Is Ancestry Important for Citizenship? — World responses

“In your opinion, how important should the following be as requirements for somebody seeking citizenship of your country? Specify for each requirement if you consider it as very important, rather important or not important: Having ancestors from my country.”

Citizens of various countries were asked this question.

Ancestry is important for citizenship in my country - responses by age and class - World - mid-2000s

#1 — In most countries, the lower-classes are more “voelkisch” than the upper-classes.
#2 — World youth seem to be becoming more “voelkisch” than their elders. This was unexpected to me. (Neither of these are products of “IDKs” distorting the sample as in China’s case [see note-#5 here]).

I posted detailed results by age and class — and analysis — for six countries:
Europe: Germany, Poland, Norway.
East-Asia: South-Korea, China, Thailand.

— “Voelkisch” values were found to generally soften (towards “Ancestry is Not Important”) among youth overall in the six countries analyzed, as compared to their parents and grandparents. This is “mostly” the opposite of the world trend.
— A revival of “voelkisch” attitudes in at least a segment of youth populations is also seen in each of the six countries analyzed. Which segment of the youth is breaking the trend is the opposite between Europe and East-Asia. Among Europeans born after 1975, ethnic-identitarianism skews lower-class; among East-Asians born after 1975, ethnic-identitarianism skews upper-class.

Anyway, I find no explanation for the world trend of an overall rise in Youth-“Yes [to ethnic identity]” from these six individual cases. I did not do in-depth analysis for anywhere except Europe and East-Asia.

Why would people born after 1975 be more likely to answer “Yes” to this question than people born in the 1930s-1960s?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Is Ancestry Important for Citizenship? — World responses

  1. ML says:

    Could be geographic: were the cohorts urban or rural? Those from the ’30s-’50s (possibly ’60s) could be explained, if rural or even urban in many places then untouched by mass influx, as having little to no experience of foreigners, thus without the awareness or “immunity” got by such experience to reject their presence.

  2. Hail says:

    ML: urban or rural?

    There is no direct answer to this. They did not record rural vs urban. We can make a good guess based on type of employment, with “farm work” a proxy for rural:

    All Countries Surveyed:
    — 13.3% of world respondents claim to be farm-workers or own a farm. [6,543 of the 49,132 who gave a valid answer]
    — 37.5% of all people on Earth worked in agriculture in 2007, according to CIA.

    We might conclude this means most country samples were urban-heavy, but remember not every country on Earth was sampled (see graphic above for breakdown by region).

    In China’s case it was rural-heavy:
    — 54.2% of the Chinese surveyed claim to be farm-workers. [1,092 of 2,015]
    — CIA says 39.5% of all Chinese were farm workers in 2008. (Survey was in 2007).

  3. Hail says:

    Here are the “farm-worker” numbers for each country analyzed in-depth:

    Germany — 2.7% of respondents answered they were farm-workers or owners. (CIA reports 2.4% of all Germans are farm workers.)
    Norway — 5.0% were farm-workers. (CIA: 2.9%).
    Poland — 9.5% were farm workers. (CIA: 17.4%).

    China — 54.2% were farm workers. (CIA: 39.5%).
    South-Korea — Farm-worker numbers not recorded in survey.
    Thailand — 52.9% reported selves as involved in farm work. (CIA: 42.4%).

  4. Silver says:

    Why would people born after 1975 be more likely to answer “Yes” to this question than people born in the 1930s-1960s?

    Some possibilities:

    – The reasons that caused so many to de-emphasize ethnicity and ancestry — primarily the carnage of WWII — are fading from memory. The young do not equate positive self-feeling with negative other-feeling.

    – Actual exposure to large numbers of others in intimate settings — primarily school — versus theory.

    – Decades of actual data on which to base conclusions versus merely theory.

    – Access, via the internet, to free, uncensored discussions about the qualities of others and the merits of living with them.

    – Generational attitudinal adjustments that are the bane of totalitarian control-freaks no matter the ideology.

  5. Pingback: Ancestry for Citizenship? (USA) | Hail To You

  6. Hail says:

    RE Silver: Some good, plausible theories there.

    However: They are applicable to white nations that have absorbed immigrants in the past 50 years. The [worldwide] sample is only ~one-quarter from Western-Europe and “White Ex-Colonies” (Australia, New-Zealand, USA, Canada). It is harder for me to grasp why younger Black-Africans (who make up 19% of the global sample), or Latin-Americans (9.5%), etc., would say “Yes” more than their parents. They certainly aren’t getting it from the world media.

  7. Hail says:

    Actual exposure to large numbers of others in intimate settings — primarily school — versus theory.

    Nowhere does this apply more than the USA — the 2008 graduating high school class was only 60% white.

    I ran the numbers for the USA and your analysis seems to fit.

  8. Pingback: mexicans think mexicans should be mexican « hbd* chick

  9. Hail says:

    Confirmation of my finding that degree of ethnic-identity among young Orientals skews upper-class:

    “Asians with higher education levels have a higher ethnic identification and are less likely to interracially marry”.

    (From An Analysis of the Racial Experiences of People of Asian/White Heritage, University of Southern California, 2007).

Leave a Comment

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s