document_title: Varangians

question_text: the swedish vikings the varangians became known or assimilate with

text: Varangians

text: Etymology[edit]

text: Medieval Greek Βάραγγος Várangos and Old East Slavic Варягъ Varjagŭ (Old Church Slavonic Варѧгъ Varęgŭ) are derived from Old Norse væringi, originally  a compound of vár 'pledge' or 'faith', and gengi 'companion', thus meaning 'sworn companion', 'confederate', extended to mean 'a foreigner who has taken service with a new lord by a treaty of fealty to him', or 'protégé'.[1][12] Some scholars seem to assume a derivation from vár with the common suffix -ing.[13] Yet, this suffix is inflected differently in Old Norse, and furthermore, the word is attested with -gangia and cognates in other Germanic languages in the Early Middle Ages, as in Old English wærgenga, Old Frankish wargengus and Langobardic waregang.[14] The reduction of the second part of the word could be parallel to that seen in Old Norse foringi 'leader', correspondent to Old English foregenga and Gothic  𐍆𐌰𐌿𐍂𐌰𐌲𐌰𐌲𐌲𐌾𐌰 fauragaggja 'steward'.[15][16]

text: Kievan Rus'[edit]

text:
The terms “Varangian” and “Rus” can sometimes be used interchangeably but there are slight differences between the two groups. Both refer to the peoples of Scandinavian descent who settled in the Dnieper-Volga region during and after the 8th century. The Varangians are a more clearly definable group. They were Scandinavians in Eastern Europe who were often associated with Byzantium and the Byzantine emperor’s Varangian Guard. These mercenaries were almost entirely men who either returned to their Scandinavian homeland or married into the local Slavic culture. The term “Rus” is more difficult to define. The Rus were more inclined to settle in towns with their families. The term “Rus” is sometimes used in primary sources to describe Slavic peoples as well as Scandinavians. Its definition becomes clearer later in the period when it developed from the name of a people to the name of a political entity and area of land.[17]
The confusion in the primary sources about the meaning of Rus' has led to arguments between scholars about whether Russia was named after a Scandinavian people or a Slavic people. These are grouped into Normanist and anti-Normanist views (with the broader meaning of Norman, i.e. 'Norse-men'). Current scholarship supports the Normanist argument – that the Rus were a primarily Scandinavian people – but there have been heated debates in the last century between certain scholars fueled by nationalism. It is now generally accepted that the Rus' were of Scandinavian origin but adopted Slavic cultural characteristics fairly quickly.[18]

text: Having settled Aldeigja (Ladoga) in the 750s, Scandinavian colonists played an important role in the early ethnogenesis of the Rus' people and in the formation of the Rus' Khaganate. The Varangians (Varyags in Old East Slavic) are first mentioned by the Primary Chronicle as having exacted tribute from the Slavic and Finnic tribes in 859. The Vikings were rapidly expanding in Northern Europe: England began to pay Danegeld (gold and other tribute to the Danish) in 859, and the Curonians of Grobin (in modern Latvia) faced an invasion by the Swedes around the same period. Due largely to geographic considerations, it is often argued that most of the Varangians who traveled and settled in the eastern Baltic, Russia, and lands to the south came from the area of modern Sweden.[19]

text: In the 9th century, the Rus' operated the Volga trade route, which connected Northern Russia (Gardariki) with the Middle East (Serkland). The Volga route declined by the end of the century, and the Dnieper and Dniester routes rapidly overtook it in popularity. Apart from Ladoga and Novgorod, Gnyozdovo and Gotland were major centres for Varangian trade.[20]

text: According to the Primary Chronicle, in 862, the Finnic and Slavic tribes in the area of Novgorod rebelled against their Varangian rulers, driving them overseas back to Scandinavia, but they soon started to conflict with each other. The disorder prompted the tribes to invite the Varangians back "to come and rule them" and bring peace to the region. Led by Rurik and his brothers Truvor and Sineus, the invited Varangians (called Rus') settled around the town of Holmgård (Novgorod). The Primary Chronicle twice names Rus' among the other Varangian peoples, including Swedes, Gutes, "Normans", and "Angles" (Normans was an Old Slavonic term for Norwegians not the Normans, while Angles may be interpreted as Danes, not Anglo-Saxons).[21] In some places, the chronicle mentions Slavs and Rus' as different groups, while in other instances it mixes them. In the study of the etymology of the word Rus' itself several possible origins are identified, but none are conclusive or very helpful in defining the Rus' people themselves.

text: The problem with confusion of names is most relevant to the earlier periods of Scandinavian colonization in the area. By the time the political entity of the Kievan Rus existed the Rus were considered to be a people of mixed Scandinavian/Slavic ethnicity but with a distinctly Slavic culture.

text: Under the leadership of Rurik's relative Oleg, the Varangian Rus' expanded southwards by capturing Kiev from the Khazars, founding the medieval state of Rus'.[8] Attracted by the riches of Constantinople and the Arab world, Varangians initiated a number of Rus'-Byzantine Wars, some of which resulted in advantageous trade treaties. Meanwhile, descendants of Rurik expanded the Rus' state and unified the local tribes. Contact with the Byzantine Empire increased, culminating in the Christianization of Kievan Rus' in 988, during the reign of Vladimir the Great.

text: As with the Norse influence in Normandy and the British Isles, Varangian culture did not survive in the East. Instead, the Varangian ruling classes of the two powerful city-states of Novgorod and Kiev were gradually slavicised by the end of the 11th century.[22] However, the successor descendants of Rurik were the ruling dynasty of medieval Kievan Rus', the successor principalities of Galicia-Volhynia (after 1199), Chernigov, Vladimir-Suzdal, the Grand Duchy of Moscow, and the founders of the Tsardom of Russia.[23] The name of the Varangian Rus' became that of the land of Ruthenia and later modern Russia, and the ethnonym of its population.[24]

text: Many historians tend to agree with the Primary Chronicle that the Varangians organized the native settlements into the political entity of Kievan Rus' in the 880s and gave their name to the land.  The Varangians were assimilated by East Slavs by the late 11th century.  Historians minimize their role in the long-term development of the Kievan state because they left few traces of any permanent influence on Russia. Historian A.D. Stokes  says:

text: Islamic world[edit]

text: The Rus' initially appeared in Serkland in the 9th century, traveling as merchants along the Volga trade route, selling furs, honey, and slaves, as well as luxury goods such as amber, Frankish swords, and walrus ivory.[26] These goods were mostly exchanged for Arabian silver coins, called dirhams. Hoards of 9th century Baghdad-minted silver coins have been found in Sweden, particularly in Gotland. Variations in the size of the coin hoards show that there were phases of increased importation of coins and sometime decades during which very few coins were imported.[27]

text: The economic relationship between the Rus and the Islamic world developed quickly into a sprawling network of trading routes. Initially the Rus founded Staraya Ladoga as the first node from the Baltic to the Caspian Sea and Black Sea. By the end of the 9th century Staraya Ladoga was replaced as the most important center by Novgorod. From these centers the Rus were able to send their goods as far as Baghdad. Baghdad was the political and cultural center of the Islamic world in the 9th and 10th centuries and the Rus merchants who went there to trade their goods for silver interacted with cultures and goods from the Islamic World, but also from China, India, and North Africa.[28]

text: The trade between the Rus and the lands south of the Black and Caspian seas made it possible for cultural interactions to take place between the Rus and the Islamic World. The account written by Ibn Fadlan about his 921-922 travels from Baghdad to the capital of the Bulghar kingdom gives details which can reveal the cultural interaction between the two groups. Ibn Fadlan gives a vivid description of the daily habits of the Rus, as well as the only known first-person account of the complicated ship-burning funeral ceremony. Certain details in his account, especially the dialogue of the ceremonies and his personal conversations with Rus individuals, show that the Rus and the Arabs were interested in and fairly knowledgeable about each other’s cultures.[29]

text: The geography of the Volga region and the relative lack of physical wealth available for stealing (compared to targets of Viking raids in the west) made raiding a less important aspect of the Rus/Varangian activities in the East. Some raiding, however, was necessary to gain initial control of the towns and regions that they developed into centers of economic activities.[30] The first small-scale raids took place in the late 9th and early 10th centuries. The Rus' undertook the first large-scale expedition in 913; having arrived on 500 ships, they pillaged Gorgan, in the territory of present-day Iran, and the adjacent areas, taking slaves and goods. On their return, the northern raiders were attacked and defeated by Khazar Muslims in the Volga Delta, and those who escaped were killed by the local tribes on the middle Volga.

text: During their next expedition in 943, the Rus' captured Barda, the capital of Arran, in the modern-day Republic of Azerbaijan. The Rus' stayed there for several months, killing many inhabitants of the city and amassing substantial plunder. It was only an outbreak of dysentery among the Rus' that forced them to depart with their spoils. Sviatoslav, prince of Kiev, commanded the next attack, which destroyed the Khazar state in 965. Sviatoslav's campaign established Rus' control over the north-south trade routes, helping to alter the demographics of the region. Raids continued through the time period with the last Scandinavian attempt to reestablish the route to the Caspian Sea led by Ingvar the Far-Travelled in 1041. While there, Varangians took part in the Georgian-Byzantine Battle of Sasireti in Georgia (1042).

text: Byzantine Empire[edit]

text: The earliest Byzantine record of the Rus' may have been written prior to 842. It is preserved in the Greek Life of St. George of Amastris, which speaks of a raid that had extended into Paphlagonia. Contemporary Byzantine presence of the Rus' is mentioned in the Frankish Annals of St. Bertin. These relate that a delegation from the court of the Byzantine emperor visited Frankish Emperor Louis the Pious at his court in Ingelheim in 839. In this delegation were two men who called themselves Rhos (Rhos vocari dicebant). Louis enquired about their origins and learnt that they were Swedes. Fearing that they were spies for their brothers, the Danes, he incarcerated them.

