UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The relationship between perceived discrimination, intergenerational homogeneity and ethnic identity… Rai, Rajvir K. 2009

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2009_spring_rai_rajvir.pdf [ 1.07MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0070875.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0070875-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0070875-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0070875-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0070875-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0070875-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0070875-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0070875-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0070875.ris

Full Text

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERCEIVED DISCRIMINATION, INTERGENERATIONAL HOMOGENEITY AND ETHNIC IDENTITY AMONG CHINESE AND SOUTH ASIANS IN CANADA  by  RAJVIR K. RAI  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS  in  THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES  (Family Studies)  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Vancouver April 2009  © Rajvir K. Rai, 2009  11  ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to examine which ethnic groups resist assimilation i.e. maintain their own culture and which ethnic groups do not maintain their culture in Canada. Since Canada is a multicultural country and has an official multiculturalism policy, which supports that ethnic group should maintain their culture in Canada. It was hypothesized that ethnic groups with stronger intergenerational (language, religion, ethnic ancestry) homogeneity and stronger perception of discrimination will have stronger ethnic identity. Stronger ethnic identity will represent resistance to assimilate in the host country. Data from Ethnic Diversity Survey (2005) was used to examine two major ethnic groups South Asian and Chinese in Canada. Methods used for analysis were ANOVA and regression. Results show there is a relationship between perceived discrimination and strength of ethnic identity for the whole sample. Also, between the two ethnic groups, South Asians perceived discrimination and had a stronger ethnic identity as compared to Chinese. For the overall sample, a strong linear association was also found between perceived discrimination and intergenerational language, religion and ancestry homogeneity.  111  TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract  .  ii  Table of Contents  iii  List of Tables  iv  List of Figures  vi  Acknowledgments  vii  Dedication  viii  Introduction  1  Literature Review  5  Intergenerational Homogeneity  7  Ethnic Identity  9  Perceived Discrimination  10  Hypothesis  12  Methods  14  Sample and Procedure  15  Measures  21  Results  23  Discussion and Conclusion  49  References  62  Appendix 1  65  iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1  Descriptive Statistics of the Dependent and Independent Variable  29  Table 2  Scheffe Post Hoc Test- Group Significance Difference  32  Table 3  Mean, Standard Deviation and Pearson Correlation Coefficients for the Variables  35  Table 4.1  Logistic Regression Coefficients for the effect of Perceived Discrimination and Intergenerational Language, Religion and Ancestry Homogeneity on the Strength of Ethnic Identity 36  Table 4.2  Logistic Regression Coefficients for the effect of Perceived Discrimination and Intergenerational Language, Religion and Ancestry Homogeneity (South Asian and Chinese)on the Strength of Ethnic Identity 36  Table 4.2a  Logistic Regression Coefficients for the effect of Perceived Discrimination and Intergenerational Language, Religion and Ancestry Homogeneity (South Asian) on the Strength of Ethnic Identity 37  Table 4.2b  Logistic Regression Coefficients for the effect of Perceived Discrimination and Intergenerational Language, Religion and Ancestry Homogeneity on the Strength of Ethnic Identity 38  Table 4.3  Standardized Regression Coefficients for the effect of Perceived Discrimination by the Individual’s of the Ethnic Group on the Intergenerational Language Homogeneity 42  Table 4.4  Standardized Regression Coefficients for the effect of Perceived Discrimination by the Individual’s of the Ethnic Group (South Asian and Chinese) on the Intergenerational Language Homogeneity 43  Table 4.5  Standardized Regression Coefficients for the effect of Perceived Discrimination by the Individual’s of the Ethnic Group (South Asian) on the Intergenerational Language Homogeneity 43  Table 4.6  Standardized Regression Coefficients for the effect of Perceived Discrimination by the Individual’s of the Ethnic Group (Chinese) on the Intergenerational Language Homogeneity 44  Table 4.7  Standardized Regression Coefficients for the effect of Perceived Discrimination by the Individual’s of the Ethnic Group on the Intergenerational Religion Homogeneity 44  Table 4.8  Standardized Regression Coefficients for the effect of Perceived Discrimination by the Individual’s of the Ethnic Group (South Asian and Chinese) on the Intergenerational Religion Homogeneity 45  V  Table 4.9  Standardized Regression Coefficients for the effect of Perceived Discrimination by the Individual’s of the Ethnic Group (South Asian) on the Intergenerational 45 Religion Homogeneity  Table 4.10  Standardized Regression Coefficients for the effect of Perceived Discrimination by the Individual’s of the Ethnic Group (Chinese) on the Intergenerational 46 Religion Homogeneity  Table 4.11  Standardized Regression Coefficients for the effect of Perceived Discrimination by the Individual’s of the Ethnic Group on the Intergenerational Ancestry 46 Homogeneity  Table 4.12  Standardized Regression Coefficients for the effect of Perceived Discrimination by the Individual’s of the Ethnic Group (South Asian and Chinese) on the 47 Intergenerational Ancestry Homogeneity  Table 4.13  Standardized Regression Coefficients for the effect of Perceived Discrimination by the Individual’s of the Ethnic Group (South Asian) on the Intergenerational 47 Ancestry Homogeneity  Table 4.14  Standardized Regression Coefficients for the effect of Perceived Discrimination by the Individual’s of the Ethnic Group (Chinese) on the Intergenerational 48 Ancestry Homogeneity  vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.  