Where Are the English-Americans?

Robert Henderson, American Renaissance, January 20, 2012

They are the glue that still holds the country together.

There are Irish-Americans, Scots-Americans, and Scotch-Irish-Americans. There are Polish-Americans, German-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Chinese-Americans, and a host of other hyphenated citizens. Why are there no English-Americans?

England was the cultural mother of the United States, and Englishness is its default culture. Colonists do not come to assimilate into an existing culture but to transplant their own. The English who came to America in the 17th century were intent on creating a world in their own cultural image, though with certain variations, such as different religious regimens.

The English were also the numerically dominant pioneers from the Jamestown settlement of 1607 until the Revolution. At the time of the first US census in 1790, English-descended settlers accounted for 60 per cent of the white population, and the majority of the other whites were from Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. The total population was 3,929,214, of which 3,172,006 were white and 757,208, or 19 percent, were black.

It is possible that English ancestry was downplayed in the 1790 census and for much of the 19th century because of the anti-British feeling caused by the American Revolution and various disputes afterwards such as the War of 1812. If so, the under-recording of English ancestry would have continued though succeeding generations. Whatever figures are correct, it is certain that by 1790 English was the dominant language and the template for American society had been cut.

Most of the colonists considered themselves English. Even the rebels justified rebellion on the ground that they were defending true English liberty that had been usurped by the king. The Declaration of Independence is a catalogue of breaches of what the colonials considered to be their rights as Englishmen.

Edmund Burke recognized the colonists’ demands as English demands.

Those in Britain who were sympathetic to the Americans’ cause had no doubt that the 13 colonies were English creations in spirit as well as blood. In 1775 in the House of Commons, Edmund Burke urged the British government to accept the colonists’ demands because they were based on Englishness:

. . . the people of the colonies are descendants of Englishmen . . . . They are therefore not only devoted to liberty, but to liberty according to English ideas and on English principles. The people are Protestants . . . a persuasion not only favourable to liberty, but built upon it . . . . My hold of the colonies is in the close affection which grows from common names, from kindred blood, from similar privileges, and equal protection. These are ties which, though light as air, are as strong as links of iron. . . . As long as you have the wisdom to keep the sovereign authority of this country as the sanctuary of liberty, the sacred temple consecrated to our common faith, wherever the chosen race and sons of England worship freedom, they will turn their faces towards you.

American history is soaked in Englishness. The prime political texts of the Revolution were written by the Englishmen John Locke and Tom Paine. The Revolution was fought by men whose thinking was rooted in the English political tradition. American law is founded on English common law.

The Constitutional Convention

The American Constitution was designed to correct faults in the British system, not to overthrow it. The Bill of Rights draws inspiration from the English Bill of Rights granted by William of Orange. The American government is a republican copy of the 18th century British system: The President is the equivalent of the King, while the Senate and House of Representatives are equivalents of the Houses of Lords and Commons. It is ironic that the American system has retained something of monarchical and aristocratic principles while that of Britain has remorselessly removed power from King and aristocracy and put it in the hands of the House of Commons, whose members have no formal mandate beyond the representation of their constituents.

English influence is written deeply onto the American landscape. Take a map of the States and see how many place-names are English, even outside the original 13 colonies. The states are divided into counties except for Louisiana, which is made up of parishes, and Alaska, which has boroughs. All of these are English political units. The most iconic American law officer is the sheriff—an English office that derives from “shire reeve.”

American history up until the late 19th century is largely the history of men with English names. Judging only from the names of its most prominent combatants, the American Civil War could have been fought in England. For all these reasons, when the English have emigrated to America over the centuries they have not come to a land they felt was alien or brought with them a sense of victimhood.

How many non-English names can you find in this picture?

To some, the early English predominance may not seem important because of heavy non-Anglo-Saxon immigration from the 18th century onwards. Would not the later immigration swamp the earlier simply because of its scale? The answer is no, because the numbers of non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants were always small compared to the existing population, and the general culture strongly reflected that of the original English.

Immigrants generally adopt at least some of the social and cultural coloring of the native population. Where there is no racial barrier to assimilation and no strong ethnic/religious identity like that of the Jews, assimilation is often complete within two or three generations.

It is worth noting that the English are not the only missing hyphenated Americans. There are no Canadian-, Australian-, or New Zealand-Americans. This is probably because they are from societies that derive from England, too; there is very little besides accent to distinguish them from the mainstream, and even that is gone in a generation. (In Maine, there are French Canadians with a distinct identity that has been held together by language.)

This raises the question of why the non-English Britons—most notably the Scots and the Irish—have self-consciously maintained their hyphenated status. It is probably because they felt themselves to be peoples who were subject to England and who bore a grudge against England. It is worth adding that Americans who call themselves Scots-American or Irish-American today are indistinguishable from American-Americans in everything except for a sentimental attachment to their Celtic ancestry and a residual polishing of an historical victimhood.

The English are a significant demographic group to this day. The 1980 census showed that 26.34 percent of the white American population reported English ancestry (49,598,035). German heritage was just behind at 26.14 percent, followed by Irish (21.33 percent), French (6.85 percent), Italian (6.47 percent), and Scottish (4.34 percent). How many readers would have known that French heritage was more common than Italian or Scottish?