text: In 860, the Rus' under Askold and Dir launched their first attack on Constantinople from Kiev. The result of this attack is disputed, but the Varangians continued their efforts as they regularly sailed on their monoxyla down the Dnieper into the Black Sea. The Rus' raids into the Caspian Sea were recorded by Arab authors in the 870s and in 910, 912, 913, 943, and later. Although the Rus' had predominantly peaceful trading relations with the Byzantines, the rulers of Kiev launched the relatively successful naval expedition of 907 and the abortive campaign of 941 against Constantinople, as well as the large-scale invasion of the Balkans by Sviatoslav I in 968–971. These raids were successful in forcing the Byzantines to re-arrange their trading arrangements; militarily, the Varangians were usually defeated by the superior Byzantine forces, especially in the sea due to Byzantine use of Greek fire.

text: Varangian Guard[edit]

text: The Varangian Guard  (Greek: Τάγμα των Βαράγγων, Tágma tōn Varángōn) were a part of Byzantine Army and personal bodyguards of the Byzantine emperors from the 10th to the 14th centuries. Initially the guard was composed of Varangians who came from Kievan Rus'.

text: The guard was first formed under Emperor Basil II after 988, following the Christianization of Kievan Rus' and union with Vladimir I of Kiev, who sent 6,000 men to Basil as part of a military assistance agreement. Basil's distrust of the native Byzantine guardsmen, whose loyalties often shifted with fatal consequences, as well as the proven loyalty of the Varangians, many of whom served in Byzantium even before, led the emperor to employ them as his personal guard. Over the years, new recruits from Sweden, Denmark, and Norway kept a predominantly Scandinavian cast to the organization until the late 11th century. So many Scandinavians left to enlist in the guard that a medieval Swedish law from Västergötland stated that no one could inherit while staying in "Greece" — the then Scandinavian term for the Byzantine Empire.[32] In the eleventh century, there were also two other European courts that recruited Scandinavians:[33] Kievan Rus', c. 980–1060, and London, 1018–1066 (the Þingalið).[33]

text: Composed primarily of Scandinavians for the first hundred years, the guard increasingly included Anglo-Saxons after the successful Norman Conquest of England. By the time of Emperor Alexios Komnenos in the late 11th century, the Varangian Guard was largely recruited from Anglo-Saxons and "others who had suffered at the hands of the Vikings and their cousins the Normans". The Anglo-Saxons and other Germanic peoples shared with the Vikings a tradition of faithful, oath-bound service (to death if necessary), and after the Norman Conquest of England there were many fighting men, who had lost their lands and former masters, looking for a living elsewhere.

text: The Varangian Guard not only provided security for Byzantine emperors but participated in many wars involving Byzantium and often played a crucial role, since it was usually employed at critical moments of battle. By the late 13th century, Varangians were mostly ethnically assimilated by Byzantines, though the guard operated until at least the mid-14th century, and in 1400 there were still some people identifying themselves as "Varangians" in Constantinople.

text: In popular culture[edit]

text:
Rosemary Sutcliff's 1976 historical novel Blood Feud depicts Basil II's formation of the Varangian Guard from the point of view of a half-Saxon orphan who journeyed to Constantinople via the Dnieper trade route.
Henry Treece's Viking Trilogy recounts the adventures of Harald Sigurdson, including service in the Varangian Guard.
Michael Ennis's Byzantium ISBN 978-0-330-31596-8, a fictionalised version of the life of Harald Hardrada, features time in the Varangian Guard.
In The Bulpington of Blup (1933) by H.G. Wells, the father of the protagonist maintains for years the fiction that he is at work on "a History of the Varangians that was to outshine Doughty".
The John Ringo Paladin of Shadows series features a fictional, long-forgotten enclave of the Varangian Guard in the mountains of Georgia.
Turisas' second studio album The Varangian Way is a concept album that tells the story of a group of Scandinavians travelling the river routes of medieval Russia, through Ladoga, Novgorod and Kiev to the Byzantine Empire. Their third album, Stand Up and Fight, describes the history of the Varangian Guard's service to the Byzantine Empire.
Bearded axe-wielding Easterlings known as "Variags" appear in Tolkien's fantasy novel The Return of the King.
In the PC game series Mount & Blade, the name and location of the Vaegirs echos the Varangians. Their faction have a unique unit called a "Vaegir Guard".
In the video games Medieval: Total War and Medieval II: Total War the Varangian Guard is an axe-wielding elite infantry unit of the Byzantine Empire.
Track 5 of Amon Amarth's seventh studio album Twilight of the Thunder God has the title "Varyags of Miklagaard".
Track 2 of Grand Magus's eight studio album Sword Songs is titled "Varangian".
Varangian soldiers are a common enemy in the video game Assassin's Creed: Revelations.
Russian writer Dmitry Bykov's novel Living Souls (ЖД) involved a civil war between Varangians and Khazars over the control of Russia
Varangians in Dark Souls II were pirates pressed into service of the King of Drangleic.
In the Warhammer 40K universe, there is a chapter of space marines known as the "Space Wolves" that also go by the "Vaerangian Guard"[citation needed]
In the PC game Crusader Kings 2[34] the Varangian Guard appear as a mercenary unit available exclusively to the Byzantine emperor.
The Walking Drum by Louis L'Amour[clarification needed]


document_title: History of immigration to the United States

question_text: between 1900 and 1920 where did most of the migrants to the united states come from

question_tokens: between 1900 and 1920 where did most of the migrants to the united states come from

root

text: History of immigration to the United States

text: Colonial Era[edit]

text: In 1607 the first successful English colony settled in Jamestown, Virginia. Once tobacco was found to be a profitable cash crop, many plantations were established along the Chesapeake Bay in Virginia and Maryland.

tag: p

text: Thus began the first and longest era of immigration, lasting until the American Revolution in 1775; during this time settlements grew from initial English toe-holds from the New World to British America. It brought Northern European immigrants, primarily of British, German, and Dutch extraction. The British ruled from the mid-17th century and they were by far the largest group of arrivals, remaining within the British Empire. Over 90% of these early immigrants became farmers.[1]

text: Large numbers of young men and women came alone as indentured servants. Their passage was paid by employers in the colonies who needed help on the farms or in shops. Indentured servants were provided food, housing, clothing and training but they did not receive wages. At the end of the indenture (usually around age 21) they were free to marry and start their own farms.[2]

text: New England[edit]

text: Seeking religious freedom in the New World, one hundred English Pilgrims established a small settlement near Plymouth, Massachusetts in 1620. Tens of thousands of English Puritans arrived, mostly from the East Anglian parts of England (Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex), as well as Kent and East Sussex.,[3] and settled in Boston, Massachusetts and adjacent areas from around 1629 to 1640 to create a land dedicated to their religion. The earliest New English colonies, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire, were established along the northeast coast. Large scale immigration to this region ended before 1700, though a small but steady trickle of later arrivals continued.[4]

text: The New English colonists were the most urban and educated of all their contemporaries, and they had many skilled farmers, tradesmen and craftsmen among them. They started the first university, Harvard, in 1635 in order to train their ministers. They mostly settled in small villages for mutual support (nearly all of them had their own militias) and common religious activities. Shipbuilding, commerce, agriculture, and fishing were their main sources of income. New England's healthy climate (the cold winters killed the mosquitoes and other disease-bearing insects), small widespread villages (minimizing the spread of disease), and an abundant food supply resulted in the lowest death rate and the highest birth rate of any of the colonies. The Eastern and Northern frontier around the initial New England settlements was mainly settled by the descendants of the original New Englanders. Immigration to the New England colonies after 1640 and the start of the English Civil War decreased to less than 1% (about equal to the death rate) in nearly all of the years prior to 1845. The rapid growth of the New England colonies (approximately 900,000 by 1790) was almost entirely due to the high birth rate (>3%) and the low death rate (<1%) per year.[5]

text: Dutch[edit]

text: The Dutch, primarily driven by the United East Indian Company, first established settlements along the Hudson River in New York starting about 1626. Wealthy Dutch patroons set up large landed estates along the Hudson River and brought in farmers who became renters. Others established rich trading posts to trade with Native Americans and started cities such as New Amsterdam (now New York City) and Albany, New York.[6] After the British took over and renamed the colony New York, Germans (from the Palatine), and Yankees (from New England) began arriving.[7]

text: Middle colonies[edit]

text: Maryland, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware formed the middle colonies. Pennsylvania was settled by Quakers from Britain, followed by Ulster Scots (Northern Ireland) on the frontier and numerous German Protestant sects, including the German Palatines. The earlier colony of New Sweden had small settlements on the lower Delaware River, with immigrants of Swedes and Finns. These colonies were absorbed by 1676.[8]

text: The middle colonies' were scattered West of New York City (established 1626; taken over by the English in 1664) and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (established 1682). The initially Dutch colony of New York had the most eclectic collection of residents from many different nations and prospered as a major trading and commercial center after about 1700. From around 1680 to 1725, the Pennsylvania colonial center was dominated by the Quakers for decades after they emigrated, mainly from the North Midlands of England. During this time, the main commercial center of Philadelphia was run mostly by prosperous Quakers, supplemented by many small farming and trading communities, with a strong German contingent located in several small towns in the Delaware River valley.[9]

text: Starting around 1680, when Pennsylvania was founded, many more settlers arrived to the middle colonies. Many Protestant sects were encouraged to settle there for freedom of religion and good, cheap land. Their origins were about 60% British and 33% German. By 1780, New York's population were around 27% descendants of Dutch settlers, about 6% were black, and the remainder were mostly English with a wide mixture of other Europeans. New Jersey, and Delaware had a British majority, with 7-11% German-descendants, about 6% black population, and a small contingent of the Swedish descendants of New Sweden. At this time, nearly all were at least third-generation natives.[citation needed]

text: Frontier[edit]

text: The colonial frontier was mainly settled from about 1717 to 1775. These were mostly Presbyterian settlers from North England border lands, Scotland, and Ulster, fleeing hard times and religious persecution.[10] The fourth major center of settlement was the Western frontier, located in the Western parts of Pennsylvania and in the South, which was settled during the early to late 18th century by mostly Scots-Irish, Scots, with others mostly from North England border lands. Between 250,000 and 400,000 Scotch-Irish migrated to America in the 18th century.[10] The Scotch-Irish soon became the dominant culture of the Appalachians from Pennsylvania to Georgia. Areas where people reported 'American' ancestry were the places where, historically, northern English, Scottish and Scotch-Irish Protestants settled: in the interior of the South, and the Appalachian region.[11] Scotch-Irish American immigrants, were made up of Scots who had initially settled in Ireland. They were heavily Presbyterian, largely self-sufficient, and generally hostile to Native Americans and Catholics.[13] They had little interaction with the primarily Catholic, native born Irish culture before immigrating. The Scotch-Irish arrived in large numbers during the early 18th century and they often preferred to settle in the back country and the frontier from Pennsylvania to Georgia, where they mingled with second generation and later English settlers. They enjoyed the very cheap land and independence from established governments common to frontier settlements.

