable that the culture of your ancestors has imprinted upon in some way, as little mannerisms or patterns of speech or whatever from a particular area have been unconsciously passed on to the next generations, who may now live in a completely different area. Therefore these new generations have characteristics of people in that other area where their ancestors were from, and this undeniable link is perhaps the thing that makes you a German-American, a Spanish-Briton or an Irish-Australian.

Only a theory though.

I suppose that that's possible, but even if is, then those elements of one's culture/language/thought/whatever would surely be negligible after a couple of generations. After all, everyone grows up speaking in the accent of the region they live in, no matter what their parents' accent may be. I couldn't speak with my father's accent if I tried. Of course there's also the fact that after a few generations any such relics of one's ancestors' culture would have been thoroughly diluted and mixed with others. I've heard it said that 75% of English people are descended, in part, from French Huguenot refugees in the seventeenth century, but I doubt that you could find any elements of Huguenot culture (defined as broadly as you like) in the vast majority of English people alive today, partly because everyone has so many other cultural influences which have swamped each other. Similarly, I'm sure there can be no doubt that a Texan who has French grandparents is going to be far, far closer in every meaningful way to a Texan who has German grandparents than he is to a Frenchman. The fact that he's grown up in Texas, the son of people who have also grown up in Texas, will be far more significant to his identity than any lingering elements of Frenchness that may remain. At least, I can't detect any Frenchness to the French-descended Texans that I know!

I've heard it said that 75% of English people are descended, in part, from French Huguenot refugees in the seventeenth century

That's an extradordinary statistic! I found somewhere (on wikipedia, no less) that 25% of Londoners have Huguenot ancestory. Somewhere our statistics don't add up.

Maybe most of the Huguenots went to places other than London...? Actually I should think that London today would have fewer Huguenot-descendants than other places, simply because there has been such huge immigration there since the seventeenth century. According to the 2001 census (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/h.asp), for example, two million out of the seven million Londoners aren't even white, and I should think that a very significant proportion of those who are white are recent economic migrants such as Australians, eastern Europeans, and so on. So the descendants of older waves of immigration, such as seventeenth-century Huguenots, probably are under-represented in London compared to most of the rest of the country. Although I must say that if both of our figures are right then virtually everyone outside London would have to be descended from Huguenots - I'm not sure quite how probable that is. Very industrious people, Calvinists...

As someone who is a 3rd generation "Irish"-American, I can say there are not many things about being Irish that affect me culturally.
However; I would say that there are indeed subtle elements of culture that have been passed on through several generations in America. A good example is the accents of the people of the upper Midwest. Many upper Midwesterners are of Scandinavian decent, but are at least 4th generation American. I would say that their accents are derivative of Scandinavian accents. Just watch the movie Fargo and notice how they say "ya".

I think that food is another minor cultural link Americans may have. You might be exposed to certain dishes by your granparents that come from the old country. Myself being of Irish decent I can say I don't know this first hand, due to the poor culinary tradition of Ireland.

I'm Egyptian by ancestry, but "pure Egyptian" is a contradiction in terms, we've traded with so many people and been conquered so many times that everyone has contributed to our gene pool. I know, however, that my African ancestry (besides the expected Nubian/Sudanese that most Egyptians almost certainly have) is Ethiopian, and I also have Georgian (the country) and Kazakh or Uzbek blood on my father's side, Turkish and Bedouin on my mother's side, and regular old Arabian (non-Bedouin, non-Egyptian) blood on both sides.

For simplicity, I say "Egyptian," since (as I said), most Egyptians have similarly mixed-up ancestries, and the customs of Egypt are very powerful, so pretty much anyone who moves there adopts them after a generation or two. Being the first of my family born in this country (the USA), the connections to Egypt are still strong: I speak Arabic at home and we visit from time to time.

Pure Flemish (which is probably a mixture of everyone in europe ;) )

My dad's side is mostly german ancestory. My mom's has scotish, irish, swiss and german... and somewhere in there is some Native American. Though culturally, I'm probably your typical midwestern American who has no cultural link to any of those ethnicities.