The census no longer collects official information on the European ancestry of whites. It is too busy classifying Hispanics as Nicaraguans, Dominicans, Colombians, etc. However, the Census Bureau does conduct something called a Community Survey, that is supposed to gather this information, and for 2008 we find something very surprising: The number of Americans claiming English heritage (9.0 percent of the total population) has fallen well behind those claiming to be German (16.5 percent) and Irish (11.9 percent).

What is going on? Millions of English-descended people cannot have suddenly vanished. Nor have there been millions of German and Irish immigrants in the last 30 years. There are several possible explanations. First, because they are of the founding culture, those with English ancestry simply think of themselves as Americans. And, indeed, according to the 2008 Community Survey, we find that 5.9 percent of the population simply considered itself “American,” a category that was not tabulated in the 1980 census. Many of those “Americans” are probably of English heritage.

Second, since the English are the oldest group, their European ancestry is more distant than that of other ethnic groups. Children whose parents came from England 10 generations ago are not going to grow up hearing much about the Old Country. At the same time, any sense of English ancestry probably diminishes when an American of English descent marries someone from a more recently arrived ethnic group. A child who has one parent who is a 10th-generation English-American and another who is a second-generation Italian-American is likely to hear more about Italy than England in the home.

There is also the temptation in an age of ethnic politics for people to claim an ancestry that they think most advantageous. The English in America do not make a fuss about being English, while other groups do, and people are drawn to groups that seek attention. An interesting example of this is the number of American presidents who claim Irish ancestry, not matter how tenuous.

There is also the pressure of political correctness that casts WASPs (into which category almost all English-Americans would fall) as an abusive, exploitative group. That may discourage some from identifying as English.

American surnames continue to show a strong American connection to England. In 2000, the US Census Bureau reported that the top ten most common names were, in order,

Smith, Johnson, Williams, Brown, Jones, Miller, Davis, Garcia, Rodriguez, and Wilson. Eight of these are British.

Above all other cultural influences stands the English language. Bismarck thought that the fact that America spoke English was the most significant political fact of his time. At a more fundamental level, the fact that most Americans speak English as their first language—at least for now—means that their thought processes will be broadly similar to that of the English. Language is the ultimate colonization of a people.

Moreover, the English spoken by the majority of Americans is still very much the English of their forebears. It is, for example, far less mutated than the English spoken in India or Nigeria. Oscar Wilde’s aphorism that “America and England are two countries divided by a common language” was witty but at variance with reality.

There is a special relationship between England and America but it is not the one politicians prate about. It is a relationship rooted in history and culture. American culture is an evolved Englishness. Much has been added superficially, but it is still remarkably and recognizably English. The expression “English-American” would therefore be tautological.

Let us imagine a United States in which every citizen was hyphenated, one in which no group was without of a sense of victimhood. All that would be left was racial and ethnic competition. There would be no stability or sense of social cohesion. The English-descended and English-assimilated part of the population that sees itself as simply American is the ballast that holds their society upright. It is the group with no grievances, with no ethnic axe to grind, and that endlessly submits to discrimination and dispossession. That will eventually change, as whites see their most basic interests threatened, but it is the forbearance of American-Americans that allows the United States to continue to function.

What would happen if English culture is ever eclipsed or overwhelmed? First, the most characteristic American values, such as the rule of law and personal liberty, would be unlikely to survive. The lands from which most immigrants are coming do not distinguish themselves in that respect. Second, given the immense diversity of immigration, no new race or culture would be likely to dominate. American society could fracture for the reasons John Stuart Mill identified long ago in On Liberty:

Among a people without fellow-feeling, especially if they read and speak different languages, the united public opinion, necessary to the working of representative government, cannot exist. The influences which form opinions and decide political acts are different in the different sections of the country. An altogether different set of leaders have the confidence of one part of the country and of another. The same books, newspapers, pamphlets, speeches, do not reach them. One section does not know what opinions, or what instigations, are circulating in another. The same incidents, the same acts, the same system of government, affect them in different ways; and each fears more injury to itself from the other nationalities than from the common arbiter, the state.

Their mutual antipathies are generally much stronger than jealousy of the government. That any one of them feels aggrieved by the policy of the common ruler is sufficient to determine another to support that policy. Even if all are aggrieved, none feel that they can rely on the others for fidelity in a joint resistance; the strength of none is sufficient to resist alone, and each may reasonably think that it consults its own advantage most by bidding for the favour of the government against the rest. [John Stuart Mill, On Liberty and Other Essays, 1861, “Considerations on Representative Government,” Chapter 16: Of Nationality, As Connected with Representative Government.]

John Stuart Mill understood the importance of “fellow feeling.”

The eventual political shape of any multi-racial state is likely to be some form of authoritarianism, even if the forms of representative democracy are retained—just as the form but not the substance of the Senate was retained under the Roman Empire. Such a state will always be unstable, for while nations last indefinitely, empires always fall.

Unhyphenated Americans, whether of English descent or not, must defend the way of life that starts with English roots. They should reflect on how American society was created and by whom, and consider what it would mean if the customs and institutions of its founding culture are thrown over.

Hegel noted that changes in quantity can lead to changes in quality, and this principle can be readily applied to human societies. If immigrants radically different in race or culture come into a homogeneous society they will have little effect at first because their numbers are small. But as their numbers increase there will come a point where there are enough immigrants and their descendants to overthrow the native culture. Quantity will have forced a qualitative change. That is the very real danger the United States faces.

Topics: , ,

Share This

Robert Henderson
Robert Henderson studied history and politics at Keele University in England. He blogs at Living in a Madhouse and England Calling.
We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Anonymous

    “How many non-English names can you find in this picture?”

