This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
British Americans article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Two points: "In an historical context, that terminology would be correct." I don't think it would be wise to call one usage "correct", implying that other possibilities are incorrect. For example, I consider myself a British-American even though my British ancestors left England over four hundred years ago; I don't see a clear-cut line where you can say "well, those people have been living somewhere else for exactly 367.58 years, so they're no longer British-Americans but just Americans." Just because my British ancestors left Britain earlier than some other people's doesn't make me any less British, genetically speaking.
Secondly, "Our society tends to believe in hyphenated-Americanism, despite the fact that one's ancestry may date back to the foundations of this nation." This isn't a very Wikipedia-esque sentence for a few reasons. It refers to "our society", meaning "American society", when Wikipedia is a collaborative and international project, so "our society" should not refer to anything but human society as a whole. It would be even better to avoid first and second person pronouns altogether, since their usage depends largely on who is speaking and who is spoken to, things which change all the time as different people read and write articles. I have changed this to read "American society" instead of "our society", but have made no other changes.
I would like to get others' input before deciding how to fix up the rather POV-sounding second paragraph, as I'm not sure how to convert it into more neutral sentences. Livajo 21:21, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This article neglects the French part of Canadian, which is rather equal so much as to be witnessed when one looks at the Coat of Arms of Canada. Louisiana Territory was twice the size of the British colonies in America. I am part French with Anglo-Norman on one side and Norman French on another, so why are the French not seen as British? Does anbody know about the Angevin Empire or Hundred Years' War? Does anybody know that during those older times, a lord in England will likely have holdings in France as well? English claims to the French throne is something you should research. I know my Landed property family's social status in those times( gentry and peerage). They were in the Pilgrimage of Grace, Queen Mary I of England's recusants, Regnans in Excelsis, Gunpowder Plot, Cavaliers and Tory into Jacobitism and also Victorian era followers of Anglo-Catholicism. The Bruce, Balliol, Howard, Stuart, Neville and Percy families figure much into my family's historical encounters. I take it as no surprise that French should be included in this article. Traditional antagonisms must play no part in editing! Canada is the only monarchy in which French people inhabit by a majority of the populace and the Queen of Canada is chiefly in the British monarchy. If the Irish as Catholics don't agree with being considered British, what of French Calvinism having had historical ties to the Anglophile Duke of Burgundy? Never mind that Catholics were the Royalists during the French Revolution and supported by Protestant King George III of Great Britain, over the Huguenot Republicans. I have both ancestors and the French side including the Norman Conquest is 5/8s of my great grandparents's surnames, with another 1/8 being a hybrid English patronymic of a French name. The other 2/8s are a South Saxon and a Danish name. I still consider myself British because of our orientation. My Québécois great grandmother used to have afternoon spots of tea. So, how are the French in either Canada or America somehow exempt from this article? I hope that my information right here is no doubt of the validity in which I speak. One more thing...I expect that if I ever edit this article, that nobody objects to the French included. ScapegoatVandal 04:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You're needlessly or confusingly objecting. I was commenting on a presence of French in British identity, yet you seemingly have ignored everything but the last sentence! Please, I deal with education, not ignorance! You sound trollish. ScapegoatVandal 14:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The two are not mutually exclusive; British and French. That's what my whole paragraph is about! Really and truly, what is your valid argument? Read over the paragraph to find out how you are wrong and not even having a background about Anglo-French relations of any place, whether in Europe or colonies. ScapegoatVandal 15:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you can refute my paragraph, instead of mock it? ScapegoatVandal 16:43, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
These lines seem contradictory:
'British-Americans are the largest ethnic group of Americans, as there are 57.6 million British-Americans and more than 100 million Americans with significant British ancestry.'
'These figures make British Americans one of the largest "ethnic" groups in the U.S. when counted collectively (although the Census Bureau does not count them collectively, as each of the above is a separate ethnic group, that is English or Scottish or Welsh or Scots-Irish; nor does the Bureau include a separate group for Northern Irish people). The Germans and Hispanic are the largest self-reported ethnic groups in the nation.'
Can someone explain how this works? Which is the biggest ethnic group? Kohran 16:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Germans are an ethnic group on their own, that does not include the Danes,Dutch etc...they are nothing to do with Germany...dont know where you got that information from.. The British people's are not the same ethnic group and are just as disticnt as other european countries, but becuase of the strong cultural tie, and they are what makes up Britain today, they can be counted together (As also in the UK). This does not mean that a person doesnt loose ties to their specific country of origin..Scotland and England are Britons but are very disticnt peoples/cultures. Hispania 16:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a category for American-Britons, i.e., US expats who have settled in the UK and/or attained British citizenship.
