familism in the u.s. – whites by region

jayman says/asks:

“Theoretically, Red Staters are more able to depend on extended family. But here’s a question on the matter: is that true *today*? Are Whites in the South and West *today* more kin-centric? My (somewhat limited) experience in those parts of the country seems to indicate that they’re just about as individualistic as Blue Staters. I understand that kin-groups are still a major feature in Appalachia, but how about the rest of red America?”

**ALERT, ALERT!: READER REQUEST!** (^_^)

ok. so i looked at the “behavioral familism” related questions in the 2002 gss to see how whites in the different regions of the u.s. responded to the following questions:

– “How often do you contact your uncles/aunts?”
– “How often do you contact your nieces/nephews?”
– “How often do you contact your cousin(s)?”

the possible answers were:

– “More than twice in last 4 weeks.”
– “Once or twice in last 4 weeks.”
– “Not at all in last 4 weeks.”
– “I have no living relative of this type.”

as before, i collapsed the first two possible answers together to make a sorta “yes” repsonse (“yes, i’ve contacted that person in the last 4 weeks”).

here’s what i found (sorry, you might need your glasses to read these — wordpress has fixed it so that you can’t see a LARGER image in a new tab/window anymore. grrrrrr!):

gss 2002 - familism - u.s. whites - contact uncles & aunts

gss 2002 - familism - u.s. whites - contact newphews & nieces

gss 2002 - familism - u.s. whites - contact cousins

the patterns i see are:

east south central (alabama, kentucky, mississippi and tennessee), a consistently red state area, comes in twice with the highest ranking — and is above the national average on those two questions.
new england, a consistently blue state area, comes in once with the highest ranking — and, in fact, is above the national average on all three questions. so no one can accuse the new englanders of not being oriented towards the extended family!

the above average scorers on the three questions were (map of regions here):

new england – above average 3 times
east south central – 2 times
east north central (wi, il, mi, in, oh) – 2 times
west south central (tx, ok, ar, la) – 2 times
west north central (nd, sd, ne, ks, mn, ia, mo) – 2 times
south atlantic (de, md, dc, va, wv, nc, sc, ga, fl) – once

– the pacific states (ak, wa, or, ca, hi), a mostly blue region (with the exception of alaska), came in twice with the lowest ranking.
– the mountain states, a mostly red region, came in once with the lowest ranking.

the below average scorers on the three questions were (map of regions here):

pacific – 3 times
mountain – 3 times
middle atlantic (NEW YORK! nj & pa) – 3 times
west north central (nd, sd, ne, ks, mn, ia, mo) – one time
south atlantic (de, md, dc, va, wv, nc, sc, ga, fl) – one time
east north central (wi, il, mi, in, oh) – one time

to me, it seems like there’s an east-west divide — white familism decreases around the rocky mountains and gets even lower on the west coast. i should’ve made some maps. maybe i’ll work on that.
_____

so, back to jayman’s question: “Are Whites in the South and West *today* more kin-centric?”

yes, whites in the south are pretty kin-centric, but not so much in the west. and new englanders are very kin-centric — so there! (^_^) new yorkers are not.

i’ve got the data for african-americans, too, so i’ll check them out in another post.

previously: familism in the u.s. of a. and hispanic family values

(note: comments do not require an email. baby polar bear!)

Advertisements

45 Comments

  1. In the mountainous regions of Arkansas (Ozarks, Ouachita, Boston) there is this thing we call the Hillbilly Network (formerly “The Old Line”) and if one’s family has been here for an extended period of time, five generations or so, while currently diminishing in reliability I’m confident wherever I find myself in the US, if I need say, to get bailed out of jail – I’ll call a cousin back in the hills to see if it’s known whether there’s a cousin in the area of whichever jurisdiction I’ve been incarcerated. Dependable for serious “pickup [truck] problems” too.

    Seems to be more effective to call on my maternal side of the family which arrived in 1804.

    I’ve witnessed quite a number of people gobsmacked that a feller with an accent like mine could be related to a person who speaks with the same accent as the Revenuer.

    However I’m not certain my Grandchildren would be able to access directory assistance.