    Stuart (Scottish)
    Early (Irish in origin)
    Polk (Scottish)
    Johnston (Scottish)
    Beauregard (French/Louisiana Creole)
    Jackson (usually Scottish, in his case, its Ulster Scot)
    Price (Welsh)

    In addition to that,  President Davis was of Welsh origin.

    Not in quarrel with your main point, of course. 

    • Guest

      Early is actually English in origin, more specifically from Berkshire.

      Three of the Scottish surnames you list, Polk, Johnston and Jackson originate in the Anglo-Saxon portion of Scotland south of Edinburgh as well. Polk and Johnston are phonetically Scottish versions of English names, Pollack and Johnson. The Scottish version of Jack is Jock, and there is no name such as Jockson. While the name Stuart is definitely Scottish, it is not Gaelic but is an occupational surname.

      • Anonymous

        Early has a dual possible origin, as do several of the other names, I only selected those where the non-English origin is the more common one.  That is true in the case of Early.

        The question wasnt what names arent ‘Anglo Saxon’ (a rather dubious claim to make about south Scotland) but whether or not they were English. Jackson’s family originated from Ulster, and was certainly of a Scottish origin.  In fact, in the course of my own work, I have rarely come across a Jackson that wasnt Ulster Scots or plain Scottish in origin.  

        I am a genealogist by profession,  early American South and the British Isles being my specialties.

        • polecat

          Don’t know where you get your information from but Jackson is an English name extremely common in my home county of Yorkshire.

        • Michael Byrne

          Anglo saxons called themselves the englisc and rarely ever anglo saxon which was a later term used by archaeologists and historians

        • Michael Byrne

          Many norman names are germanic anyway robert william hugh hubert and richard are of germanic origin and many had similiar names in old english. Ine of wessex describes the germanic inhabitants of britain as english in the 7th century in documents and bede uses the terms anglecynn and englisc at the opposite end of the country at the same date

    • Michael Byrne

      Think the confusion is the actual linguistic origin of a surname is and where it was found so it can be found in Scotland in a geographical sense but be from an old english tradition. There were already anglo saxons living in south scotland add to that the Harrying of the North. So loads of englisc names are found in scotland grey stewart/stuart, smith etc

  • Anonymous

    English-Canadian-American here!  (My great-great-great-grandparents came from England, went to Canada, and eventually my branch found its way into Michigan.)

    Though I think one of them was Scottish.  Is Milne a Scottish name…how about Holland?

    • .

      Milne is Scottish. Holland is most likely British. Probably English but possibly Scottish, Irish or Dutch. Holland can also be Jewish but it’s unlikely.

      • Anonymous

        Thanks.  One of my hobbies is genealogy and it’s always interesting to see where names came from.

  • the_world_is_all_that_is_theca

    I often wonder why Americans take it for granted that it was a “good thing” that “they” won the war of independence. After all, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, all of which, to this day, are still oppressed by the tyrannical Queen Elizabeth II, are perhaps the best places in the world to live.  I am sure there have been plenty of Americans who have emigrated to these places (as well as the UK itself) and therefore willingly made themselves subjects of the Crown.

    • Anonymous

      But if we hadn’t set the precedent by revolting first, they would still have Royal Gouvernors appointed overseas, instead of elected locally.

      • DNACowboy

        If the US had waited a short while they would have won their indepedence just like Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the rest have. Indepedence was ALWAYS the plan for English colonies once they could defend and support themselves. The recent Indian and French Wars showed that was not yet possible, wars English taxpayers paid for not the colonists, yet when we asked for help to pay the bill the colonists rebelled. As for Governors appointed overseas all they do is represent the Crown in Commonwealth matters, not to interfere or lord it over the locals.

        • Marie Shanahan

          Hate to remind you of this but the Americans were never against paying taxes to recover from that war. We were very much for it. The rebellion occurred when we were denied a voice in Parliament when things were being carved out as to how. This, along with a string of insults that made us aware of a very deep, disrespect made things “boil over.” Americans were never opposed to paying taxes. And when England defended against the French and Indians, they were defending THEIR OWN TERRITORY. They, obviously, did not send troops out of the “goodness of their hearts.” LOL 🙂

    • Anonymous

      Actually, unlike in Canada or England, which have prosecuted people for “hate speech” recently, (see Mark Steyn, Micheal Savage, and Geert Wilders) the US’s 1st amendment guarantees the strongest free speech protections in the world.  Rebellion was a wonderful thing, both then and now.

      • Anonymous

        Well said.  The amazing speed and nonchalant manner they displayed in dumping Double Jeopardy for the sake of a unremarkable murder of a black man (Stephen Lawrence) makes me all the more happy of our separation.  And what do you know – the White British offshoot of the UK, Australia, followed suit with the same tyrannical ‘revision’.  I cant imagine New Zealand and Canada are far off. 

    • Anonymous

      It’s called freedom. Our Founders set up a government and constitution that surpassed any other nation’s.  We didn’t want to be controlled by a monarchy.  A monarchy where a person is only a leader because of birth and never leaves office until death. No thanks.

    • Anonymous

      Yes, fair point, Australia, etc. are wonderful places to live and still part of the Commonwealth.

      Don’t forget, however, that Bangladesh, Cameroon, Ghana, Lesotho, Malawi, Rwanda and Sierra Leone among others are also in that club. Want to live there?

