Demographically, it’s worth noting that Pew is dealing with a pretty limited source of data: “German” was a generic bucket for all kinds of nations and ethnic groups that we now consider distinct, but were bucketed together because of Prussia, Austria-Hungary, etc. By modern standards this would be like the US identifying Guatemalans as “Mexican” due to the former’s proximity to the latter.
Instead compare 19th century German-speaking and cultured people with today's Sioux. The Sioux are split into two main language groups and many subgroups within those in different locations.
We can never quite decide the "correct" place to draw ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and geographic boundaries.
Guatemala gained independence from Mexico in 1820, and wasn't a fully independent country until 1839.
> There were lots of differences and variety because of all of that, but there was something German about them all. And some people even wanted (and fought for) unification.
My family is from what is now Ukraine, but was part of Hungary during the empire. They didn't speak German and aren't German, but I imagine the immigration conversation went something like this:
> Immigration: where are you from?
> Ancestor: zayer moykel, ober ikh farshtay dikh nisht ["excuse me, but I don't understand you"]
> Immigration: [checks off the German box]
I imagine this happened to quite a few families. Just because German (or Germanic languages) were a lingua franca for Central Europeans doesn't mean that the US assigned them into appropriate demographics upon immigrating. Immigration often couldn't even spell their last names correctly.
