Are there really more Americans of German ancestry than English ancestry?

[scotopino]

According to the U.S. census, the answer is clearly yes.  But my guess is that while German ancestry is significant, I don't think they actually outnumber those of English ancestry.

In colonial America, about 60% were of English ancestry and less than 10% were German.  The 1980 census said English and German ancestry were both about 50 million, but while German has remained pretty stable the number reporting English ancestry was only 25 million.  This is obviously a significant undercount.  

I suspect the vast majority of those declaring American ancestry are of British ancestry (mostly English with some Scottish and Scots-Irish), given that they're mostly white Southerners.  Also, nonresponses to the ancestry question tend to be high in the same places where "American" ancestry is high.  

1980 was the first time an ancestry question was asked.  Previously the most similar question was about the birthplace of parents.  With the cut off of large scale immigration after WWI, almost anyone under the age of 50 (born after 1930) would have US-born parents.

The 1980 (long) form asked "What is this person's ancestry?"   It gives examples of "Afro-Amer., English, French, German, Honduran, Irish, Italian, Jamaican, Korean, Lebanese, Mexican, Nigerian, Polish, Ukrainian, and Venezuelan".   In 1980, race was "Negro or Black"  The question was immediately after the language question, which focuses on non-English use.  This might tend to elicit a response of "English" to the next question, since few persons would speak a language other than English at home.  The instructions emphasized that the ancestry should be that which the person identifies with.  It said that if there were multiple identities, that it should be reported similar to "German-Irish".

The 1990 (long) form asked "What is this person's ancestry or ethnic origin?", and gave examples of "German, Italian, Afro-Amer., Croatian, Cape Verdean, Dominican, Ecuadoran, Haitian, Cajun, French Canadian, Jamaican, Korean, Lebanese, Mexico, Nigerian, Irish, Polish, Slovak, Taiwanese, Thai, Ukrainian, etc.".  Note the absence of English, and emphasis on cultural heritage since Acadia, French Canada, Slovakia, and Ukraine were not countries in 1990 (historically the Census Bureau coded country of birth based on the current boundaries, so that my Alsatian ancestors were said to have been born in "Germany" even though they had served in the French Army during the Franco-Prussian War.  The language question was a few questions later. The instructions said that "Ancestry refers to the person’s ethnic origin or
decent, 'roots' or heritage, Ancestry also may refer to the country of birth of the person or the person's parents or ancestry before their arrival in the United States."

So 1990 removed the example of "English", separated it from the question about use of a language other than English, and gave more of a sense of ethnicity as opposed to ancestral origin.  After the Revolution, there was a deliberate de-anglicization.  We forgot that the Englishman John Cabot had discovered North America, rather than the Spaniard Christopher Columbus.  Those who settled New England were religious dissenters, who backed the losing side in the English Civil War.  Those who came here as indentured servants, and headed west for land as soon as their contract paid off might not have had good thoughts about jolly olde  England.  Those who might have identified closest with England, through continued trading relationships, Southern planters, were on the losing side in the American Civil War.

It is typical for mixed marriages between the incumbent dominant group, and new groups to be predominately female-male.   That is, there were more English female-German male marriages than English male-German female, and similarly for Americans and Italians, Whites and Blacks, Whites and Asians.

Descendants of a marriage between Johann Schwartz and Elizabeth Black may be more likely to identify as German based on their name, than the descendants of a marriage between John Black and Liesel Schwartz.  The grandchildren might remember Oma Liesel, but not later generations.   There would be more Schwartz-Black marriages than Black-Schwartz marriages.

Identification based on name might predominate, even though cultural values may be transmitted within the household by the mother, rather than the father who likely had more interaction with a larger community.

The 2000 (long) Census Form gave the following example:

(For example: Italian, Jamaican, African Am., Cambodian, Cape Verdean, Norwegian, Dominican, French Canadian, Haitian, Korean, Lebanese, Polish, Nigerian, Mexican, Taiwanese, Ukrainian, and so on.)

This removed Germans, Croatians, Ecuadorans, Cajuns, Irish, Slovak, and Thai; renamed Afro-Amer. as African Am.; and changed "etc." to "and so on".  I suspect that removal of English, Germans, and Irish, the three most dominant groups, was deliberate, and possibly related to the rise of Americans.

The 2000 form rearranged the form somewhat.  In 1990 and before, the long form included the short form questions (age, race and ethnicity, sex, family relationship, name) for all household members.  This was followed by the household questions (running water, income, age of dwelling, tenure (rent/owned), etc.).  And then the detailed questions for persons including ancestry.  So questions about race and ethnicity were separated from questions about ancestry and language.

In 2000, personal questions from the short form for the householder went directly into the long form personal questions.  The question about ancestry is thus closer to those for race and ethnicity than in the past.  In addition, the 2000 ancestry question is immediately before those about language, citizenship, and place of birth.  The 2000 Census Form did not include an instruction booklet, so the person filling in the form only had:

What is this person’s ancestry or ethnic origin?

________________________

________________________

(For example: Italian, Jamaican, African Am., Cambodian,
Cape Verdean, Norwegian, Dominican, French Canadian,
Haitian, Korean, Lebanese, Polish, Nigerian, Mexican,
Taiwanese, Ukrainian, and so on.)

With two blanks.

The American Community Survey (ACS), the replacement for the long form, uses the same question as 2000, and since 2009 has included an instruction booklet similar to 1990.  

The ancestry question follows those about place of birth and citizenship, though there are educational questions in-between, and immediately before non-English language use.

Just found this forum, so sorry about joining the party late. Well,my last name is very Scottish.  Although I do have recent German heritage(my great grandmother was directly from Germany)I still identified  my Euro Heritiage as Scottish...and got the suprise of my life when I got my 23 and me DNA test and found, well, I am much more German than any other European nationality. I then went back and did  my family tree on my dad's side. Lo and behold just like in the example in the post above... a couple people with my Scottish last name married plenty of "Liesels"...so much so, that my Very Scottish name and the people who carried it in my neck of the woods(pennsylvania) were actually mostly German,but the heritage forgotten, because it was the women who didn't  pass on the German names. So my great great grandma wasn't the first German woman in my bloodline. And despite my very Scottish last name and my affinity to it, my Scottish ancestor came here in the 1600's.  My German ancestors? They've been intermarrying with my Scottish last name from the 1700's to the 1900's. Interesting how we identify ourselves.