      My point is that joining the club or staying in it wasn’t a guarantee of success.

    • Wouldn’t it be a “good thing” to not be “still oppressed by the tyrannical Queen Elizabeth II”. Seems like the answer is in the question. As for those places being “the best places in the world to live”…I’m sure their could be a pretty good argument against that. Just look at the news page of AmRen. All those countries are multicultural disasters also.

  • What happened to the English in America?  The best answer is that they’re intermingled among a lot of other white ethnics.  For instance, I’m an ethnic mutt, dominantly German-English-Czech-Italian.

    Also, while the most common surnames are English, ethnic immigrants changed their ethnic sounding surnames to similar English sounding ones generations ago.  For instance, a lot of the “Millers” today were “Mueller” originally.  Someone we’ve all heard of:  The original Limbaugh (as in Rush) family name going back to Germany is Limbach.

    • Anonymous

      You’re exactly right.  Not many Americans can trace their ancestry back to 1 country unless they recently immigrated.  As for me, I’ve an English surname (which can be traced back to ancestors that fought in the Revolutionary War for the colonists) but also German, French, Irish, and a very little native Indian blood.  I identify as 100% (non hyphenated American) who proudly speaks English.

      • Mike Byrne

        Difference is the english were the dominant group who people measured thenselves against andemulated but all those english settlers including the 6million who migrated in the 19th century didnt disappear they were absorbed or people thought they are americans. Theres no way that later groups swamped them

  • Prof Fraser

    Mr Henderson might be interested in my book entitled: The WASP Question: An Essay on the Biocultural Evolution, Present Predicament, and Future Prospects of the Invisible Race.
    “The WASP Question” deals with the question of Anglo-Saxon life in the
    United States, Australia and everywhere across the world where they have
    settled. Having for the most part lost a sense of their own ethnic
    identity in a time of increasing globalism and international
    multiculturalism which values nearly every culture except their own, the
    ‘WASPs’ – White Anglo-Saxon Protestants – are alternatively mocked,
    attacked and ignored in their own lands. Professor Fraser addresses the
    many questions involved in the matter with impeccable erudition and
    proposes possible solutions for the future. Constitutional and legal
    history, evolutionary biology and Christian theology all come into play
    as Fraser tackles one of the most burning questions of our time. As an
    analysis of the problems, and possible way forward, faced by a European
    ethnic group, the book will be of interest to anyone concerned about the
    fate of not just the Anglo-Saxons, but any specific cultural and racial
    identity in the postmodern, multicultural age. Andrew Fraser studied
    both law and history in Canada and the United States. After moving to
    Australia, he taught legal history and constitutional law at Macquarie
    University in Sydney.”

  • I am probably 33% English. Does that count? 😉

  • .

    I’m tired of people who don’t know what they’re talking about claiming that English are “not a pure race”. English have a small amount of admixture but they’re not some  celtic /nordic hybrid. They’re overwhelmingly the same people they were 10K years ago. Read “Blood of the Isles” by Bryan Sykes, former Professor of Human Genetics at the University of Oxford and a current Fellow of Wolfson College.

    • Bon, From the Land of Babble

      My mother and her family suffer from Dupuytren’s disease (DD) which is an inherited condition that causes a crippling contraction and disfigurement of the pinky and ring fingers of the hand.  My mother refused hand surgery and over time her hands and fingers became completely deformed from DD.

      Both Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher had DD and opted for hand surgery (which allows one to straighten the fingers on his hands, but does not cure the condition).  My mother was told the surgery was iffy and not always successful.

      The gene that causes DD has been traced to Norway and DD is often referred to as “The Viking Disease.”  It is believed that the Vikings spread DD as they invaded various areas throughout Northern Europe and elsewhere.  Vikings were present in Scotland for 500 years and since the 15th century the flexed fingers of adult male bagpipers have been known as “the curse of the MacCrimmons.”

      In a Norwegian study of 15,950 citizens, DD was present in 10.5% of men and in 3.2% of women. The incidence in Sweden is matched in Edinburg. Two different studies by James and Ling in Scotland showed such a high family incidence that DD was described as inherited through a single autosomal-dominant gene of variable penetrance.

      I keep an eye on my own hands and so far (knock on wood) I haven’t had any contraction of the palms of my hands or fingers or on the soles of my feet, which can also be affected by DD.

      I wouldn’t wish this crippling hand condition on anyone.


      • Mike Byrne

        Sorry how do you make the assumption it is viking? The norse belong to loads of haplogroups and subclades

      • Michael Byrne

        There evidence of a shared celtic culture which doesnt imply genetic similarities or even linguistic ones. I found my surname is most likely to be L21 R1b which is common across britain and ireland and many areas around doggerland. No genetics is implied on culture and culturally actually ireland doesnt vary

      • Michael Byrne

        Allegiances swapped in tribes all the time so a person of one haplogroup could be absorbed into a tribe and forget about their allegiance to his/her previous tribe quite quickly. They wouldnt of even known what haplogroup they were anyway. Ireland being further away from Europe just received less varieties in groups and the groups that did arrived mixed more thoroughly and less variety also means theres more likelihood one group dominates especially if that group was in the majority anyway. Irish kings had a big say. In britain although kings dominated they didnt so genetically in each village there was more variety and many surnames come from a variety of sources placenames, occupations etc not simply clan lines like in ireland not saying some lines arent from other sources though in ireland and nicknames. So in ireland a surname goes back to one male root whereas in britain a variety of roots for the same name can be found in different parts of the country too. When a population is fixed its often hard to change