T. S. Eliot, Henry James, Sam Wanamaker, Larry Sanders, Oona King, Jenny Jerome (mother of Winston Churchill) et al are in this category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.175.82 ( talk) 18:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
The dude was an Englishman, not an American. His work Common Sense was said to be authored by "an Englishman," and he canstantly speaks as an Englishman addressing Americans; not s an American. He was here in revolutionary times, sure, and then he was in France in the early days of their revolution. He's not an American, though he played an important role in American history. Why is he shown as a British American? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.172.224 ( talk) 03:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I think somehow we should include the us census graphs in the article, but they are misleading given that the US south is the area with the greatest concentration and homogeneity of british ancestry. In the census these people largely identify as "American ethnicity" either because they have no connection to the British culture per se or are unaware of thier heritage, however they are typically of predominant British decent. I don't know of anyway to include this scientifically but does anyone have any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.220.146.147 ( talk) 22:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
In previous census's, British in general and English in particular was the overwhelming plurality of every part of the South. West Virginia was over 30% English in the 1980 census. Two thirds of the same people, county-for-county, identified as American in the 2000 census, but given it's the same exact people I think it ought to be mentioned somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.94.47.16 ( talk) 15:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand that why the British Ancestry dropped dramatically from 1980 to 2000?Is it because they died or they chose not to admit that they were British Ancestry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.105.221.120 ( talk) 20:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I think it is improper to call people of ancestry from Northern Ireland British-Americans. All of Ireland used to be part of the United Kingdom, so if those people are British-Americans then so are Irish-Americans descended from people who came here during the Potato Famine. It makes things very confusing. Also Northern Ireland, although it is part of the United Kingdom, is not part of the island of Great Britain, and the people there don't really consider themselves British, the unionists only want to stay because they are afraid of being dominated by the Catholic state in the south, and they like the economic benefits of their connection with Great Britain. I would not call people of northern Irish descent British Americans, it is improper and confusing. -- 76.214.112.50 ( talk) 07:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Can i also Point out that the Term "British" does not just apply to people born on the Island of Great Britain (England/Scotland/Wales)....BUT the whole of the United Kingdom (England,Scotland,Wales,NORTHERN IRELAND, Im from Northern Ireland and im fed up to the back teeth of jumped up people coming onto wikipedia and telling me im "NOT" British of course im bloody well British Im a BRITISH CITIZEN born in a Part of the UK with a BRITISH PASSPORT as well as being a proud Northern Irishman and Being geographically Irish also... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolnaenaes ( talk • contribs) 05:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
This is a english imperialism against Scotland and Walles!!! Nacionality is english, welsh, scot, etc...(are very differents etnic origins; englishs are a anglo-saxon/germanic people and welshs/scots are a celtic/celtiberian people and not a germanic people!!!)!!
Is Brad Pitt really important enough to be featured in a prominent location in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.237.249 ( talk) 22:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I fixed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.33.72.14 ( talk) 01:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I think we need to switch some of these up. Currently we have:
So by race, all white
So obviously we need to replace Paine with an Irish-Welsh black woman whose grandparents immigrated to America in 1800s. Or we could replace a couple pictures at once. I would remove Paine and Madison and perhaps switch Monroe with George Washington. Bette Davis has Welsh ancestry, Ava Gardner has Scots-Irish and Irish, Hillary Rodham Clinton is the granddaughter of Welsh and English immigrants, Drew Barrymore English descent, Halle Berry had an white English grandmother. 20:13, 5 November 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmhermen ( talk • contribs)
Can we please ensure that the statements made in the article text actually matches the references? Case in point, the references refer to people of English descent tending to refer to themselves as 'American' - not Cornish, Welsh, Irish or Scots (all of which are much more 'exciting' than English).
In addition, there is no benefit in highlighting certain nations within Britain as being included (i.e. Cornish) - this is taken as read and doesn't need repetition. 86.142.63.245 ( talk) 00:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi, All.