    Reply

  2. Bless you! I’ll have more to say as I analyze this, and this will be a part of my upcoming post on the topic to be sure, but my first impressions are that the West is probably most heavily composed of true “loners” (think Burning Man); I mean they (and their ancestors) went West for a reason. This is probably the case of the immediate West Coast especially. As for New England, it’s heavily infused by inbred Irish and Southern Italians today, especially in the region around Boston going south towards Connecticut, so that probably explains what you see there. The original Puritan stock is probably not necessarily so inclined, but probably like the Quebecois, once you get to here in Maine, partial inbreeding had to occur (since today’s English New Englanders are descended from a seed population of only ~25,000 Puritans, I believe—hard to avoid marrying a 3rd or 4th cousin or so after awhile).

    Reply

  3. Perhaps my giving abit of info on where my “Founder” stock came to Arkansas from might be helpful.

    Maternal side – Virginia for a short while prior to settling in the Carolinas. (State archives in Little Rock have records of a Spanish land grant – 1804 recall, preceded the Louisiana Purchase.)

    Sure hope this doesn’t get me into a flamewar – the matenal side permanent founder brought the first slaves into Arkansas.

    Paternal – Maryland. First census noted, recorded in Arkansas – 1840.

    This link might be of some use to you:

    http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/

    Reply

  4. @jayman – “As for New England, it’s heavily infused by inbred Irish and Southern Italians today, especially in the region around Boston going south towards Connecticut, so that probably explains what you see there.”

    could be. i might be able to tease that out of the data — then again, maybe not, ’cause the sample sizes might get too small. i’ll check one day!

    Reply

  5. Nice and interesting post. I’m originally from Maine, and yes, one does have to be careful when dating.

    It’d be great if the poll asked people if the call or contact was for a positive reason or negative. I only say that because I feel like those New Englanders are calling to guilt trip their younger relatives who have moved away from those high cost areas to start families.

    Reply

  6. JayMan and SOBL1, being from NH (both Puritan and Scots-Irish stock), I had much the same thoughts when I saw the data. Notice the nephew vs uncle contrast in graphs, however. It suggests there is something generational going on with more than one New England group.

    I hope they aren’t counting SW Connecticut as New England. That’s going to throw the data off. Plus, it’s just wrong.

    Reply

    1. @Assistant Village Idiot:

      “I hope they aren’t counting SW Connecticut as New England. That’s going to throw the data off. Plus, it’s just wrong.”

      Yup, that’s my thought as well. Most of New England’s population is concentrated in the Boston-Providence corridor and again in the Stamford, CT-Springfield, MA corridor. There isn’t much by way of areas consisting mainly of the original Yankee stock there, as it’s heavily Italian and Irish (as far as Whites go), with a good dose of Portuguese too in parts of RI and Eastern MA. As well, you have the Boston-NYC suburbanites with not exactly clear heritage.

      Reply

  7. I will add that my gf (who is from far NE Maine) doesn’t even consider the areas south of I-90/I-495 to be “New England”… :p ;)

    In many ways, ethnically, it is not…

    Reply

  8. I grew up and live in Appalachia and my impression is that apart from a tiny minority of back-of-the-mountain folk (whom I’ve employed in the past) kinship ties are as weak as in other parts of the country. It wasn’t like that in my grandmother’s day, but my own brothers and sisters and cousins and uncles are scattered to the winds, as are those of most of the people I meet.

    Reply

  9. Correction: my observation above has a heavy upper-middle class bias. When I think of, say, the dental assistants and other lower-working class people I meet, who are the majority, I hear family stories all the time. So your data may be right.

    Reply

  10. this makes sense. I live in seattle, and here from Alaska clear thru to San Francisco, we are all loners.

    Reply

  11. Cousin marriage law in the United States by state In Kentucky sexual relations(!) or cohabitation is a criminal offence. Looks to me the places where first cousin marriage is legal are the same as where the immigration from Scotland, (mainly Highlanders, disproportionately tacksmen, went to. Tacksmen were warriors not much on working and were orientated to obligations to relatives and marrying them too. (of course some tacksmen were related to tenants, I’m not saying 0%). Tacksmen were the blood relations of the chief and serves as his enforcers. Inbred gun nuts! (civilians had access to firearms in the Highlands).