      • Michael Byrne

        In that sense ‘germanic’ and ‘celtic’ differs irish surnames can be traced to one man in one area not the same in germanic countries although certain names are unique and do come from a specific area although not all to one guy

    • Mike Byrne

      I agree but What exactly is european admixture. Europeans are mainly r1b and r1a and i haplogroup but most in every european ethnic group are a mix of these subclades of these main groups. The irish and brits are mainly l21 so genetically are mainly from one groups but even the irish are l21 s28 u106 etc but most came from the original repopulators. Theres no way anyone can ake an assumption r1a equals viking etc. These subclades were there before anglo saxons celts viking romans etc got there. The culture and language has just changed. They were there before ancient british tribes forned the irish are not celts they may speak celtic and be culturally celtic but the original celts spoke germanic

  • Anonymous

    The British Empire was the most enlightened in history. The legacy of that empire everywhere but in Africa has been representative democracy, and reasonably well functioning economies. 

    The British Empire in Africa ended several centuries too early. 

  • Bardon Kaldian

    Generally, true. I’d add just a few historical trivia. For instance, the English emerged from fusion of triumphant  Norman French & conquered Anglo-Saxons. The very mid- and modern English language is the testament to this, with 50% Romance/Latin vocabulary & very analytical, low inflection grammar (unlike, say, German or Danish). Don’t forget that the first post-1066. English king whose mother tongue wasn’t French had been Henry IV in the 15th century (of the Agincourt battle fame). Now this fusion seems something natural & seamless, but the 11th-12th centuries had been tragic for flowering Anglo-Saxon culture & England’s people, dispossessed if not displaced. The major part of Anglo-Saxon aristocracy fled, some as far as the Byzantine Empire. In fact, it’s a miracle that English language survived – albeit radically altered (try read “Beowulf”) – and emerged as the common language after centuries of Norman French yoke (this may sound pathetic, but it is in the realm of possible that language spoken in British Isles now could have very well been – French). Also, the English legal system & parliamentary democracy (Simon de Monfort) have been formed during Norman period. So, the lesson is- yes, the “natives” can be “replaced” or dispossessed. Shakespeare’s portrayal of the English as the “happy breed” wouldn’t have resonated with his Anglo-Saxon forebears of the 1100s and their tragic exodus. It was the passage of time & historical events (the 100 yrs war) that healed the wounds & amalgamated the conquered & the victors into a new “alloyed nation”.
    Of course, such processes are impossible in modern world of formed identities, universal literacy, modern global civilization etc. In the case of the US the threat to the formed identity is racial (non-White immigration) & cultural-racial (non-assimilable Castillan speaking Hispanics from Latin America) 

  • Bardon Kaldian

    And, as for future, I think- and this may, in some respects, sound bizarre & unacceptable, but, never mind: the US can survive as the true prosperous nation if three basic traits remain dominant: racial (White European race) & cultural (common English language and cultural Christian & diluted Judaic heritage). The US cannot remain recognizable, let alone affluent if the racial make-up is changed radically, with European Whites becoming ca. 50% of the population (or less). Also, cultural-religious identity cannot become significantly Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist – it’s cultural paradigm shift this society wouldn’t survive.
    But, as far as many English cultural traits are concerned, they can be dumped without much harm, even those that seem so American that the US is unimaginable without them: the US would have thrived as well with civil law instead of common law; with metric system of weights & measures; with soccer instead of American football (hahahah..), with continental instead of analytic philosophy (oh well, they’re both boring & insignificant),.. More, except for Anglophiles, many- or even the majority ?- Whites don’t have sentimental connection to England (or Britain). The 18th and 19th centuries & their traits of strong acculturation (surname changing etc.) are gone, irreversibly. What, as the core of American identity should remain are the English language, White race & Western culture. The rest is negotiable.

  • Anonymous

    If only we had not bought those Africans to this country!

    • Anonymous

      Slavery was our original sin. Southern whites should have grown their own cotton. 

  • Anonymous

    England was generally a place to leave or from which to be banished. That does not tend to become a source of pride or self-ascribed identity.

    • Lord Beermonster

      Ridiculous argument. EVERY country from which Americans migrated was a place from which they were either banished or left voluntarily. Not just England.

      • Anonymous

        Only “ridiculous” when you don’t get it. I see Celtic or Aryan pride, but not so much English pride unless elitism.

        • Lord Beermonster

          There’s plenty of English pride, particularly in England. This is a justified honouring of the efforts and achievements of generations of English people, nothing to do with “elitism”. This pride and self-respect exists despite the best efforts of the ruling ‘elite’, cultural Marxists, who denigrate and disparage English history and English culture at every opportunity, particularly the English ‘working class’, and despite the fact that England is being economically and culturally trashed.

          The lack of English pride on the part of Americans of English descent, still the largest ‘ethnic minority’ in the United States, is largely because of the reasons stated in the above article. Perhaps you’d like to read the article before commenting? Reasons nothing to do with the spurious ‘fact’ that England specifically, unlike every other country on the planet by your implication, “was generally a place to leave or from which to be banished”. 

          • Anonymous

            I am not aware of anyone in the US openly celebrating being English. It’s okay but just not a point anyone seems to bother mentioning. Perhaps I missed it but am not young or sheltered.