text: Southern Colonies[edit]

text: The mostly agricultural Southern English colonies initially had very high death rates for new settlers due to malaria, yellow fever, and other diseases as well as skirmishes with Native Americans. Despite this, a steady flow of new settlers, mostly from Central England and the London area, kept up population growth. Initially, the large plantations were mostly owned by friends (mostly minor aristocrats) of the British-appointed governors. Many settlers arrived as indentured servants who had to work off their passage with five to seven years of work for room and board, clothing, and training, but no cash wages. After their terms of indentures expired, most of the indentures settled small farms on the frontier. The Southern colonies were about 55% British, 38% Black, and roughly 7% German.[citation needed] The Atlantic slave trade primarily ceased after 1775 and it was outlawed in 1808, although some slaves were smuggled in afterwards.

text: After 1630, the initial areas of settlement had been largely cleared of Native Americans by major outbreaks of measles, smallpox, and bubonic plague beginning decades before the settlers began arriving in large numbers. The leading killer was smallpox, which arrived in the New World around 1510–1530.[12]

text: Characteristics[edit]

text: While the 13 colonies differentiated in how they were settled and by whom, they had many commonalities. Nearly all were settled and financed by privately organized British settlers or families using free enterprise without any significant English Royal or Parliamentary government support or input. Nearly all commercial activity was run in small, privately owned businesses with good credit both at home and in England, which was essential since they were often cash poor. Most settlements were nearly independent of British trade since they grew or made nearly everything they needed; the average cost of imports per household was 5–15 pounds per year. Most settlements were created by complete family groups with several generations often present. The population was typically rural, with close to 80% owning the land they lived and farmed on. After 1700, as the Industrial Revolution progressed, more of the population started to move to cities, much like what had happened in Britain. Initially, the Dutch and German Americans primarily spoke dialects brought over from Europe, while English was the main trade language. Governments and laws primarily copied the English. The only major British institution to be abandoned was the aristocracy, noted by nearly universal absence. The settlers generally established their own popularly elected governments and courts on as many levels as they could and were nearly all, within a few years, self-governing, self-supporting, and self replicating. This self ruling pattern became so ingrained that almost all new settlements would have their own government up and running shortly after arrival for the next 200 years.

text: Irish Catholics[edit]

text: According to the Dictionary of American History, approximately "50,000 to 100,000 Irishmen, over 75 percent of them Catholic, came to United States in the 1600s, while 100,000 more Irish Catholics arrived in the 1700s." Indentured servitude was an especially common way of affording migration, and in the 1740s the Irish made up nine out of ten indentured servants in some colonial regions. However, they numbered only 40,000 or 1.6% of the population in 1780, more than half in Maryland.

text: After the colonies were initially settled, their population growth was made up almost entirely of natural growth with foreign-born immigrant populations rarely exceeding 10% (except in isolated instances). The last significant colonies to be settled primarily by immigrants were Pennsylvania (1680s+), the Carolinas (1663+), and Georgia (1732+). Even here the immigrants came mostly from England and Scotland with the exception of a large Germanic contingent to Pennsylvania. Elsewhere internal American migration from other colonies provided nearly all of the settlers for each new colony or state.[13] Populations grew by about 80% at a 3% "natural" annual growth rate sustained over a 20-year interval.

text: Over half of all new British immigrants in the South initially arrived as indentured servants.[14] They were mostly poor young people who couldn't find work in England and couldn't afford passage to America and. In addition, about 60,000 British convicts were transported to the new British colonies in Georgia in the 18th century. Most of these so-called convicts were guilty of being very poor and out of work. "Serious" criminals were generally executed. Ironically, these "convicts" are often the only immigrants with nearly complete immigration records as other immigrants typically showed up with few or no records.[15]

text: Other colonies[edit]

text: Spanish[edit]

text: Although Spain set up a few forts in Florida, notably San Agustín (present-day Saint Augustine) in 1565, they sent few settlers to Florida. Spaniards moving north from Mexico founded the San Juan on the Rio Grande in 1598, and Santa Fe in 1607–1608. The settlers were forced to leave temporarily for 12 years (1680–1692) by the Pueblo Revolt before returning.

text: Spanish Texas lasted from 1690 to 1821 when Texas was governed as a colony which was separate from New Spain. In 1731, Canary Islanders (or "Isleños") arrived to establish San Antonio.[16] The majority of the few hundred Texan and New Mexican colonizers in the Spanish colonial period were Spaniards and criollos.[17] California, New Mexico, and Arizona all had Spanish settlements. In 1781 Spanish settlers founded Los Angeles.

text: At the time they joined the U.S., Californios in California numbered about 10,000 and Tejanos in Texas about 4,000. New Mexico had 47,000 Spanish settlers in 1842. Arizona was only thinly settled.

text: However, not all these settlers were of European descent. As in the rest of the American colonies, new settlements were based on the casta system, and although all could speak Spanish, it was really a melting pot of whites, Natives, and mestizos.

text: French[edit]

text: In the late 17th century, French expeditions established a foothold on the Saint Lawrence River, Mississippi River, and Gulf Coast. Interior trading posts, forts, and cities were thinly spread throughout Louisiana such as Saint Louis, Baton Rouge, Sault Sainte Marie, Prairie du Rocher, and Sainte-Geneviève. The city of Detroit was the third largest settlement in New France. New Orleans expanded when several thousand French-speaking refugees from the region of Acadia (now Nova Scotia, Canada) made their way to Louisiana following British expulsion, settling largely in the Southwest Louisiana region now called Acadiana. Their descendants are now called Cajun and still dominate the coastal areas.[18] It is estimated that 7,000 European immigrants settled in Louisiana during the 18th century.

text: Population in 1790[edit]

text: The following were the countries of origin for new arrivals to the United States before 1790.[19] The regions marked with an asterisk were part of Great Britain. The ancestry of the 3.9 million population in 1790 has been estimated by various sources by sampling last names from the 1790 census and assigning them a country of origin. The Irish in the 1790 census were mostly Scotch-Irish. The French were primarily Huguenots. The total U.S. Catholic population in 1790 was probably less than 5%. The Native American population inside territorial U.S. boundaries was less than 100,000.[citation needed]

text:
U.S. historical populations

Country
Immigrants before 1790
Population 1790[20]

Africa[21]
360,000
757,000

England*
230,000
2,100,000

Ulster Scotch-Irish*
135,000
300,000

Germany[22]
103,000
270,000

Scotland*
48,500
150,000

Ireland*
8,000
(Incl. in Scot-Irish)

Netherlands
6,000
100,000

Wales*
4,000
10,000

France
3,000
15,000

Jewish[23]
1,000
2,000

Sweden
500
2,000

Other[24]
50,000
200,000

British total
425,500
2,560,000

Total[25]
950,000
3,900,000

tag: table

text: The 1790 population reflected the approximately 50,000 Loyalists, or "Tories", who immigrated to Canada at the end of the American Revolution, and the less than 10,000 others who immigrated to other British possessions including England.

text: Of the total white population in 1790, about 80% was of British ancestry. In this era the population roughly doubled by natural increase every 25 years. Relentless population expansion pushed the U.S. frontier to the Pacific by 1848. Most immigrants came long distances to settle in the U.S. However, many Irish left Canada for the U.S. in the 1840s. French Canadians who came down from Quebec after 1860 and the Mexicans who came north after 1911 found it easier to move back and forth.[citation needed]

text: 1790 to 1849[edit]

text: There was relatively little immigration from 1770 to 1830; while there was significant emigration from the U.S. to Canada, including about 75,000 Loyalists as well as Germans and others looking for better farmland in what is now Ontario. Large scale immigration resumed in the 1830s from Britain, Ireland, Germany, and other parts of Central Europe as well as Scandinavia. Most were attracted by the cheap farmland. Some were artisans and skilled factory workers attracted by the first stage of industrialization. The Irish Catholics were primarily unskilled workers who built a majority of the canals and railroads, settling in urban areas. Many Irish went to the emerging textile mill towns of the Northeast, while others became longshoremen in the growing Atlantic and Gulf port cities. Half the Germans headed to farms, especially in the Midwest (with some to Texas), while the other half became craftsmen in urban areas.

text: Nativism took the form of political anti-Catholicism directed mostly at the Irish (as well as Germans). It became important briefly in the mid-1850s in the guise of the Know Nothing party. Most of the Catholics and German Lutherans became Democrats, and most of the other Protestants joined the new Republican Party. During the Civil War, ethnic communities supported the war and produced large numbers of soldiers on both sides. Riots broke out in New York City and other Irish and German strongholds in 1863 when a draft was instituted, particularly in light of the provision exempting those who could afford payment.

