What ancestries do Jewish-Americans declare?

[Domen]

There are several million Jewish-Americans in the USA, including both religious Jews and descendants of Jews, both people of full and just partial Jewish descent. But I could not find any data on "Jewish ancestry" declarations in ancestry question. So I wonder what ancestries do American Jews declare in censuses?

Is such data available somewhere?

It is possible that responses such as "Jewish ancestry" were reported in officially published census data as "religious response".

But in 2000 census only 1,089,597 people were of "religious response" ancestry (graph below). The number of Jewish-Americans is much higher.

 

[gay_Aleks]

My abilities to tell the future by looking at the present tell me that this will backfire in numerous, possibly related ways, without RD.

 

[Domen]

I'm curious because I've recently found a 1937 book on Jewish migrations in the 19th century and until the 1930s.

It seems from data in this book that great majority of Jewish immigration to the USA took place before 1914.

Author gives several figures from different sources on Jewish immigration in partially overlapping periods of time:

In period 1830 to 1930 - 3,060,000 (to North America) including 2,900,000 just to the USA
In period 1881 to 1932 - 2,447,438 (just to the USA)
In period 1899 to 1914 - 1,500,000 (just to the USA) in 1900 - 1914 on average 150,000 annually
In period 1919 to 1932 - 362,693 (just to the USA) including 296,852 in period 1919 - 1925

There were quite a few Jews in the USA also before 1830, already in 1790 they were 0,25% of the population.

And in year 1900 there were in total 1,5 million Americans Jews (in the USA) - according to wikipedia.

But between 1899 and 1914 another almost 1,5 million came (see above).

In the early 1930s (according to data from this 1937 book) there were 4,1 - 4,2 million Jews in the USA.

The USA, the Soviet Union and Poland altogether had ca. 2/3 of all Jews in the world as of the 1930s.

In Palestine there were already 370,000 - 400,000 Jews (around 36% of entire population) in 1936 - 1937.

 

[Borachio]

Does my memory play me tricks, or didn't the US severely restrict immigration after WW1?

edit: Ah, I'm thinking of this. And this.

 

[Agent327]

Indeed. Such restrictions were not even limited to the US. Various Western countries had such restrictions, extending well into the 1930s.

There were quite a few Jews in the USA also before 1830, already in 1790 they were 0,25% of the population.

So less than 1 % of estimated total population amounts to 'quite a few Jews'? I'd call that 'a few Jews'.

 

[Browd]

Well, US population in 1790 was just under 4 million, so 0.25% would be about 10,000.

 

[Domen]

So, perhaps "quite a few" is not such a bad expression to describe 10 thousand people?

According to this data below (from a 2009 Latvian publication "Latgale as a culture borderzone"), 2 million Jews emigrated from the Russian Empire between 1881 and 1914 (Jews and Poles being the most persecuted minorities in the Russian Empire) - surely many of them headed towards North America:


image hosting free no registration

 

[Crackerbox]

Somehow the question in the original post seems odd. It reminds me of the stunning realization by some in my Spanish classes that one could speak Spanish and yet possess any kind of appearance imaginable (as black as midnight or as rubio as Nordic people). It's rather like stating the ancestry of Christianity, Islam, or Buddhism. One can be of any ethnicity and be of all of these religions.

It's kind of like asking the ancestral indentification of atheists.

 

[bhavv]

Surely they're all Russian?

 

[Crackerbox]

Saying one is of Russian ancestry is as odd as saying one is of Japanese ancestry or American ancestry. In history, practically everyone is a mutt of various ethnicities who either came in voluntarily into their locale or were forced there.

Even the Japanese who think of themselves as being singular in ethnicity is a misnomer. Archaeology tells us there's a high chance of Korean immigration very early on. As borders to countries changed in time, then this especially makes little sense. See the Ainu who are from Japan, but certainly not originally in history.