  • Bardon Kaldian

    Hahha…I’m not sure what to make of it. Royal. Hmmmm…so, why the English, after the extermination of their own homegrown dynasty in 1066. have always had a tad “foreign” monarchs: Norman French (Plantagenets etc. until the 15th cent.), Welsh Tudors, then Scottish Stuarts, then Dutch Orange couple, and, finally, from early 1700s, various Germans (Hannoverians, Saxe-Coburg, now Windsor  etc.) If, on the other hand, “royal” is something metaphorical, aiming at supposed dignity & self-restraint-this is a post-Enlightenment way of behavior.
    “Very good looking”. Joke, I suppose.

    Simply, the English, after their formation during 14-15 centuries had been- lucky, Shake’s “happy breed”.  I’m the last person on earth to question marvelous English & British achievements (Occam, Bacon, Shakespeare, Newton, Boole,  Cavendish, Purcell,  Turner, Locke, Stephenson, Dalton,  Hamilton, Thomson, Darwin, Faraday, Milton, Keats, George Eliot, Lister,  ….)- but I doubt what would have happened had English lost more than 50% of their populace-  crushing blows of destiny that befell, among high achieving nations, Jews, Germans, Russians and Chinese.

  • Bon, From the Land of Babble

    What would happen if English culture is ever eclipsed or overwhelmed? First, the most characteristic American values, such as the rule of law and personal liberty, would be unlikely to survive. 
    I don’t think the importance of this can be understated or underestimated.  Power-hungry politicians in the US and England are doing everything in their power to undermine, change or “re-interpret” British Common Law and the US Constitution to suit their own ends — the end and destruction of Western Civilization.  Unfortunately, the tyrants are succeeding.
    There will be no going back.

    As Scotsman018 noted above, with amazing speed and in a nonchalant manner, 800 years of British Common Law, The Double Jeopardy Rule, was swept aside in the recent Lawrence case, instigated by treacherous then-Home Secretary, Jack Straw.

    Double Jeopardy, the rule against trying anyone twice for the same crime, is essential and absolute for liberty. 

    Without the Rule of Law, no one is safe anywhere, ever.

    Let me repeat that, con brio:

    Without Rule of Law, No One is Safe Anywhere, Ever.

    Dr. Sean Gabb explains in Britain Must Weep for Stephen Lawrence—or Else! But Not For Richard Everitt (Who?)


    Jack Straw set up an enquiry under William Macpherson, a retired judge. Published in 1999, the Macpherson Report unveiled the concept of “institutional racism,” and made various recommendations, including a dangerously broad definition of a racial incident as ‘any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person.’ 

    The Macpherson Report also suggested that the men acquitted in the Lawrence case should be retried, once the little matter of the 800-year-old double jeopardy rule had been swept aside.

    The law was accordingly changed, by the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Acquittals could now be overturned for murder if ‘significant new evidence’ of guilt could be found.
    Could be manufactured is more like it.

    This has opened a door to “re-interpret” every aspect of British Common Law, and I expect a LOT more of this is on the horizon.  Again, there will be no going back.


  • Anonymous

         The English-Americans have no identity because the English themselves have no identity.
         The English foisted on the Irish, the Scots, and the Welsh the idea that all four were British, which was only a strategem for the English to dominate them all. Well, the Irish have left, the Scots are about to, and the Welsh will not be far behind. These three nations have their own languages and music, and can stand on their own as the independent cultures that they are.
         The challenge for the English, and the English-Americans, is to address the fact that they have no ethnic culture.  NASCAR is not culture.
         I can, and do, go out to listen to live performances of Irish and Scots – ie., white – music: WHERE DO I GO TO HEAR ENGLISH MUSIC? 

    • Bardon Kaldian

      Don’t be so harsh on the English. Look what Orwell had said (forget about Socialism in the title & focus on other things): http://orwell.ru/library/essays/lion/english/

    • polecat

      Sorry to disappoint you but this is a misconception bandied about by anglophobes such as yourself. Ordinary English people are extremely proud to be so and they do have their own culture but it is not being continually rammed down other peoples throats as with maudlin celtic culture. English music is alive and well in Appalachia and not celtic music which is so often falsely claimed.

  • Anonymous

    The historical role of empires has been to impose civilization on barbarians and savages. Civilization exerts different population pressures than a paleolithic or a neolithic existence. Men with the intelligence to become merchants, money lenders, government officials, artists and so on live better lives than laborers. Consequently they have more children who survive and reproduce. The criminals justice system of civilized nations gradually removes those with criminal inclinations from the gene pool.
    Population groups that have practiced urban living longer tend to have higher IQs and lower crime rates than those who have been more recently introduced.
    Human characteristics that liberals believe are innate in all humans are found more in some population groups than in others. They are the result of centuries and even thousands of years of evolutionary processes liberals dislike thinking about. 
    I do believe that if the European – and particularly the British – empires had lasted much longer in Africa the effect on African Negro evolution would have been beneficial, as was the effect of the Roman Empire on European Caucasian evolution. 

    • Anonymous

      On what do you base your statements?

      It is a fact that the Roman Empire has introduced a huge welfare-state (bread and circuses) that allowed degenerated and stupid people to multiply while the “real Romans” (patricians) died out because they loved luxury more than family.

      An empire might have some short-term beneficial effects, but in the long run it always leads to moral, genetic and political degeneration.

