From: "Gary Wiltshire" 

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 17:48:23 -0500, Monte Davis
 wrote:

> "Gary Wiltshire"  wrote:
>
>> this url:
>>
>> http://www.uncp.edu/home/canada/work/allam/16071783/history/history.htm
>>
>> shows the English-derived population at 50 percent.
>
> I gave numbers for the UK, which included Scotland, Ireland, and Wales
> (which by your source would bring it to something over 65%; my 75%
> also tallies with Fischer's "Albion's Seed") Nearly all spoke English;
> neither Gaelic nor Welsh was ever more than a local niche tongue here.

The last time I checked the Irish and the Welsh are not "English."
>
> Someone else has already debunked your passing on of the "Muhlenberg
> legend" about how threatened English was vis-a-vis German in the
> colonies. In fact, it never was; in fact, there has never been any
> doubt since 1700 at the latest that we would retain the language and a
> very large part of the whole cultural complex of the UK. Not in 1790,
> not during the immigration panic of 1895-1920, not during the
> immigration panic redux today, and not during your ongoing Anglophobe
> pissing match with Adam and Phil.

You can survey 100 people in, say, Pennsylvania.  60 might truthfully say
they have English ancestry.  Out of the same 100 people 60 can also say
they have German ancestry.  There are damned few of us walking around who
are "pure bloods."  Even at the onset of the revolution we were a
mongrel lot.

>
> Re Vermont: Good point. Very important. Changes the whole picture. You
> win.

It goes to just how reliable I consider the presenter.  It is a glaring
error.  Per what I just said above, I have to wonder just how a person was
counted as "English" or some other nationality.

--
Gary Wiltshire

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5