What border of Russia? When in American history? After all, America under the 10,000 tribes of Native Americans? Under the Mestizos and diverse Mexican tribes of Mayans and Aztecs? The diverse ethnicities who came post Columbus and melded with the indigenous? There is no American ancestry just as there is no Jewish ancestry.

Take one of those genetic tests sometime for ancestry, and you might be quite amazed at how diverse your background is despite your appearance today or your families recollection of the last 200 years. While it's been hypothesized that there are seven daughters of Eve and hence seven types of mitochondrial DNA, we don't know definitively, and who remained solely of one of those seven types?

 

[Borachio]

I'm quite surprised anyone records their ancestry on a census form, given the mixed history of such things in the recent past.

To what use does the government put this information? (I suppose there might be some use in knowing what percentage of the population might be liable to sickle-cell anemia, for instance. But this is a pretty marginal use, isn't it?)

I notice too that more than 53 million people agree with me. The largest single block in the pie chart.

 

[Crackerbox]

The release of Census data is really awful. While allegedly it's to help with allocation of tax dollars in order to help minority groups, the information is used to identify people based upon location, and some of the newer questions were such a violation of privacy.

And really with the idea of self-identification, then it becomes meaningless as what percentage of what ethnicity does one say they are that and not this. Which has led in turn to the regressive term of multicultural which makes everyone who gives that answer feel like a mongrel. Definitions either mean such with a high degree of agreement, or they are meaningless.

 

[Domen]

I started this thread because I just wanted to know with what ancestries do Americans who are believers of Judaism self-identify.

I didn't start this particular thread to listen to rants about how all of us are descended from the same group of fish which colonized dry land, etc.

 

[Borachio]

Consider it a bonus, then?

Personally, I'm going with the lung-fish. But it could have been the mud-skippers.

Anyway, it's something to do with the ecology of tidal pools.

 

[Crackerbox]

I started this thread because I just wanted to know with what ancestries do Americans who are believers of Judaism self-identify.

I didn't start this particular thread to listen to rants about how all of us are descended from the same group of fish which colonized dry land, etc.

Feel blessed to get more than a canned identical answer that fails to challenge your assertions. I cannot make it simplier. Just as atheists are without an ancestry as it's a freakin' belief system, one cannot self-identify with any singular place associated with the origins of that belief system.

Are you expecting Jewish-Americans throughout time to claim Israel as their place of ancestry regardless of where they were born or their parents? Do you have that expectation for any other belief system?

Enlighten us as to the proper answer to Atheist-Americans to put down on a census for their ancestry by all means.

 

[Borachio]

It depends on where the particular atheist-american thinks their origins were, doesn't it?

 

[Domen]

Are you expecting Jewish-Americans throughout time to claim Israel as their place of ancestry

But I'm not expecting anything. I just wanted to know what ancestries do they declare without having any a priori expectations.

But - just as a side note - one of your points needs some clarification:

seven types of mitochondrial DNA, we don't know definitively, and who remained solely of one of those seven types?

Everyone has solely one type of mtDNA. Surprising? Not so much. Let me explain - mitochondrial DNA is inherited from the mother, and since you have only one mother, your mitochondrial DNA cannot get mixed or "multicultural" as you called that. Same refers to your Y-chromosome, the difference being that you inherit it from your father (and each person also has just one father, so you inherit "pure" Y-chromosome all the time - it cannot get mixed).

What you are looking for, on the other hand, is autosomal DNA - all the remaining chromosomes, the rest of your genome.

This is what you inherit from all your ancestors in all lineages, so it can get mixed. But mtDNA and Y-DNA - no, they can't.

Take one of those genetic tests sometime for ancestry, and you might be quite amazed at how diverse your background is

Remember to order the test for autosomal DNA - if you order just mtDNA and Y-DNA (see above), then you won't find much diversity.

Anyway - I am still not convinced that the most interesting thing about ancestry is deoxyribonucleic acid.