text: Based on available records, immigration totaled 8,385 in 1820, with immigration totals gradually increasing to 23,322 by the year 1830; for the 1820s decade immigration more than doubled to 143,000. Between 1831 and 1840, immigration more than quadrupled to a total of 599,000. These included about 207,000 Irish, starting to emigrate in large numbers following Britain's easing of travel restrictions, and about 152,000 Germans, 76,000 British, and 46,000 French, constituting the next largest immigrant groups of the decade.

text: Between 1841 and 1850, immigration nearly tripled again, totaling 1,713,000 immigrants, including at least 781,000 Irish, 435,000 Germans, 267,000 British, and 77,000 French. The Irish, driven by the Potato Famine (1845–1849), emigrated directly from their homeland to escape poverty and death. The failed revolutions of 1848 brought many intellectuals and activists to exile in the U.S. Bad times and poor conditions in Europe drove people out, while land, relatives, freedom, opportunity, and jobs in the US lured them in.

text:
Population and Foreign Born 1790 to 1849
Census Population, Immigrants per Decade

Census
Population
Immigrants1
Foreign Born
 %

1790
3,918,000
60,000

1800
5,236,000
60,000

1810
7,036,000
60,000

1820
10,086,000
60,000

1830
12,785,000
143,000
200,000 2
1.6%

1840
17,018,000
599,000
800,000 2
4.7%

1850
23,054,000
1,713,000
2,244,000
9.7%

1. The total number immigrating in each decade from 1790 to 1820 are estimates.
2. The number of foreign born in 1830 and 1840 decades are extrapolations.

text: Starting in 1820, some federal records, including ship passenger lists, were kept for immigration purposes, and a gradual increase in immigration was recorded; more complete immigration records provide data on immigration after 1830. Though conducted since 1790, the census of 1850 was the first in which place of birth was asked specifically. The foreign-born population in the U.S. likely reached its minimum around 1815, at approximately 100,000 or 1% of the population. By 1815, most of the immigrants who arrived before the American Revolution had died, and there had been almost no new immigration thereafter.

text: Nearly all population growth up to 1830 was by internal increase; around 98% of the population was native-born. By 1850, this shifted to about 90% native-born. The first significant Catholic immigration started in the mid-1840s, shifting the population from about 95% Protestant down to about 90% by 1850.

text: In 1848, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, concluding the Mexican War, extended U.S. citizenship to approximately 60,000 Mexican residents of the New Mexico Territory and 10,000 living in California. An additional approximate 2,500 foreign born California residents also become U.S. citizens.

text: In 1849, the California Gold Rush attracted 100,000 would-be miners from the Eastern U.S., Latin America, China, Australia, and Europe. California became a state in 1850 with a population of about 90,000.

text: 1850 to 1930[edit]

text: Demography[edit]

text: Between 1850 and 1930, about 5 million Germans migrated to the United States, peaking between 1881 and 1885 when a million Germans settled primarily in the Midwest. Between 1820 and 1930, 3.5 million British and 4.5 million Irish entered America. Before 1845 most Irish immigrants were Protestants. After 1845, Irish Catholics began arriving in large numbers, largely driven by the Great Famine.[26]

text: After 1880 larger steam-powered oceangoing ships replaced sailing ships, which resulted in lower fares and greater immigrant mobility. Meanwhile, farming improvements in Southern Europe and the Russian Empire created surplus labor. Young people between the ages of 15 to 30 were predominant among newcomers. This wave of migration, constituting the third episode in the history of U.S. immigration, may be better referred to as a flood of immigrants, as nearly 25 million Europeans made the long trip. Italians, Greeks, Hungarians, Poles, and others speaking Slavic languages made up the bulk of this migration. 2.5 to 4 million Jews were among them.

text: Destinations[edit]

text: Each group evinced a distinctive migration pattern in terms of the gender balance within the migratory pool, the permanence of their migration, their literacy rates, the balance between adults and children, and the like. But they shared one overarching characteristic: they flocked to urban destinations and made up the bulk of the U.S. industrial labor pool, making possible the emergence of such industries as steel, coal, automotive, textile, and garment production, enabling the United States to leap into the front ranks of the world's economic giants.

text: Their urban destinations, numbers, and perhaps an antipathy towards foreigners, led to the emergence of a second wave of organized xenophobia. By the 1890s, many Americans, particularly from the ranks of the well-off, white, and native-born, considered immigration to pose a serious danger to the nation's health and security. In 1893 a group formed the Immigration Restriction League, and it, along with other similarly inclined organizations, began to press Congress for severe curtailment of foreign immigration.

text: Irish and German Catholic immigration was opposed in the 1850s by the Nativist/Know Nothing movement, originating in New York in 1843 as the American Republican Party (not to be confused with the modern Republican Party). It was empowered by popular fears that the country was being overwhelmed by Catholic immigrants, who were often regarded as hostile to American values and controlled by the Pope in Rome. Active mainly from 1854–56, it strove to curb immigration and naturalization, though its efforts met with little success. There were few prominent leaders, and the largely middle-class and Protestant membership fragmented over the issue of slavery, most often joining the Republican Party by the time of the 1860 presidential election.[27][28]

text: European immigrants joined the Union Army in large numbers, including 177,000 born in Germany and 144,000 born in Ireland.[29] Many Germans could see the parallels between slavery and serfdom in the old fatherland.[30]

text: Between 1840 and 1930, about 900,000 French Canadians left Quebec in order to immigrate to the United States and settle, mainly in New England. Considering the fact that the population of Quebec was only 892,061 in 1851, this was a massive exodus. 13.6 million Americans claimed to have French ancestry in the 1980 census. A large portion of them have ancestors who emigrated from French Canada, since immigration from France was low throughout the history of the United States. During the same period almost 4 million other Canadians immigrated to the U.S. In the New England states 12% of the population can trace its ancestry back to Quebec and 10% can trace its ancestry back to the Maritime Provinces.

text: Shortly after the U.S. Civil War, some states started to pass their own immigration laws, which prompted the U.S. Supreme Court to rule in 1875 that immigration was a federal responsibility.[31] In 1875, the nation passed its first immigration law, the Page Act of 1875, also known as the Asian Exclusion Act, outlawing the importation of Asian contract laborers, any Asian woman who would engage in prostitution, and all people considered to be convicts in their own countries.[32]

text: In 1882 Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act. By excluding all Chinese laborers from entering the country, the Chinese Exclusion Act severely curtailed the number of immigrants of Chinese descent allowed into the United States for 10 years.[33] The law was renewed in 1892 and 1902. During this period, Chinese migrants illegally entered the United States through the loosely guarded U.S.-Canadian border.[34]

text: Prior to 1890, the individual states, rather than the Federal government, regulated immigration into the United States.[35] The Immigration Act of 1891 established a Commissioner of Immigration in the Treasury Department.[36] The Canadian Agreement of 1894 extended U.S. immigration restrictions to Canadian ports.

text: The Dillingham Commission was set up by Congress in 1907 to investigate the effects of immigration on the country. The Commission's 40-volume analysis of immigration during the previous three decades led it to conclude that the major source of immigration had shifted from Central, Northern, and Western Europeans to Southern Europeans and Russians. It was, however, apt to make generalizations about regional groups that were subjective and failed to differentiate between distinct cultural attributes.[37][38]

text: The 1910s marked the high point of Italian immigration to the United States. Over two million Italians immigrated in those years, with a total of 5.3 million between 1880 and 1920.[39][40] About half returned to Italy, after working an average of five years in the U.S.[41]

text: About 1.5 million Swedes and Norwegians immigrated to the United States within this period, due to opportunity in America and poverty and religious oppression in united Sweden-Norway. This accounted for around 20% of the total population of the kingdom at that time. They settled mainly in the Midwest, especially Minnesota and the Dakotas. Danes had comparably low immigration rates due to a better economy; after 1900 many Danish immigrants were Mormon converts who moved to Utah.

text: Over two million Central Europeans, mainly Catholics and Jews, immigrated between 1880 and 1924. People of Polish ancestry are the largest Central European ancestry group in the United States after Germans. Immigration of Eastern Orthodox ethnic groups was much lower.

text: Lebanese and Syrian immigrants started to settle in large numbers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The vast majority of the immigrants from Lebanon and Syria were Christians, but smaller numbers of Jews, Muslims, and Druze also settled. Many lived in New York City's Little Syria and in Boston. In the 1920s and 1930s, a large number of these immigrants set out West, with Detroit getting a large number of Middle Eastern immigrants, as well as many Midwestern areas where the Arabs worked as farmers.

text: From 1880 to 1924, around two million Jews moved to the United States, mostly seeking better opportunity in America and fleeing the pogroms of the Russian Empire. After 1934 Jews, along with any other above-quota immigration, were usually denied access to the United States.

text: Congress passed a literacy requirement in 1917 to curb the influx of low-skilled immigrants from entering the country.

text: Congress passed the Emergency Quota Act in 1921, followed by the Immigration Act of 1924, which was aimed at further restricting the Southern Europeans and Russians who had begun to enter the country in large numbers beginning in the 1890s. This ultimately resulted in precluding all "extra" immigration to the United States, including Jews fleeing Nazi German persecution.

text: The Immigration Act of 1924 set quotas for European immigrants so that no more than 2% of the 1890 immigrant stocks were allowed into America.