    Reply

  12. @jayman (referencing shmiggen’s observation)

    The cousin with whom I speak most frequently has resided in Alaska since ’77. In his 40s while I’m nearer 60s. In his relations with his near (unrelated) neighbors I ‘m generally of the opinion they’d describe him as “loner.”

    He’s related on my maternal side but it was my paternal side which “rescued” him and re-located him to Alaska from Arkansas following a little spat involving a piece of metal flying in first one open door and out the other of a hovering helo.

    I’m the son of an MD with the majority of the paternal side having occupations approximating. The maternal side reflects everything from the deep backwoods to engaging in the political realm – mostly at the States level.

    We are, as has been noted above, “scattered to the winds” but as I noted above, at least for my generation the ties remain. My children (as well as extending to third cousins’ children have successfully utilized The Line) but the Grandchildren seem more interested in video games.

    Reply

  13. @Jayman – Due to urbanization, most if not all states have a metro area where most of the population resides. Population clusters in our modern age. I wouldn’t be so quick to say Massachusetts is heavily Italian. If it were, Gabrieli would have become Governor in 2006 instead of Deval Patrick. Connecticut actually has a higher percentage of Italians than Massachusetts (CT most in US, I think). The line where New England stops being New England is a vague area in Connecticut where the ratio of Yankees fans to Sox fans starts to approach 1:10.

    @Assistant Village Idiot – My thoughts exactly on the generational contact. New England’s lower fertility rate means more spinster aunts to make calls to keep in touch with the nephews they doted on as sons because they never had any. The guilt trips they end covnersations with. Totally anecdotal, but just a gut feeling looking at the graphs and knowing New England. I’m just glad I moved away.

    Reply

  14. @jk – “…the Hillbilly Network (formerly ‘The Old Line’)…”

    cool!

    i’m familiar with such extended family networks, and even made use of my own once, although it wasn’t my intention to do so (it was actually how i discovered such a thing existed!).

    once when i travelled back to “the old country,” i arrived at the airport (which is in the middle of nowhere) on a sunday (everything’s CLOSED on a sunday) without any cash — only plastic. but, i figured, i just need to get the train to the town where my family lives — a couple of hours away — and i’ll just pay for the train ticket with my visa, right?

    WRONG! the train company only accepted CASH. *facepalm* (and they wouldn’t take dollars — i tried. (~_^) )

    so, what to do? no atms anywhere in this middle-of-nowhere place, so i figured i’d stay in a nearby hotel, go to the bank the next day (monday), get some cash out of my card, and then take the train.

    i called my family to let them know i wouldn’t be arriving that day after all … and they said no, no, no! so-and-so — my second-cousin-once-removed (who i didn’t even know existed!) — didn’t live so far away from the train station. they called her and she came to the train station a short while later with the cash for me to take the train. (^_^)

    furthermore, when she discovered that i’d missed the train and the next one wasn’t for a couple of hours, she brought me back to her house — where i met her kids, my second-cousins-TWICE-removed! — and she made me a big lunch! (^_^)

    hillbilly networks are great! (^_^)

    Reply

  15. @jk – “Perhaps my giving abit of info on where my ‘Founder’ stock came to Arkansas from might be helpful.”

    neat! thanks!

    @jk – “http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/”

    thanks for the link!

    @jk – “My children (as well as extending to third cousins’ children have successfully utilized The Line)….”

    cool! (^_^)

    Reply

  16. @jayman – “my first impressions are that the West is probably most heavily composed of true ‘loners’ (think Burning Man); I mean they (and their ancestors) went West for a reason.

    that sounds like a good theory to me. i wonder what personality types they’d generally have — as compared to people back east. i’m thinking of the big 5 types. also other personality quirks: more/less aspergers? more/less schizophrenic? more/less bipolar? more/less adhd? more/less psychopaths/dark triad? i betcha there are some broad differences in these things.