Moreover - your DNA won't always tell you in which part of the world did your ancestors live, which ethnic group or nation they were part of.

For example if your ancestors were Jews from Germany, it is well possible that they had DNA typical for the Middle East or Southern / Eastern Europe, and not for Germany. So a DNA test will tell you that your ancestors lived in the Middle East or Southern / Eastern Europe, and not in Germany. Etc., etc.

DNA will also not always tell you about national identity of a person, his or her ethnic affiliation, religion, culture, and language he or she spoke.

A classic geneaology tree is better, but of course it has some limitations - because it only allows you to investigate recent generations.

 

[Domen]

A case from another forum:

This Dutch guy ordered a test for Y-DNA ancestry - he posted his photo:

And the result that they sent him back was surprising - Sub-Saharan, E1b1a (map):

Variant E1b1a8a (most common in Nigeria).

But then he ordered a test for autosomal DNA.

The result was much different - ca. 98% European, ca. 1% Sub-Saharan African, ca. 1% Asian.

So he is just 1/100 Sub-Saharan overall, despite having a Sub-Saharan derived Y-chromosome.

What it means is probably that one of his great-great-great-great-great grandfathers was Sub-Saharan.

And he inherited his Y-DNA from that guy. But it is only 1 among up to 128 of his g-g-g-g-g grandparents.

Does it mean that he should now declare Nigerian ancestry in censuses ???

People self-identify with what they think was the most numerous group of their ancestors, or most important to them.

 

[Domen]

Remember to order the test for autosomal DNA - if you order just mtDNA and Y-DNA (see above), then you won't find much diversity.

Anyway - I am still not convinced that the most interesting thing about ancestry is deoxyribonucleic acid.

Moreover - your DNA won't always tell you in which part of the world did your ancestors live, which ethnic group or nation they were part of.

For example if your ancestors were Jews from Germany, it is well possible that they had DNA typical for the Middle East or Southern / Eastern Europe, and not for Germany. So a DNA test will tell you that your ancestors lived in the Middle East or Southern / Eastern Europe, and not in Germany. Etc., etc.

DNA will also not always tell you about national identity of a person, his or her ethnic affiliation, religion, culture, and language he or she spoke.

A classic geneaology tree is better, but of course it has some limitations - because it only allows you to investigate recent generations.

A simple DNA test also definitely won't tell you what was your ancestor's profession.

Which, however, in some cases might turn out to be an advantage:


Link to video.

Spoiler :

It is better if they sent you a genetic test result saying "Viking", instead of "son of a Viking hooker".

 

[Crackerbox]

Yeppy. My point is no one is solely throughout time strictly of one kind of ancestry regardless of what we test for. Human beings self-identify because of choice to what "ancestry" means. It's why it's a completely meaningless term as it's not objective at all.

And if you live in America in postmodern times, a time of philosophical estrangement from identification of Self to groups anyway, then it's particularly mind numbing to try to discern what people chose to identify to. Postmodern Americans don't act that way for the most part. They identify with some aspect of some political, spiritual, cultural, social, ancestral group because some tiny sliver of belief of some aspect of that agrees with their outlook. It's not like this is the modern period in which groups solely claimed identity due to one of those things.

And it comes back to why would any individual of any belief system claim ancestry to one particular group universally anyway? We're back to what Atheist-Americans should answer...it's that inane an interogative.

And I disagree that it's the majority of their ancestry that is the sole deciding factor for ancestry. In America, some people are wildly proud of their Native American ancestry to such a degree that they will call themselves Native-American even when less than 10% of that ancestry. A person of partial African-American ancestry might think of themselves as African-American (self-identification) when it's less than 25%. I've known Asians-Americans who said, "You know my ancestors in America had a lousy time being considered Americans. I'm just 100% American. I've known others who are just as proud of that ancestry as say an Italian-American or a German-American, and none of them speak the languages of their ethnic ancestors.

It's why the original post really has no simplistic one choice fits all in America.