text: New Immigration[edit]

text: "New immigration" was a term from the late 1880s that came from the influx of Catholic and Jewish immigrants from Italy and Russia (areas that previously sent few immigrants).[42]

text: Nativists feared the new arrivals lacked the political, social, and occupational skills needed to successfully assimilate into American culture. This raised the issue of whether the U.S. was still a "melting pot," or if it had just become a "dumping ground," and many old-stock Americans worried about negative effects on the economy, politics, and culture.[43] A major proposal was to impose a literacy test, whereby applicants had to be able to read and write in their own language before they were admitted.[44]

text: 1930 to 2000[edit]

text: Restriction proceeded piecemeal over the course of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but immediately after the end of World War I (1914–18) and into the early 1920s, Congress changed the nation's basic policy about immigration. The National Origins Formula of 1921 (and its final form in 1924) not only restricted the number of immigrants who might enter the United States, but also assigned slots according to quotas based on national origins. A complicated piece of legislation, it essentially gave preference to immigrants from Central, Northern and Western Europe, severely limiting the numbers from Russia and Southern Europe, and declared all potential immigrants from Asia unworthy of entry into the United States.

text: The legislation excluded the Western Hemisphere from the quota system, and the 1920s ushered in the penultimate era of U.S. immigration history. Immigrants could and did move quite freely from Mexico, the Caribbean (including Jamaica, Barbados, and Haiti), and other parts of Central and South America. This era, which reflected the application of the 1924 legislation, lasted until 1965. During those 40 years, the United States began to admit, case by case, limited numbers of refugees. Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany before World War II, Jewish Holocaust survivors after the war, non-Jewish displaced persons fleeing Communist rule in Central Europe and Russia, Hungarians seeking refuge after their failed uprising in 1956, and Cubans after the 1960 revolution managed to find haven in the United States when their plight moved the collective conscience of America, but the basic immigration law remained in place.

text: Equal Nationality Act of 1934[edit]

text: This law allowed foreign-born children of American mothers and alien fathers who had entered America before the age of 18 and had lived in America for five years to apply for American citizenship for the first time.[45] It also made the naturalization process quicker for the alien husbands of American wives.[45] This law equalized expatriation, immigration, naturalization, and repatriation between women and men.[45][46] However, it was not applied retroactively, and was modified by later laws, such as the Nationality Act of 1940.[45][47]

text: Tydings–McDuffie Act[edit]

text: In 1934, the Tydings–McDuffie Act provided independence of the Philippines on July 4, 1946. Until 1965, national origin quotas strictly limited immigration from the Philippines. In 1965, after revision of the immigration law, significant Filipino immigration began, totaling 1,728,000 by 2004.[48]

text: Postwar immigration[edit]

text: In 1945, the War Brides Act allowed foreign-born wives of U.S. citizens who had served in the U.S. Armed Forces to immigrate to the United States. In 1946, The War Brides Act was extended to include the fiancés of American soldiers. In 1946, the Luce-Celler Act extended the right to become naturalized citizens to from the newly independent nation of The Philippines and to Asian Indians. The immigration quota was set at 100 people per year.[49]

text: At the end of World War II, "regular" immigration almost immediately increased under the official national origins quota system as refugees from war torn Europe began immigrating to the U.S. After the war, there were jobs for nearly everyone who wanted one, when most women employed during the war went back into the home. From 1941 to 1950, 1,035,000 people immigrated to the U.S., including 226,000 from Germany, 139,000 from the UK, 171,000 from Canada, 60,000 from Mexico and 57,000 from Italy.[50]

text: The Displaced Persons Act of 1948 finally allowed the displaced people of World War II to start immigrating.[51] Some 200,000 Europeans and 17,000 orphans displaced by World War II were initially allowed to immigrate to the United States outside of immigration quotas. President Harry S. Truman signed the first Displaced Persons (DP) act on June 25, 1948, allowing entry for 200,000 DPs, then followed with the more accommodating second DP act on June 16, 1950, allowing entry for another 200,000. This quota, including acceptance of 55,000 Volksdeutschen, required sponsorship for all immigrants. The American program was the most notoriously bureaucratic of all the DP programs and much of the humanitarian effort was undertaken by charitable organizations, such as the Lutheran World Federation as well as other ethnic groups. Along with an additional quota of 200,000 granted in 1953 and more in succeeding years, a total of nearly 600,000 refugees were allowed into the country outside the quota system, second only to Israel's 650,000.

text: In 1950, after the start of the Korean War, the Internal Security Act barred admission of Communists, who might engage in activities "which would be prejudicial to the public interest, or would endanger the welfare or safety of the United States."

text: In 1950, the invasion of South Korea by North Korea started the Korean War and left a war-ravaged Korea behind. There was little U.S. immigration due to the national origin quotas of the immigration law. Significant Korean immigration began in 1965 after revision of the law, totaling 848,000 by 2004.

text: In 1952, the McCarran Walter Immigration Act affirmed the national-origins quota system of 1924 and limited total annual immigration to one-sixth of one percent of the population of the continental United States in 1920, or 175,455. This exempted the spouses and children of U.S. citizens and people born in the Western Hemisphere from the quota. In 1953, the Refugee Relief Act extended refugee status to non-Europeans.

text: In 1954, Operation Wetback forced the return of thousands of illegal immigrants to Mexico.[52] Between 1944 and 1954, "the decade of the wetback," the number of illegal immigrants coming from Mexico increased by 6,000 percent. It is estimated that before Operation Wetback got under way, more than a million workers had crossed the Rio Grande illegally. Cheap labor displaced native agricultural workers, and increased violation of labor laws and discrimination encouraged criminality, disease, and illiteracy. According to a study conducted in 1950 by the President's Commission on Migratory Labor in Texas, the Rio Grande Valley cotton growers were paying approximately half of the wages paid elsewhere in Texas. The United States Border Patrol aided by municipal, county, state, federal authorities, and the military, began a quasi-military operation of the search and seizure of all illegal immigrants. Fanning out from the lower Rio Grande Valley, Operation Wetback moved Northward. Initially, illegal immigrants were repatriated through Presidio because the Mexican city across the border, Ojinaga, had rail connections to the interior of Mexico by which workers could be quickly moved on to Durango. The forces used by the government were relatively small, perhaps no more than 700 men, but were augmented by border patrol officials who hoped to scare illegal workers into fleeing back to Mexico. Ships became a preferred mode of transport because they carried illegal workers farther from the border than buses, trucks, or trains. It is difficult to estimate the number of illegal immigrants that left due to the operation—most voluntarily. The INS claimed as many as 1,300,000, though the number officially apprehended did not come anywhere near this total. The program was ultimately abandoned due to questions surrounding the ethics of its implementation. Citizens of Mexican descent complained of police stopping all "Mexican looking" people and utilizing extreme "police-state" methods including deportation of American-born children who were citizens by law.[53]

text: The failed 1956 Hungarian Revolution, before being crushed by the Soviets, forged a temporary hole in the Iron Curtain that allowed a burst of refugees to escape, bringing in 245,000 new Hungarian families by 1960. From 1950 to 1960, the U.S. had 2,515,000 new immigrants with 477,000 arriving from Germany, 185,000 from Italy, 52,000 new arrivals from the Netherlands, 203,000 from the UK, 46,000 from Japan, 300,000 from Mexico, and 377,000 from Canada.

text: The 1959 Cuban revolution led by Fidel Castro drove the upper and middle classes to exile, and 409,000 families immigrated to the U.S. by 1970.[54] This was facilitated by the 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act, which gave permanent resident status to Cubans physically present in the United States for one year if they entered after January 1, 1959.

text: Hart-Celler Act[edit]

text: This all changed with passage of the Hart-Celler Act in 1965, a by-product of the civil rights revolution and a jewel in the crown of President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs. The measure had not been intended to stimulate immigration from Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and elsewhere in the developing world. Rather, by doing away with the racially based quota system, its authors had expected that immigrants would come from "traditional" societies such as Italy, Greece, and Portugal, places that labored under very small quotas in the 1924 law. The law replaced the quotas with preferential categories based on family relationships and job skills, giving particular preference to potential immigrants with relatives in the United States and with occupations deemed critical by the U.S. Department of Labor. After 1970, however, following an initial influx from European countries, immigrants from places like Korea, China, India, the Philippines, and Pakistan, as well as countries in Africa became more common.

text: In 1986, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) was passed, creating, for the first time, penalties for employers who hired illegal immigrants. IRCA, as proposed in Congress, was projected to give amnesty to about 1,000,000 workers in the country illegally. In practice, amnesty for about 3,000,000 immigrants already in the United States was granted. Most were from Mexico. Legal Mexican immigrant family numbers were 2,198,000 in 1980, 4,289,000 in 1990 (includes IRCA), and 7,841,000 in 2000. Adding another 12,000,000 illegal immigrants of which about 80% are thought to be Mexicans would bring the Mexican family total to over 16,000,000—about 16% of the Mexican population.[citation needed]

text: Immigration summary since 1830[edit]

text: The top ten birth countries of the foreign born population since 1830, according to the U.S. Census, are shown below. Blank entries mean that the country did not make it into the top ten for that census, not that there is no data from that census. The 1830 numbers are from immigration statistics as listed in the 2004 Year Book of Immigration Statistics.[55]

text: • The 1830 numbers list un-naturalized foreign citizens and does not include naturalized foreign born. The 1850 census is the first census that asks for place of birth. The historical census data can be found online in the Virginia Library Geostat Center [56] Population numbers are in thousands.

text:
Country/Year
1830•
1850
1880
1900
1930
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000

Austria

305
214

Bohemia

85

Canada
2
148
717
1,180
1,310
953
812
843
745
678

China

104

1,391

Cuba

439
608
737
952

Czechoslovakia

492

Dominican Republic

692

El Salvador

765

France
9
54
107

Germany
8
584
1,967
2,663
1,609
990
833
849
712

Hungary

245

India

2,000

Ireland
54
962
1,855
1,615
745
339

Italy

484
1,790
1,257
1,009
832
581

Korea

290
568
701

Mexico
11
13

641
576
760
2,199
4,298
7,841

Netherlands
1
10

Norway

13
182
336

Pakistan

724

Philippines

501
913
1,222

Poland

1,269
748
548
418

Russia/Soviet Union

424
1,154
691
463
406

Sweden

194
582
595

Switzerland
3
13
89

United Kingdom
27
379
918
1,168
1,403
833
686
669
640

Vietnam

543
863

Total Foreign Born
108*
2,244
6,679
10,341
14,204
10,347
9,619
14,079
19,763
31,100