    Reply

  17. @SOBL:

    “Due to urbanization, most if not all states have a metro area where most of the population resides. Population clusters in our modern age. I wouldn’t be so quick to say Massachusetts is heavily Italian. If it were, Gabrieli would have become Governor in 2006 instead of Deval Patrick. Connecticut actually has a higher percentage of Italians than Massachusetts (CT most in US, I think).”

    Oh I know that there are tons of old guard Yanks across the densely populated parts of southern New England. My main point was the the frequency of family contact numbers that HBD Chick found for New England are likely thrown off because of the large numbers of clannish Catholic Whites in the mix.

    “The line where New England stops being New England is a vague area in Connecticut where the ratio of Yankees fans to Sox fans starts to approach 1:10.”

    Yeah, that conflict was something. I lived in Connecticut for many years before I moved to Maine, and it was very interesting, to say the least, to see the conflict between Yankees fans and Red Sox fans—even individuals within a family were divided on team loyalty :p

    I will say that you do see something different in New England transitioning south of central MA.

    Reply

  18. @jayman – “The original Puritan stock is probably not necessarily so inclined, but probably like the Quebecois, once you get to here in Maine, partial inbreeding had to occur (since today’s English New Englanders are descended from a seed population of only ~25,000 Puritans, I believe—hard to avoid marrying a 3rd or 4th cousin or so after awhile).”

    yup! also, iirc (iirc!!), hackett fischer said that a lot(?) of the original puritan settlers were married to their cousins. i need to double-check that….

    keep in mind that i’m not completely convinced by my own argument that the eastern english were some of the most outbred. i think i may have missed a regional nuance here. east anglia (where the puritans came from) is known (or was known traditionally) for its extended families. and the region had little manorialism. hmmmm….

    i wonder if the east anglians/puritans are going to prove to be a group that is more oubred than, say, the greeks or southern italians — or even the highland scots — but less outbred than the people in central england. not sure. further research is required!

    Reply

  19. @sobl1 – “I’m originally from Maine, and yes, one does have to be careful when dating.”

    heh! maybe you guys need a “maine book” — like the icelanders have. (^_^)

    @sobl1 – “I feel like those New Englanders are calling to guilt trip their younger relatives who have moved away from those high cost areas to start families.”

    it’s funny ’cause in my previous post on familism in the u.s., i noted that there was more contact initiated by the older generation than by the younger — more aunts/uncles contacted their nieces/nephews than vice versa. same thing in this post.

    this follows the line of flow of the genes — from the older generation downwards. the older folks have more self-interest in making sure the younger ones are ok (or to nag them!) than the other direction. (also, a lot of peoples’ aunts/uncles might just be dead — kinda hard to contact them then.)

    as assistant village idiot said: “It suggests there is something generational going on with more than one New England group.”

    maybe!

    Reply

  20. @assistant village idiot – “I hope they aren’t counting SW Connecticut as New England. That’s going to throw the data off. Plus, it’s just wrong.”

    yes. the whole of connecticut is included in new england here. they’re just a bunch o’ new yorkers, aren’t they?

    Reply

  21. @jayman – “I will add that my gf (who is from far NE Maine) doesn’t even consider the areas south of I-90/I-495 to be ‘New England’… :p ;)”

    i don’t think you can break out the gss data by state. i’ll check, though. maybe that would be more interesting/help to clarify things.

    Reply

  22. @luke – “Correction: my observation above has a heavy upper-middle class bias. When I think of, say, the dental assistants and other lower-working class people I meet, who are the majority, I hear family stories all the time. So your data may be right.”

    that’s interesting. i should try sorting the data by socio-economic group (or whatever it’s called in the gss).

    my own family is very extended-family oriented, but most of us are a bunch of poor peasant farmers. (~_^) or are the first generation off the farm.

    Reply

  23. @sean – “Cousin marriage law in the United States by state In Kentucky sexual relations(!) or cohabitation is a criminal offence.”

    yes. and it looks like that goes quite far back (to 1868 anyway).

    @sean – “Looks to me the places where first cousin marriage is legal are the same as where the immigration from Scotland, (mainly Highlanders, disproportionately tacksmen, went to.”

    yup! just like back in the homeland. (~_^) (see hackett fischer’s Albion’s Seed and my posts on mating patterns in scotland.)