      • Anonymous

        In “The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution,” University of Utah professors Gregory Cochran and Henry Harpending argue that human evolution has accelerated during the past ten thousand years because the human species has grown dramatically, and a large gene pool evolves faster than a small gene pool because there is more scope for beneficial mutations. 
        Professors Cochran and Harpending also argue that civilization rewards intelligence while penalizing aggressiveness. They suggest that the findings of Greek scientists during the ancient world were not developed upon because the European intelligence had not evolved sufficiently to appreciate them, but that by the time of the Italian Renaissance, which is to say after the achievements of the Roman Empire, enough people lived in Europe who had the intelligence to build on those achievements.  http://www.amren.com/ar/2009/05/index.html   The European tribesmen conquered by the Romans had practiced agriculture for several thousand years, but the Romans built roads, aqueducts, and cities where none had existed before.  
        On pages 111 to 113 the authors write, “Since the elites were in a very real sense raising peasants, just as peasants raised cows, there must have been a tendency for them to cull individuals who were more aggressive than average, which over time would have changed the frequencies of those alleles that induced such aggressiveness…
        “strong governments made possible by agriculture essentially ‘tamed’ people.” 

  • Anonymous
  • White infrastructure  is not only the fabric that binds Western Civilization, it is the foundation of all civilization. That simple but substantial truth is missing from our national dialog. 

    As the Eurosphere morphs into a multicultural mesh, the benefits of the White infrastructure will become increasing evident; at least to those unencumbered by the delusions fostered on us by advocates of diversity. When disabled (or destroyed) that infrastructure will no longer be capable of sending aid to Africa. There will be no more pleas from Feed the Children to aid little brown children in foreign lands. There will be no more cash bailouts for regions suffering from ethnic undertow. Affirmative Action will become moot. Section 8 Housing will be unfunded. Civilization will retract into a new dark ages, but without the prospect of a future renaissance.   

    The sum of it all: The short-shortsightedness of diversity fails to acknowledge that to destroy the White infrastructure is to destroy the masses of non-Whites who depend upon it for survival.  

  • Bardon Kaldian

    I’m not talking about “genetics”, but “culture”. Of course English did exist before Hastings (Alfred the Great etc.), but French speaking Normans definitely altered English proto-national “being” as it existed prior to Norman conquest (and it was not exclusively Norman, since other French warriors/plunderers took part in it & in later settlements). Simply, Norman conquest was the watershed: cultural, linguistic & legal some other peoples- Italians or French- had not passed through. In short, the English people before the conquest & those ca. 200 or so yrs after it had been profoundly changed- similar to Russians under Mongol yoke. Of course, English remained a Germanic language, but French/Romance/Latin influence on grammar & vocabulary has been so strong that it just cannot be put in the same category of language continuity & “purity” as German or Swedish (let alone Icelandic).

    It’s not good or bad, it just- is. 

    • Mike Byrne

      They didnt! The english nation already existed before normans and so did englisc identity. The normans simply adopted. Theres no evidence they wanted to destroy it. As fir norman french words – btw hundreds of french wirds are germanic like dance amusement develop park and feudal.

    • Mike Byrne

      If the grammar changed then english wouldnt be a germaniclanguage think your underestimating the english state prior to the normans latin was already spoken in churches prior to the normans

  • John Spencer

    I’m first-generation American, born in England of Yorkshire stock.  My surname is pure Anglo-Saxon, but my tall fair appearance suggests more than a little Nordic stock (not too surprising as a lot of Vikings were shipwrecked on the Yorkshire coast).

    These days, whilst happy with my English background, I consider myself first and foremost as an American.  Not an English-American, just an American.

    Incidently, when I lived in England, it was considered fine for the Welsh, (Northern) Irish and Scots to refer to themselves as such, but we English were more expected to call ourselves British, as otherwise it was divisive.  Flying the Welsh and Scottish flags is common, the English St. George Cross (red cross on white background) is not and (apart from Rpyal Weddings) the Union Flag is rarely seen and when it is, it is often flown upside down (a distress signal).

  • There are so few “English-Americans” because English and American identity have from day one been diametrically opposed. “Englishness” has a powerful association with the land of England and British Crown: American identity was forged through migration from that land and a rebellion and a rejection of that crown. English identity continued in development after the American revolution: the English can be identified in concrete terms that make them unlike American Anglo-Saxons. The American Revolution was essentially a division of the Anglo-Saxons into the loyal, “subject” English and the “free”, citizen Anglo-Saxons of the American Republic.

    Actual “English-Americans” thus do not consist of the original Anglo-Saxon colonists: only recent immigrants (men like Peter Brimelow) can really be seen as “English” in background. An American Anglo-Saxon not born under the British Crown calling himself “English” seems absurd.

    • Americans are Anglo-nothing.

      You’re a nation of mixed-race, mongrel mutts. Any English blood that existed in your land in the 17th and 18th centuries has been diluted to nearly nothing.

      Your census says 8% -ha! I’d say the true number of Americans with partial English ancestry is actually less than 1%.

      The only ‘connection’ that America has with England is the bastardised version of England’s language that you speak. Even that will be replaced/ merged with Spanish in a few decades time.

      All together now: Andale, andale! Arriba, arriba!

      Practice… it makes perfect.

    • brainbiter

      An English-American identity is as legitimate as any other. They aren’t few in number either. Unlike other ethnic groups, however, as you point out yourself and your remarks demonstrate, this one faces considerable entrenched prejudice. Absurd? How many ‘Irish-Americans’, most of whom have never been near Ireland and know precisely nothing about the place, were born under Irish jurisdiction? Can American
      behaviour on St Patrick’s day be considered as anything less than delusional?