% Foreign Born
0.8%*
9.7%
13.3%
13.6%
11.6%
5.8%
4.7%
6.2%
7.9%
11.1%

Native Born
12,677
20,947
43,476
65,653
108,571
168,978
193,591
212,466
228,946
250,321

% Native Born
99.2%
90.3%
86.7%
86.4%
88.4%
94.2%
95.3%
94%
92.1%
88.9%

Total Population
12,785
23,191
50,155
75,994
122,775
179,325
203,210
226,545
248,709
281,421

1830
1850
1880
1900
1930
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000

text:
Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status Fiscal Years 1820 to 2010[57]

Year

Year

Year

1820
8,385
1885
395,346
1950
249,187

1825
10,199
1890
455,302
1955
237,790

1830
23,322
1895
258,536
1960
265,398

1835
45,374
1900
448,572
1965
296,697

1840
84,066
1905
1,026,499
1970
373,326

1845
114,371
1910
1,041,570
1975
385,378

1850
369,980
1915
326,700
1980
524,295

1855
200,877
1920
430,001
1985
568,149

1860
153,640
1925
294,314
1990
1,535,872

1865
248,120
1930
241,700
1995
720,177

1870
387,203
1935
34,956
2000
841,002

1875
227,498
1940
70,756
2005
1,122,257

1880
457,257
1945
38,119
2010
1,042,625

text: Historical foreign-born population by state[edit]

text:
Foreign-Born Population By U.S. State As a % of the Total Population (1850-2010)[58][59]

State/Territory
1850
1860
1870
1880
1890
1900
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010

 United States of America
9.7%
13.2%
14.4%
13.3%
14.8%
13.6%
14.7%
13.2%
11.6%
8.8%
6.9%
5.4%
4.7%
6.2%
7.9%
11.1%
12.9%

 Alabama
1.0%
1.3%
1.0%
0.8%
1.0%
0.8%
0.9%
0.8%
0.6%
0.4%
0.4%
0.5%
0.5%
1.0%
1.1%
2.0%
3.5%

 Alaska

3.6%
2.6%
4.0%
4.5%
5.9%
6.9%

 Arizona

60.1%
39.7%
31.5%
19.7%
23.9%
24.1%
15.1%
7.8%
6.3%
5.4%
4.3%
6.0%
7.6%
12.8%
13.4%

 Arkansas
0.7%
0.8%
1.0%
1.3%
1.3%
1.1%
1.1%
0.8%
0.6%
0.4%
0.5%
0.4%
0.4%
1.0%
1.1%
2.8%
4.5%

 California
23.5%
38.6%
37.5%
33.9%
30.3%
24.7%
24.7%
22.1%
18.9%
13.4%
10.0%
8.5%
8.8%
15.1%
21.7%
26.2%
27.2%

 Colorado

7.8%
16.6%
20.5%
20.4%
16.9%
16.2%
12.7%
9.6%
6.4%
4.6%
3.4%
2.7%
3.9%
4.3%
8.6%
9.8%

 Connecticut
10.4%
17.5%
21.1%
20.9%
24.6%
26.2%
29.6%
27.4%
23.9%
19.3%
14.8%
10.9%
8.6%
8.6%
8.5%
10.9%
13.6%

 Delaware
5.7%
8.2%
7.3%
6.5%
7.8%
7.5%
8.6%
8.9%
7.1%
5.6%
4.1%
3.3%
2.9%
3.2%
3.3%
5.7%
8.0%

 District of Columbia
9.5%
16.6%
12.3%
9.6%
8.1%
7.2%
7.5%
6.7%
6.3%
5.3%
5.3%
5.1%
4.4%
6.4%
9.7%
12.9%
13.5%

 Florida
3.2%
2.4%
2.6%
3.7%
5.9%
4.5%
5.4%
5.6%
4.8%
4.1%
4.7%
5.5%
8.0%
10.9%
12.9%
16.7%
19.4%

 Georgia
0.7%
1.1%
0.9%
0.7%
0.7%
0.6%
0.6%
0.6%
0.5%
0.4%
0.5%
0.6%
0.7%
1.7%
2.7%
7.1%
9.7%

 Hawaii

10.9%
9.8%
14.2%
14.7%
17.5%
18.2%

 Idaho

52.6%
30.6%
20.7%
15.2%
13.1%
9.4%
7.3%
4.7%
3.4%
2.3%
1.8%
2.5%
2.9%
5.0%
5.5%

 Illinois
13.1%
19.0%
20.3%
19.0%
22.0%
20.1%
21.4%
18.7%
16.3%
12.3%
9.1%
6.8%
5.7%
7.2%
8.3%
12.3%
13.7%

 Indiana
5.6%
8.8%
8.4%
7.3%
6.7%
5.6%
5.9%
5.2%
4.4%
3.2%
2.5%
2.0%
1.6%
1.9%
1.7%
3.1%
4.6%

 Iowa
10.9%
15.7%
17.1%
16.1%
17.0%
13.7%
12.3%
9.4%
6.8%
4.6%
3.2%
2.0%
1.4%
1.6%
1.6%
3.1%
4.6%

 Kansas

11.8%
13.3%
11.1%
10.4%
8.6%
8.0%
6.3%
4.3%
2.9%
2.0%
1.5%
1.2%
2.0%
2.5%
5.0%
6.5%

 Kentucky
3.2%
5.2%
4.8%
3.6%
3.2%
2.3%
1.8%
1.3%
0.8%
0.6%
0.5%
0.6%
0.5%
0.9%
0.9%
2.0%
3.2%

 Louisiana
13.2%
11.4%
8.5%
5.8%
4.4%
3.8%
3.2%
2.6%
1.8%
1.2%
1.1%
0.9%
1.1%
2.0%
2.1%
2.6%
3.8%

 Maine
5.5%
6.0%
7.8%
9.1%
11.9%
13.4%
14.9%
14.0%
12.6%
9.9%
8.2%
6.2%
4.3%
3.9%
3.0%
2.9%
3.4%

 Maryland
8.8%
11.3%
10.7%
8.9%
9.0%
7.9%
8.1%
7.1%
5.9%
4.5%
3.7%
3.0%
3.2%
4.6%
6.6%
9.8%
13.9%

 Massachusetts
16.5%
21.1%
24.2%
24.9%
29.4%
30.2%
31.5%
28.3%
25.1%
19.9%
15.4%
11.2%
8.7%
8.7%
9.5%
12.2%
15.0%

 Michigan
13.8%
19.9%
22.6%
23.7%
26.0%
22.4%
21.3%
19.9%
17.6%
13.1%
9.5%
6.8%
4.8%
4.5%
3.8%
5.3%
6.0%

 Minnesota
32.5%
34.1%
36.5%
34.3%
35.9%
28.9%
26.2%
20.4%
15.2%
10.6%
7.1%
4.2%
2.6%
2.6%
2.6%
5.3%
7.1%

 Mississippi
0.8%
1.1%
1.4%
0.8%
0.6%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.4%
0.3%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.9%
0.8%
1.4%
2.1%

 Missouri
11.2%
13.6%
12.9%
9.8%
8.8%
7.0%
7.0%
5.5%
4.2%
3.0%
2.3%
1.8%
1.4%
1.7%
1.6%
2.7%
3.9%

 Montana

38.7%
29.4%
32.6%
27.6%
25.2%
17.4%
14.1%
10.1%
7.4%
4.5%
2.8%
2.3%
1.7%
1.8%
2.0%

 Nebraska

22.0%
25.0%
21.5%
19.1%
16.6%
14.8%
11.6%
8.7%
6.2%
4.4%
2.9%
1.9%
2.0%
1.8%
4.4%
6.1%

 Nevada

30.1%
44.2%
41.2%
32.1%
23.8%
24.1%
20.7%
16.6%
10.0%
6.7%
4.6%
3.7%
6.7%
8.7%
15.8%
18.8%

 New Hampshire
4.5%
6.4%
9.3%
13.3%
19.2%
21.4%
22.5%
20.6%
17.8%
13.9%
10.9%
7.4%
5.0%
4.4%
3.7%
4.4%
5.3%

 New Jersey
12.2%
18.3%
20.9%
19.6%
22.8%
22.9%
26.0%
23.5%
21.0%
16.8%
13.2%
10.1%
8.9%
10.3%
12.5%
17.5%
21.0%

 New Mexico
3.5%
7.2%
6.1%
6.7%
7.3%
7.0%
7.1%
8.3%
5.7%
2.9%
2.6%
2.3%
2.2%
4.0%
5.3%
8.2%
9.9%

 New York
21.2%
25.8%
26.0%
23.8%
26.2%
26.1%
30.2%
27.2%
25.9%
21.6%
17.4%
13.6%
11.6%
13.6%
15.9%
20.4%
22.2%

 North Carolina
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.4%
0.5%
0.6%
1.3%
1.7%
5.3%
7.5%

 North Dakota

44.6%
35.4%
27.1%
20.4%
15.5%
11.6%
7.8%
4.7%
3.0%
2.3%
1.5%
1.9%
2.5%

 Ohio
11.0%
14.0%
14.0%
12.3%
12.5%
11.0%
12.6%
11.8%
9.8%
7.5%
5.6%
4.1%
3.0%
2.8%
2.4%
3.0%
4.1%