    Reply

  24. @HBD Chick:

    “keep in mind that i’m not completely convinced by my own argument that the eastern english were some of the most outbred. i think i may have missed a regional nuance here. east anglia (where the puritans came from) is known (or was known traditionally) for its extended families. and the region had little manorialism. hmmmm….

    i wonder if the east anglians/puritans are going to prove to be a group that is more oubred than, say, the greeks or southern italians — or even the highland scots — but less outbred than the people in central england. not sure. further research is required!”

    But the thing that tilts things towards the direction of them being quite outbred, or at least possessing high frequencies of genes for “reciprocal altruism” is the fact that the Northeast is the haven of lefty liberalism in America—followed by the areas where Puritans also settled, the upper Midwest and the Pacific NW. Spots across the area seem to have absorbed a certain level of British Borderlanders, and assuming today that the two groups have become thoroughly mixed, you may see behavior common to both. It sure appears that you do in New Hampshire, central Maine, and central upstate NY.

    Reply

  25. @hbd chick – heh! maybe you guys need a “maine book” — like the icelanders have. (^_^)

    If Icelanders have this problem today with a population of 300.000, then you must add one more prerequisite for the prevalence of outbreeding in NW Europe over the past 1000 years, there must be enough people around to make it practically possible. Iceland today has a population density of 3.1 people per square kilometer, though very unevenly distributed:

    http://www.atozmapsdata.com/zoomify.asp?name=Country/Modern/Z_Icelan_Pop

    An estimate of the population of the UK over time can be found here:

    http://chartsbin.com/view/28k

    According to that, the UK had 6.2 people per square kilometer in the year 1000 AD, though I suppose they were more evenly distributed than in Iceland. Judging from the Icelandic population density map, the UK was probably more sparsely populated in the year 1000 than the inhabited parts of Iceland are today and they didn’t even have genealogical websites back then!

    Reply

  26. @Vasilis:

    Good points. I think, at the end of the day, we will find the the inbreeding/outbreeding thing is primarily relative. The level of cousin marriage in a society is going to be lower in a society that actively tried to avoid such than in one that is not necessarily so concerned or tends to marry locally. It’s going to be even higher in one with a preference for within-clan marriage, and higher still in one with a strict preference for second or first cousins.

    So I think effective inbreeding coefficients will go something like this (from low to high):

    1. Actively attempts to avoid cousin marriage
    2. Indifferent on the matter/”locogamous”
    3. Preference for within-clan marriage
    4. Preference for cousin marriage
    5. MBD cousins preferred
    6. FBD cousins preferred

    Reply

  27. @hbd chick

    “i’m familiar with such extended family networks, and even made use of my own once, although it wasn’t my intention to do so (it was actually how i discovered such a thing existed!).”

    “It wasn’t my intention to do so…” That way works best I think. And in the case of the third cousins’ kids, the two instances I’m aware of, I was included within the call. I responded only in the one instance (nearer in proximity – but I did have “people” in the area who would have responded – no doubt).

    @hbd chick

    http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=2680

    I’ve stated [for Jayman’s use] I’m in the mountains regions of Northern Arkansas. I didn’t really want to give much ID to me personally (though having taken a look at his site – and comprehending – I don’t matter) on a publically accessible blog.

    It’s noteworthy Jayman I live in an area which I’m guessing is 98% white – when I was a kid, 100%. Not my own, nor any of my kin’s, there were “Sundown Towns” – for whatever reasons (and I’ve pondered) to the extreme NW and the SE of what was the original Izard County. I do know beginning in or about 1906 our African-American population “left” the area. What was once the center of slave-holding North Central Arkansas was at the same time the bastion of Pro-Union.

    One must know something more of Geology than of Geography in this though. But enough about African-American Slavery.