I was just editing the article's second paragraph, which now reads as follows:
According to American Community Survey in 2009 data, Americans reporting British ancestry are an estimated 40,234,652, 13.0% of the total U.S. population, [1], and they form the third largest European ancestry group, after German Americans and Irish Americans. This is an approx 35% drop from the population figures derived from the 1980 United States Census.
I was going to deal with the paragraph's final sentence, including making sure that the proper term ("percent" or "percentage point") was not confused with its improper cousin. So, seeking the 1980 numbers, I went to " 1980 United States Census" and followed its link to this PDF. So far, I fail to see that the 1980 Census discussed 'British Americans'. I find, in Table 42, on page 34, a breakdown of the American population by ancestry, in which those reporting single ancestry fall into the categories "English" (part of "British", to my mind), "German", "Irish" (another part of "British" to my mind, but apparently not in our article's intro), "Italian", "Polish", and "Spanish", and the three multiple-ancestry groups are "English and other", "German and other", and "Irish and other".
Is there a report of 1980 Census data that says what kinds of ancestry did and didn't make up what our Wikipedia article calls "British"—or has someone writing in our article merely decided that "British" doesn't mean "Irish" (and really means just "English"?)? Not 'accusing' anyone; just trying to figure it out, so we can make this article as good as it can be.
President Lethe ( talk) 01:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
British Americans are citizens of the United States whose ancestry originates wholly or partly in the United Kingdom (England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland). :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.174.68.21 ( talk) 19:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Would someone who is a citizen of both countries but of an ethnicity other than White British be considered a British American? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.19.199.159 ( talk) 06:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi, it struck me there's no German language version of this or English Americans. I intend to do something about it, anyone willing to help? Just ping me. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma ( talk) 09:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I believe that this page would be more historically based in fact, if it also listed the number of British-Irish Americans according to their ancestors' nationality from 1801-1922. I say this because my ancestors were protestant Anglo-Irish who moved from Dublin to Pennsylvania in the mid-1800's. I prefer to identify as British-American because Ireland was part of the U.K. during this time. I don't understand why German-Americans (German, Austrian, Swiss, Volga) are bunched together as a group, whilst the British and Irish are fragmented and devolved into five ethnicities: (English,Welsh,Scottish,Scotch-Irish,Irish)--being about as different genetically to each other as a Bavarian probably is to a Saxon.
Just my two cents, but I would prefer it if "Anglo-Celtic Americans" was the title to this page instead of "British Americans", as "British" is not an ethnicity strictly speaking. The only way the term "British Americans" would rightly suit this page, is if it included the population of immigrants who held British citizenship and were from the area that today constitutes the Republic of Ireland. This would hold up both in terms of national and geographic identity.
Where I live in the Appalachia, a decent portion of my friends listed "Irish" on the census, despite actually being Scotch-Irish. It is also for this reason I believe that some aspects of this page should be reconsidered.-- TheAceOfSpades115 ( talk) 23:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
I was wondering, when exactly did British Americans cease to be a majority in the US? – Illegitimate Barrister ( talk • contribs), 12:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Whoever estimated this population cites Ancestry dot com which is not a reliable source in the first place, and doesn't say anything about 90+ million "British Americans". Jonathan f1 ( talk) 00:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
I am positive that the current population of British American is not that high, there is a population decline for all Euro Americans. I was told that Wikipedia population counts are based on the United States Census Bureau. Linda Keita ( talk) 08:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
british American return 2023 223.39.180.125 ( talk) 23:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are not part of the United Kingdom. It also seems a bit redundant listing Cornwall and Orkney, since they are in England and Scotland, respectively, which have already been listed. Whywhowhere ( talk) 12:49, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't know how relevant this is but some of you may find it interesting. [2]. While the top surnames in the US have (mostly) British Isles origins, a significant fraction of the people who report these names aren't even white. About 30% of people with the surname Smith, for example, aren't white; 41% with the name Johnson aren't white; ~55% of Williams' aren't white; 42% of Browns and 45% of Jones. If you move down the list to names like Jackson: 61% of American Jacksons aren't white and nearly 90% of Americans with the last name Washington are African-American. With a name like Harris -you are equally likely to encounter a non-white Harris as a white one (it's about 50-50 split).
It seems that, for millions of Americans, these names are often the byproducts of colonization and slavery rather than a celebrated heritage. This is reflected in the fact that of the top 10 names with the largest share of the "non-Hispanic white alone" group, all but one appear to be Germanic in origin (p. 5) Jonathan f1 ( talk) 04:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)