 Oklahoma

4.4%
2.6%
2.4%
2.0%
1.3%
0.9%
0.8%
0.9%
0.8%
1.9%
2.1%
3.8%
5.5%

 Oregon
7.7%
9.8%
12.8%
17.5%
18.3%
15.9%
16.8%
13.7%
11.6%
8.3%
5.6%
4.0%
3.2%
4.1%
4.9%
8.5%
9.8%

 Pennsylvania
13.1%
14.8%
15.5%
13.7%
16.1%
15.6%
18.8%
16.0%
12.9%
9.9%
7.5%
5.3%
3.8%
3.4%
3.1%
4.1%
5.8%

 Rhode Island
16.2%
21.4%
25.5%
26.8%
30.8%
31.4%
33.0%
29.0%
25.0%
19.5%
14.4%
10.0%
7.8%
8.9%
9.5%
11.4%
12.8%

 South Carolina
1.3%
1.4%
1.1%
0.8%
0.5%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.5%
0.6%
1.5%
1.4%
2.9%
4.7%

 South Dakota

36.7%
34.0%
38.3%
27.7%
22.0%
17.3%
13.0%
9.5%
6.9%
4.7%
2.7%
1.6%
1.4%
1.1%
1.8%
2.7%

 Tennessee
0.6%
1.9%
1.5%
1.1%
1.1%
0.9%
0.9%
0.7%
0.5%
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.5%
1.1%
1.2%
2.8%
4.5%

 Texas
8.3%
7.2%
7.6%
7.2%
6.8%
5.9%
6.2%
7.8%
6.2%
3.7%
3.6%
3.1%
2.8%
6.0%
9.0%
13.9%
16.4%

 Utah
18.0%
31.7%
35.4%
30.6%
25.5%
19.4%
17.6%
13.2%
9.5%
6.0%
4.5%
3.6%
2.8%
3.5%
3.4%
7.1%
8.0%

 Vermont
10.7%
10.4%
14.3%
12.3%
13.3%
13.0%
14.0%
12.6%
12.0%
8.8%
7.6%
6.0%
4.2%
4.1%
3.1%
3.8%
4.4%

 Virginia
1.6%
2.2%
1.1%
1.0%
1.1%
1.0%
1.3%
1.4%
1.0%
0.9%
1.1%
1.2%
1.6%
3.3%
5.0%
8.1%
11.4%

 Washington

27.1%
21.0%
21.0%
25.8%
21.5%
22.4%
19.6%
16.3%
12.1%
8.3%
6.3%
4.6%
5.8%
6.6%
10.4%
13.1%

 West Virginia

3.9%
3.0%
2.5%
2.3%
4.7%
4.2%
3.0%
2.2%
1.7%
1.3%
1.0%
1.1%
0.9%
1.1%
1.2%

 Wisconsin
36.2%
35.7%
34.6%
30.8%
30.8%
24.9%
22.0%
17.5%
13.2%
9.2%
6.3%
4.3%
3.0%
2.7%
2.5%
3.6%
4.5%

 Wyoming

38.5%
28.1%
24.6%
18.8%
19.9%
13.7%
10.3%
6.8%
4.6%
2.9%
2.1%
2.0%
1.7%
2.3%
2.8%


document_title: Protein (nutrient)

question_text: where is protein digested in the human body

text: Protein (nutrient)

text: Protein functions in human body[edit]

text: Protein is a nutrient needed by the human body for growth and maintenance. Aside from water, proteins are the most abundant kind of molecules in the body. Protein can be found in all cells of the body and is the major structural component of all cells in the body, especially muscle. This also includes body organs, hair and skin. Proteins are also used in membranes, such as glycoproteins. When broken down into amino acids, they are used as precursors to nucleic acid, co-enzymes, hormones, immune response, cellular repair, and other molecules essential for life. Additionally, protein is needed to form blood cells.[1][2]

text: Sources[edit]

text: Protein can be found in a wide range of food. The best combination of protein sources depends on the region of the world, access, cost, amino acid types and nutrition balance, as well as acquired tastes. Some foods are high in certain amino acids, but their digestibility and the anti-nutritional factors present in these foods make them of limited value in human nutrition. Therefore, one must consider digestibility and secondary nutrition profile such as calories, cholesterol, vitamins and essential mineral density of the protein source.[8] On a worldwide basis, plant protein foods contribute over 60 percent of the per capita supply of protein, on average. In North America, animal-derived foods contribute about 70 percent of protein sources.[8]

text: Meat, products from milk, eggs, soy, and fish are sources of complete protein.[9]

text: Whole grains and cereals are another source of proteins. However, these tend to be limiting in the amino acid lysine or threonine, which are available in other vegetarian sources and meats. Examples of food staples and cereal sources of protein, each with a concentration greater than 7.0%, are (in no particular order) buckwheat, oats, rye, millet, maize (corn), rice, wheat, sorghum, amaranth, and quinoa.

text: Vegetarian sources of proteins include legumes, nuts, seeds and fruits. Legumes, some of which are called pulses in certain parts of the world, have higher concentrations of amino acids and are more complete sources of protein than whole grains and cereals. Examples of vegetarian foods with protein concentrations greater than 7 percent include soybeans, lentils, kidney beans, white beans, mung beans, chickpeas, cowpeas, lima beans, pigeon peas, lupines, wing beans, almonds, Brazil nuts, cashews, pecans, walnuts, cotton seeds, pumpkin seeds, hemp seeds, sesame seeds, and sunflower seeds.[8]

text: Food staples that are poor sources of protein include roots and tubers such as yams, cassava and sweet potato. Plantains, another major staple, are also a poor source of essential amino acids. Fruits, while rich in other essential nutrients, are another poor source of amino acids. The protein content in roots, tubers and fruits is between 0 and 2 percent. Food staples with low protein content must be complemented with foods with complete, quality protein content for a healthy life, particularly in children for proper development.[1][10][11]

text: A good source of protein is often a combination of various foods, because different foods are rich in different amino acids. A good source of dietary protein meets two requirements:[8]

text:
The requirement for the nutritionally indispensable amino acids (histidine, isoleucine, leucine, lysine, methionine, phenylalanine, threonine, tryptophan, and valine) under all conditions and for conditionally indispensable amino acids (cystine, tyrosine, taurine, glycine, arginine, glutamine, proline) under specific physiological and pathological conditions
The requirement for nonspecific nitrogen for the synthesis of the nutritionally dispensable amino acids (aspartic acid, asparagine, glutamic acid, alanine, serine) and other physiologically important nitrogen-containing compounds such as nucleic acids, creatine, and porphyrins.

tag: ul

text: Healthy people eating a balanced diet rarely need protein supplements.[7][8][10]

text: The table below presents the most important food groups as protein sources, from a worldwide perspective. It also lists their respective performance as source of the commonly limiting amino acids, in milligrams of limiting amino acid per gram of total protein in the food source.[10] The table reiterates the need for a balanced mix of foods to ensure adequate amino acid source.[citation needed]

text:
Food source
Lysine
Threonine
Tryptophan
Sulfur-containing
amino acids

Legumes
64
38
12
25

Cereals and whole grains
31
32
12
37

Nuts and seeds
45
36
17
46

Fruits
45
29
11
27

Animal
85
44
12
38

Protein source with highest density of respective amino acid.

Protein source with lowest density of respective amino acid.

text: Protein powders – such as casein, whey, egg, rice and soy – are processed and manufactured sources of protein.[12] These protein powders may provide an additional source of protein for bodybuilders. The type of protein is important in terms of its influence on protein metabolic response and possibly on the muscle's exercise performance. The different physical and/or chemical properties within the various types of protein may affect the rate of protein digestion. As a result, the amino acid availability and the accumulation of tissue protein is altered because of the various protein metabolic responses.[12]

text: Protein quality[edit]

text: The most important aspect and defining characteristic of protein from a nutritional standpoint is its amino acid composition.[2] There are multiple systems which rate proteins by their usefulness to an organism based on their relative percentage of amino acids and, in some systems, the digestibility of the protein source. They include biological value, net protein utilization, and PDCAAS (Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acids Score). Also see complete protein, nitrogen balance and protein combining. The PDCAAS was developed by the FDA as an improvement over the Protein efficiency ratio (PER) method. The PDCAAS rating is a fairly recent evaluation method; it was adopted by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations/World Health Organization (FAO/WHO) in 1993 as "the preferred 'best'" method to determine protein quality. These organizations have suggested that other methods for evaluating the quality of protein are inferior.[13] In 2013 FAO proposed changing to Digestible Indispensable Amino Acid Score.

text: Digestion[edit]

text: Most proteins are decomposed to single amino acids by digestion in the gastro-intestinal tract.[14]

text: Digestion typically begins in the stomach when pepsinogen is converted to pepsin by the action of hydrochloric acid, and continued by trypsin and chymotrypsin in the small intestine.[14] Before the absorption in the small intestine, most proteins are already reduced to single amino acid or peptides of several amino acids. Most peptides longer than four amino acids are not absorbed. Absorption into the intestinal absorptive cells is not the end. There, most of the peptides are broken into single amino acids.

text: Absorption of the amino acids and their derivatives into which dietary protein is degraded is done by the gastrointestinal tract. The absorption rates of individual amino acids are highly dependent on the protein source; for example, the digestibilities of many amino acids in humans, the difference between soy and milk proteins[15] and between individual milk proteins, beta-lactoglobulin and casein.[16] For milk proteins, about 50% of the ingested protein is absorbed between the stomach and the jejunum and 90% is absorbed by the time the digested food reaches the ileum.[17] Biological value (BV) is a measure of the proportion of absorbed protein from a food which becomes incorporated into the proteins of the organism's body.