    Around 1870 Arkansas advertised for and attracted a greatish number of immigrants from Italy (kinda surprising ain’t it?). The Italians were advertised for by the large plantation (land owners) of Arkansas’ Delta region.

    http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=2680

    Where that population is now is because their immune systems couldn’t handle the malarial swampish cotton regions. Here’s my own region for comparison – note the rivers:

    http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=2680

    Now anybody else wants to help jayman or hbd chick with their research and wants to help fund such – and me being a poor dumb hillbilly – I’ve got an “old” Korean era flyable Corsair – just make me an offer.

    Reply

  28. There is no argument that Canada got a high proportion of Scots and especially Highlanders. Is Canada like the red states?

    Reply

  29. @jayman – “But the thing that tilts things towards the direction of them being quite outbred, or at least possessing high frequencies of genes for ‘reciprocal altruism’ is the fact that the Northeast is the haven of lefty liberalism in America….”

    i agree. the thing that keeps nagging at me, though, is that long-lasting tradition of extended families in east anglia. hmmmm.

    what i’m wondering is if east anglia, like most of the rest of the english (and other nw europeans), started outbreeding in the early medieval period, but then because east anglia didn’t have manors, they lost out on another push against in-marriage.

    i’m wondering if the east anglians (and the puritans and the REAL new englanders (~_^) ) are quite outbred, but not quite as much as the central englanders (who are very individualistic). the flavor of new englanders (and east anglians?) is kinda like scandinavians — oriented towards the commonweal but in a sorta socialistic way. neither group seems to me to be oriented towards the commonweal in an individualistic way — like the central english and people like thomas jefferson.

    so, maybe the east anglians/new englanders are very outbred, but not as outbred as the central english, because they missed out on manorialism. simiarly, except for some areas of denmark and southern sweden, the scandinavians missed out on manorialism entirely. AND they started outbreeding later than other areas of nw europe. so they, too, might be quite outbred, but not as outbred as the central english.

    could be a sort of “convergent evolution” thing going on here.

    all of this, of course, needs to be checked and double-checked! need more data!

    Reply

  30. @vasilis – “If Icelanders have this problem today with a population of 300.000, then you must add one more prerequisite for the prevalence of outbreeding in NW Europe over the past 1000 years, there must be enough people around to make it practically possible.”

    absolutely! and … well … pretty much what jayman said. (^_^)

    thanks for those links!

    Reply

  31. @jk – “Now anybody else wants to help jayman or hbd chick with their research and wants to help fund such – and me being a poor dumb hillbilly – I’ve got an ‘old’ Korean era flyable Corsair – just make me an offer.”

    that would be the BEST. FUNDRAISER. EVER! (^_^)

    i’d buy it myself if i had the money (~_^) … but that would sorta be defeating the purpose ….

    is it one of these?

    Reply

  32. @JK:

    “Now anybody else wants to help jayman or hbd chick with their research and wants to help fund such – and me being a poor dumb hillbilly – I’ve got an “old” Korean era flyable Corsair – just make me an offer.”

    Works for me! Thanks, man! :D

    “It’s noteworthy Jayman I live in an area which I’m guessing is 98% white – when I was a kid, 100%. Not my own, nor any of my kin’s, there were “Sundown Towns” – for whatever reasons (and I’ve pondered) to the extreme NW and the SE of what was the original Izard County. I do know beginning in or about 1906 our African-American population “left” the area. What was once the center of slave-holding North Central Arkansas was at the same time the bastion of Pro-Union.”

    Interesting. I’ve been in that area, it’s beautiful country, but I can imagine how difficult it must have been to survive there back in the day.

    Reply

  33. @Sean:

    “There is no argument that Canada got a high proportion of Scots and especially Highlanders. Is Canada like the red states?”

    As HBD Chick noted, yes, to an extent. Apparently Nova Scotia received a lot of Highland Scots. But note, the “Scotch-Irish” that settled the Upland US South are distinct from the Highlanders (and they in fact didn’t actually like each other).