      That’s identity politics got you unfortunately. It politicizes emotional need, with results that are often tendentious or at the very least fanciful, an assertion anyone forced to endure the wild and self-serving fabrications of scotchmen will readily confirm. Similarly most American claims to Irish ancestry are nonsense. Remember the famous case in Springfield, Missouri {I think it was], in which a teacher who asked her third grade class if any had ‘native American’ blood got a near hundred per cent response?

      Your slip is showing. The real absurdity here is letting Hollywood dictate bias. I’m not unsympathetic. And I do understand. Americans tired of being the world’s baddies want to be victims too. They know suffering is currency [not to mention competitive] in this age of the common man. A romantic and quite mistaken view of the War of Independence answers a craving for a seat at the top table of victim cultures. It might allow a little of the martyr’s stardust to fall America’s way to side with the Oirish. Then
      again it might not. 
English-Americans are a legitimate group in any event. It’s time they made themselves heard.

  • My reply to this was going to be ‘Well….duh!’ But then I realized that we’re in the hippyhappymultiracialmulticulturalamerica.

  • Mike Byrne

    Harrison ford he was irish american yet ford is most likely english. There are loads with english ancestry if they looked hard enough. They just choose the more popular identities. Many english fled or sort work in scotland andcwales and ireland. Southern scottish nanes follow english naming habits nothing gaelic about them. Scots languages comes from old english. Anglo saxons calked themselves englisc or anglecynn

  • Mike Byrne

    Sorry the irish and welsh are purer – me thinks not! What about that mix of dark curly hair and red hair? Bald tall and short a variety of haplogroups? Hardly pure! Infact not the english referred to themselves as englisc and anglecynn in early documents. Where did the irish come from before resettling ireland? Britain and gaul! The english are englisc not celtic there is evidence a form of english was already spoken in england no celtic language in sight

  • Mike Byrne

    The normans were not french no more than basques are spanish! Why then did they fight the french for lands for hundreds of years? Infact keeping hold of any norman so calked ethnic identity is unlikely as within a few generations most normans were half english had english nannies and understood old english. There is even reports of parents getting annoyed their children had long hair and moustaches like the english

  • IlPooch

    This is an interesting article. Many of the “Irish Americans” I have encountered are actually English Americans. I tend to view ethnicity along the lines of objectivism rather than subjectivism or “feeling”. Take Michael Bernard Piper (aka “Michael Collins Piper”) he strongly sees himself as an Irish American and indeed bases his identity on that, but Piper is actually an English name, thus, objectively, he is an English American.

    But it works both ways to an extent; in Britain, people with clearly Irish Gaelic names are browbeaten by certain bitter people as “Plastic Paddies” for identifying with their actual ethnicity, rather than that of Englishness. You could be called Dermot O’Brien, born in Liverpool or Manchester and if you identify with your objective Gaelic Irish ethnicity, you will be shouted down by English people, demanding conformity with their identity.

  • vetri

    English Americans are at least 60 million. Many people declare relatively newer ancestries (old tend to be forgotten/hidden).

    Even if all English Americans never mixed with others, ~45 million would be living in 2012.

    About me: I am a masters student in Applied Mathematics.

    I did a massive research about US demographics.

    Please note the fair split of ~197 million non-Hispanic Whites:

    English ~45M (because of decades of mix, all ethnicity including English must be at least 20% more of stated numbers in reality and total sum would be like ~120% of tot whites)
    German ~43M
    Irish ~30M
    Italian ~13M
    French ~10M
    Poles ~8M
    Scottish ~6M
    Scottish-Irish (not added in Irish or Scottish) ~7M
    Wales ~2M
    Italian ~13M
    Dutch ~6M
    Swedish ~4.2M
    Norwegian ~3.5M
    Russian ~3.5M
    Hungarian ~1.8M
    Czech ~1.5M
    Danish ~1.3M
    Greeks ~1.3M
    Portuguese ~1M
    Ukraine ~1M
    Slovakian ~1M

    Other ethnicity form the rest of non-Hispanic whites.

  • DNACowboy

    The 1980 and 2000 censures admit that English and British statistics are a very considerable under-count for reasons listed in the article.
    The fact that the official line has Germany at the top now is frankly ludicrous, in 1930 67 % of Americans classified themselves as having English roots to suddenly drop through the floor in less than 70 years is frankly bizarre and puzzling, if I didn’t know better I might assume exterior forces at play though for what reason continues to elude me.
    In closing, a question; how does the majority ethnic population disappear in less than a century?

  • Marie Shanahan

    Good article. I know it’s several years old and regret now having seen it sooner. I think more British culture in the United States would be wildly popular!! And, until the immigration (muslim) difficulties are set, more British people immigrating to the USA to bring their style, culture and ideals would be really welcome. I wish more Britons would apply for dual citizenship. Between us, we can keep the British culture alive and STRONG. 🙂 I knew many, many friends with strong British blood growing up around Boston. But very few of them were 100% British. Most were half British, half Scots, Irish, German, Italian, etc. So they are certainly here – but have mixed.

  • Marie Shanahan

    What an intelligent remark for him to have made. 🙂 He was right!

  • Matt Thompson

    Scotch is a Whisky not a part Nationality, Scots Irish or planters.