text: Newborn[edit]

text: Newborns of mammals are exceptional in protein digestion and assimilation in that they can absorb intact proteins at the small intestine. This enables passive immunity, i.e., transfer of immunoglobulins from the mother to the newborn, via milk.[18]

text: Dietary requirements[edit]

text: Considerable debate has taken place regarding issues surrounding protein intake requirements.[19][20] The amount of protein required in a person's diet is determined in large part by overall energy intake, the body's need for nitrogen and essential amino acids, body weight and composition, rate of growth in the individual, physical activity level, the individual's energy and carbohydrate intake, and the presence of illness or injury.[3][12] Physical activity and exertion as well as enhanced muscular mass increase the need for protein. Requirements are also greater during childhood for growth and development, during pregnancy, or when breastfeeding in order to nourish a baby or when the body needs to recover from malnutrition or trauma or after an operation.[21]

text: If not enough energy is taken in through diet, as in the process of starvation, the body will use protein from the muscle mass to meet its energy needs, leading to muscle wasting over time. If the individual does not consume adequate protein in nutrition, then muscle will also waste as more vital cellular processes (e.g., respiration enzymes, blood cells) recycle muscle protein for their own requirements.[citation needed]

text: Dietary recommendations[edit]

text: According to US & Canadian Dietary Reference Intake guidelines, women aged 19–70 need to consume 46 grams of protein per day while men aged 19–70 need to consume 56 grams of protein per day to minimize risk of deficiency. These Recommended Dietary Allowances (RDAs) were calculated based on 0.8 grams protein per kilogram body weight and average body weights of 57 kg (126 pounds) and 70 kg (154 pounds), respectively.[2] However, this recommendation is based on structural requirements but disregards use of protein for energy metabolism.[19] This requirement is for a normal sedentary person.[22] In the United States, average protein consumption is higher than the RDA. According to results of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES 2013-2014), average protein consumption for women ages 20 and older was 69.8 grams and for men 98.3 grams/day.[23]

text: Active people[edit]

text: Several studies have concluded that active people and athletes may require elevated protein intake (compared to 0.8 g/kg) due to increase in muscle mass and sweat losses, as well as need for body repair and energy source.[19][20][22] Suggested amounts vary between 1.6 g/kg and 1.8 g/kg,[20] while a proposed maximum daily protein intake would be approximately 25% of energy requirements i.e. approximately 2 to 2.5 g/kg.[19] However, many questions still remain to be resolved.[20]

text: In addition, some have suggested that athletes using restricted-calorie diets for weight loss should further increase their protein consumption, possibly to 1.8–2.0 g/kg, in order to avoid loss of lean muscle mass.[24]

text: Aerobic exercise protein needs[edit]

text: Endurance athletes differ from strength-building athletes in that endurance athletes do not build as much muscle mass from training as strength-building athletes do.[citation needed] Research suggests that individuals performing endurance activity require more protein intake than sedentary individuals so that muscles broken down during endurance workouts can be repaired.[25] Although the protein requirement for athletes still remains controversial (for instance see Lamont, Nutrition Research Reviews, pages 142 - 149, 2012), research does show that endurance athletes can benefit from increasing protein intake because the type of exercise endurance athletes participate in still alters the protein metabolism pathway. The overall protein requirement increases because of amino acid oxidation in endurance-trained athletes.[25] Endurance athletes who exercise over a long period (2–5 hours per training session) use protein as a source of 5–10% of their total energy expended. Therefore, a slight increase in protein intake may be beneficial to endurance athletes by replacing the protein lost in energy expenditure and protein lost in repairing muscles. One review concluded that endurance athletes may increase daily protein intake to a maximum of 1.2–1.4 g per kg body weight.[12]

text: Anaerobic exercise protein needs[edit]

text: Research also indicates that individuals performing strength-training activity require more protein than sedentary individuals. Strength-training athletes may increase their daily protein intake to a maximum of 1.4–1.8 g per kg body weight to enhance muscle protein synthesis, or to make up for the loss of amino acid oxidation during exercise. Many athletes maintain a high-protein diet as part of their training. In fact, some athletes who specialize in anaerobic sports (e.g., weightlifting) believe a very high level of protein intake is necessary, and so consume high protein meals and also protein supplements.[3][12][25][26]

text: Special populations[edit]

text: Protein allergies[edit]

text: A food allergy is an abnormal immune response to proteins in food. The signs and symptoms may range from mild to severe. They may include itchiness, swelling of the tongue, vomiting, diarrhea, hives, trouble breathing, or low blood pressure. These symptoms typically occurs within minutes to one hour after exposure. When the symptoms are severe, it is known as anaphylaxis. The following eight foods are responsible for about 90% of allergic reactions: cow's milk, eggs, wheat, shellfish, fish, peanuts, tree nuts and soy.[27]

text: Phenylketonuria[edit]

text: Individuals with phenylketonuria (PKU) must keep their intake of phenylalanine - an essential amino acid - extremely low to prevent a mental disability and other metabolic complications. Phenylalanine is a component of the artificial sweetener aspartame, so people with PKU need to avoid low calorie beverages and foods with this ingredient.[28]

text: Maple syrup urine disease[edit]

text: Maple syrup urine disease is associated with genetic anomalies in the metabolism of branched-chain amino acids (BCAAs). They have high blood levels of BCAAs and must severely restrict their intake of BCAAs in order to prevent mental retardation and death. The amino acids in question are leucine, isoleucine and valine. The condition gets its name from the distinctive sweet odor of affected infants' urine. Children of Amish, Mennonite, and Ashkenazi Jewish descent have a high prevalence of this disease compared to other populations.[2]

text: Excess consumption[edit]

text: The U.S. and Canadian Dietary Reference Intake review for protein concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to establish a Tolerable upper intake level, i.e., an upper limit for how much protein can be safely consumed.[2]

text: The body is unable to store excess protein. Dietary protein is converted to individual amino acids by the digestive process, which are then absorbed. When amino acids are in excess of needs the liver takes up the amino acids and subjects them to deamination, a process that converts the nitrogen from the amino acids into ammonia, further processed in the liver into urea via the urea cycle. Excretion of urea is performed by the kidneys. Other parts of the amino acid molecules can be converted into glucose and used for fuel.[22][29][30] When food protein intake is periodically high or low, the body tries to keep protein levels at an equilibrium by using the "labile protein reserve" to compensate for daily variations in protein intake. However, unlike body fat as a reserve for future caloric needs, there is no protein storage for future needs.[2]

text: Research has supported a theory that excessive intake of protein increases calcium excretion in urine, occurring to compensate for the pH imbalance from oxidation of sulfur amino acids. This may lead to a higher risk of kidney stone formation from calcium in the renal circulatory system.[2] In theory, this calcium excretion from bone resorption could contribute to osteoporosis, but a meta-analysis by the National Osteoporosis Foundation reported no adverse effects of higher protein intakes on bone density[31] A meta-analysis reported a small decrease in systolic and diastolic blood pressure with diets higher in protein, with no differences between animal and plant protein.[32]

text: The 2015–2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends that men and teenage boys increase their consumption of fruits, vegetables and other under-consumed foods, and that a means of accomplishing this would be to reduce overall intake of protein foods.[33]

text: Testing in foods[edit]

text: The classic assays for protein concentration in food are the Kjeldahl method and the Dumas method. These tests determine the total nitrogen in a sample. The only major component of most food which contains nitrogen is protein (fat, carbohydrate and dietary fiber do not contain nitrogen). If the amount of nitrogen is multiplied by a factor depending on the kinds of protein expected in the food the total protein can be determined. This value is known as the "crude protein" content. On food labels the protein is given by the nitrogen multiplied by 6.25, because the average nitrogen content of proteins is about 16%. The Kjeldahl test is typically used because it is the method the AOAC International has adopted and is therefore used by many food standards agencies around the world, though the Dumas method is also approved by some standards organizations.[34]

text: Accidental contamination and intentional adulteration of protein meals with non-protein nitrogen sources that inflate crude protein content measurements have been known to occur in the food industry for decades. To ensure food quality, purchasers of protein meals routinely conduct quality control tests designed to detect the most common non-protein nitrogen contaminants, such as urea and ammonium nitrate.[35]

text: In at least one segment of the food industry, the dairy industry, some countries (at least the U.S., Australia, France and Hungary) have adopted "true protein" measurement, as opposed to crude protein measurement, as the standard for payment and testing: "True protein is a measure of only the proteins in milk, whereas crude protein is a measure of all sources of nitrogen and includes nonprotein nitrogen, such as urea, which has no food value to humans. ... Current milk-testing equipment measures peptide bonds, a direct measure of true protein."[36] Measuring peptide bonds in grains has also been put into practice in several countries including Canada, the UK, Australia, Russia and Argentina where near-infrared reflectance (NIR) technology, a type of infrared spectroscopy is used.[37] The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) recommends that only amino acid analysis be used to determine protein in, inter alia, foods used as the sole source of nourishment, such as infant formula, but also provides: "When data on amino acids analyses are not available, determination of protein based on total N content by Kjeldahl (AOAC, 2000) or similar method ... is considered acceptable."[38]

text: The limitations of the Kjeldahl method were at the heart of the Chinese protein export contamination in 2007 and the 2008 China milk scandal in which the industrial chemical melamine was added to the milk or glutens to increase the measured "protein".[39][40]

text: Protein deficiency[edit]

text: Protein deficiency and malnutrition (PEM) can lead to variety of ailments including mental retardation and kwashiorkor.[11] Symptoms of kwashiorkor include apathy, diarrhea, inactivity, failure to grow, flaky skin, fatty liver, and edema of the belly and legs. This edema is explained by the action of lipoxygenase on arachidonic acid to form leukotrienes and the normal functioning of proteins in fluid balance and lipoprotein transport.[42]

text: PEM is fairly common worldwide in both children and adults and accounts for 6 million deaths annually. In the industrialized world, PEM is predominantly seen in hospitals, is associated with disease, or is often found in the elderly.[2]