    It would be nice to have deeper ethnographic histories of Canada as well as the US. The info the above map that HBD Chick linked to is a good start, but it is unfortunately lacking in detail…

    Reply

  34. @HBD Chick:

    “the flavor of new englanders (and east anglians?) is kinda like scandinavians — oriented towards the commonweal but in a sorta socialistic way. neither group seems to me to be oriented towards the commonweal in an individualistic way — like the central english and people like thomas jefferson.

    so, maybe the east anglians/new englanders are very outbred, but not as outbred as the central english, because they missed out on manorialism. simiarly, except for some areas of denmark and southern sweden, the scandinavians missed out on manorialism entirely. AND they started outbreeding later than other areas of nw europe. so they, too, might be quite outbred, but not as outbred as the central english.

    could be a sort of “convergent evolution” thing going on here.”

    Yes, that is kinda what I’m thinking. A lot more research in need, because we are really digging deep into the fine details here… :)

    Reply

  35. I loved DHF, but learned through my own genealogy that his East Anglian to NE hypothesis is a tendency, not hard-and-fast. There seems to have been some founder effects from the leadership, which did tend to be Norfolk, Suffolk. But there was pleanty of Kent, Lincolnshire and other counties as well.

    The largest ethinic group in Mass is French-Canadian, I believe.

    As to the erosion of the kinship networks, the moves West from 1930-70 may be more important than the original Scots-Irish settlement pattern of the SW.

    Reply

  36. @avi – “I loved DHF, but learned through my own genealogy that his East Anglian to NE hypothesis is a tendency, not hard-and-fast.”

    that’s a good point. on double-checking Albion’s Seed (the section titled “Regional Origins of the Puritan Migration”), here’s what hackett fischer had to say:

    “[C]loser study shows that some counties contributed more than others, and that one region in particular accounted for a majority of the founders of Massachusetts. It lay in the east of England. We may take its geographic center to be the market town of Haverhill, very near the point where the three counties of Suffolk, Essex and Cambridge come together. A circle drawn around the town of Haverhill with a radius of sixty miles will circumscribe the area from which most New England families came. That great circle (or semicircle, for much of it crosses the North Sea) reached east to Great Yarmouth on the coast of Norfolk, north to Boston in eastern Lincolnshire, west to Bedford and Hertfordshire, and south to the coast of East Kent. This area of approximately 7,000 square miles (about 8% of the land area of Britain today) roughly included the region that was defined in 1643 as the Eastern Association—Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Hertfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire and Lincolnshire—plus parts of Bedfordshire and Kent….”

    east anglia=norfolk, suffolk and cambridgeshire.

    Approximately 60 percent of immigrants to Massachusetts came from these nine eastern counties. Three of the largest contingents were from Suffolk, Essex and Norfolk. Also important was part of east Lincolnshire which lay near the English town of Boston, and a triangle of Kentish territory bounded by the towns of Dover, Sandwich and Canterbury. These areas were the core of the Puritan migration….

    “It would be a mistake to exaggerate the role of the eastern counties in the peopling of New England. A large minority (40%) came from the remaining thirty-four counties of England. An important secondary center of migration existed in the west country, very near the area where the counties of Dorset, Somerset and Wiltshire came together. But many of these West Country Puritans did not long remain in the Bay Colony. They tended to move west to Connecticut, or south to Nantucket, or north to Maine. Diversity of regional origins became a major factor in the founding of other New England colonies. The concentration of Puritans from East Anglia, and from the county of Suffolk, was especially great in the Winthrop Fleet of 1630. In the New World, their hegemony became very strong in the present boundaries of Suffolk, Norfolk, Essex and Middlesex counties in Massachusetts. This area became the heartland of its region; its communities are called ‘seed towns’ in New England because so many other communities were founded from them. Most families in these seed towns came from the east of England. The majority was highly concentrated in its regional origin while the minority was widely scattered. As a consequence, the East Anglian core of New England’s population had a cultural importance greater even than its numbers would suggest.”

    so we’ve got a 60-40 split, according to hackett fischer. but that 60% were not just from east anglia, but from all of the eastern association counties.

    Reply

  37. @avi – “As to the erosion of the kinship networks, the moves West from 1930-70 may be more important than the original Scots-Irish settlement pattern of the SW.”

    absolutely! that makes sense.

    Reply

  38. The proportion of youthful unattached males was much higher among migrants from outside East Anglia than from within

    Reply

  39. that’s a quote Economy of Early America: Historical Perspective and New Directions – Page 165

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s