Huh. I think Hil and my ancestors came over in the same time frame. I bet a fair number of Jews can say this. In the late 19th can early 20th century Jews mostly lived in Ghettos and did not have a huge opportunity to marry or dally with non-Jews in the U.S. Not universal, but Jewish immigrants marrying Jewish immigrants, and descendents of Jewish immigrants marrying descendents of Jewish immigrants would be really common in that time frame.

An email from ancestry.com tells me that 60% of Americans have "Revolutionary War roots."

Since I'm first-generation on one side and second on the other, I rather doubt it. And given that my grandparents were born in the 1880s, I think we would be aware if they were Lafayettes or Kosciuszkos.

Hmm. I know that all my dad's grandparents or great-grandparents came over in the 1860s-ish (made it through the potato famine and THEN came here!). My mom's mom's family came over in the early 1900s (...and then there was some kind of crazy scandal where her dad's brother's wife had an affair with the BIL, or some nonsense, so the brother and wife ended up going BACK to Denmark?). My mom's dad...his mom was from Poland...his dad...not so sure. But I think they were immigrants too.

The earliest that I've found anybody related to me in the US was my great-great-grandfather's brother, who immigrated from Germany in 1861.

Thanks, guys.

I'm one of the few people who can be certain not to have ancestors in the Revolutionary war

It's not so hard, really.

Not universal, but Jewish immigrants marrying Jewish immigrants, and descendents of Jewish immigrants marrying descendents of Jewish immigrants would be really common in that time frame.

Several older relatives considered my parents to have a "mixed marriage" because my dad's family is from Germany and Austria and my mom's family is from Eastern Europe.

My family is pretty recent. Paternals came over in the 1910-20s from Sweden. Maternals...probably potato famine, I don't know. Irish, mostly, but fairly muttly Irish, no real irish identity left. Maternal name line is related to the Brontes and Waldos (of Waldo Emerson,) distantly. I'm named after a Sara Waldo, a greatsomthing grandmother. In a few wistful and rare moments overridden by reality, I wish I could have a daughter so I could name her after my grandmother Tresabel. But I don't want to be a mother even for that.

Oy. Jon Stewart's coverage of the Kagan hearings has put together a bunch of clips that were, well, kind of what I expected, but I really didn't expect anything quite so blatant as "You have a belief system that most people where I come from don't have," (not an exact quote, but pretty close -- I don't feel like rewinding.)

On my dad's side I know there's direct lineage to the Rev War on both his mother's and father's side.

But my mom emmigrated from Canada (she'd probably smack me for using that term, only because she always considered it temporary) and both of her parents were immigrants from England to Canada. I suppose that doesn't rule out someone involved in the Revolution who went back. And it certainly doesn't rule out someone involved on the other side.

60 still seems high, if we're talking direct, traceable lineage. For one thing (and not having looked into it further) it strikes me that this is the kind of study that is largely looking at, and of interest to, white people. Obviously, not everyone with history dating back then is white. But in terms of knowing or documenting it - that seems like a largely white pastime, and likely much more possible for them than others. So I guess I'm skeptical anyone could figure out a number with any realism to it anyway.

But in terms of knowing or documenting it - that seems like a largely white pastime, and likely much more possible for them than others.

I had that thought too, and wondered if the 60% came from something like 60% of genealogy researchers on their site, rather than 60% of the actual population.