Accepted Hypothesis model  55  vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my thesis supervisor, Dr. Jim White for his never-ending support and encouragement, and for his continued dedication to this project. I would also like to thank the committee members for their assistance and valuable insights while helping me complete my thesis. I appreciate the enormous amount of time you have all given in helping me complete this project.  viii DEDICATION I would like to dedicate this project to my beloved husband Rajeev S Rai, whom I lost during this journey. I miss you and this achievement wouldn’t have been possible without your love, support and encouragement. Thank you for providing this great opportunity, which I will value for rest of my life. I would also like to thank my entire family especially my Dad, for his encouraging words and support.  1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Canada is the first country in the world to adopt an official Multiculturalism policy in 1971. Multiculturalism is a policy of inclusion that aims to help people overcome barriers related to race, ethnicity, and cultural or religious backgrounds. Canada is known for its diverse culture and multiculturalism policy. According to the Multiculturalism Act 2005-2006, Canada holds multiculturalism as a fundamental Canadian value, as Canada is a nation formed by immigration and characterized by demographic diversity. Each immigrant group in Canada has gone through various phases and has achieved and contributed to the social and economic growth of the country. According to the census report in 2001, there were 2,491,900 recent immigrants (who became permanent resident after 1985) in Canada, accounting for 46% of Canada’s total immigrant population of 5,448,500 and for 8.4% of country’s population and the same year there were 5.4 million people who were born in other countries and were permanent residents in Canada. They accounted for 18% for Canada’s population of 29.6 million. Recent immigrants come from all over the world and represent a diversity of cultural and linguistic background. Asian origins are dominant among immigrants who landed after 1985, and even more so among those who landed after 1995. The largest source country with recent immigration is China with 13% and India has the second largest share with 10%. And for the present study, these two  groups are used for comparison purpose. As Canada is a multicultural country, there is a possibility that certain groups will assimilate while others will resist assimilation. Many researchers argue that due to the pressures of industrialization, modernization and urbanization all societies are converging towards one family pattern and hence assimilating to a common North American family pattern. But there are some societies that show resistance to convergence and maintain their own culture. The present  2 study will explore why some ethnic groups resist assimilation. Researchers interested in investigating the change in the family pattern narrowed their focus to convergence hypothesis and have ignored any other competitive perspective. Most of researchers supported the idea that all families are moving towards a common family pattern and will be moving towards the common family pattern in order to survive from the pressures of modernization, industrialization and urbanization (Parsons, 1954; Goode, 1963; Caidwell, 1976; Freedman, 1975). As the researchers argue that the effect of industrialization, urbanization, and modernization is the same for all societies and these forces are pushing them to convergence. This implies that the trend for cohabitation is the same across developed countries like Canada. Bourdais and Lapeirre-Adamcyk (2004) compared the trends of cohabitation and marriage across different regions of Canada. Data show that the evolution of cohabitation took a different course in Quebec than the rest of the country over the past few years, which is contrary to the convergence hypothesis. In 20 years, the proportion of couples who were cohabiting increased by more than 4 in Quebec and 1.9 in British Columbia (p 931). They argue that though both provinces started at similar level but the percentage of cohabiting couples is now nearly 2.5 times higher in Quebec than in British Columbia. They concluded that cohabitation has reached different stages of development across the country and they propose divergent hypothesis to explain this trend. They argued that the different religious and cultural backgrounds of the two societies account for the differences. Quebec society being controlled by Catholic Church, responded in a totally different manner than the other societies controlled by Protestant church to the secularization known as the quiet revolution in the 1 960s. In another study on cohabitation, Heuveline and Timberlake (2004) found that the trend for cohabitation is not the same in all of the European countries. Hence, not only for Canada, even for European countries there is diversity in terms of cohabitation and the idea of convergence is over stated. Both studies revealed that there are religious factors that are affecting the rate of cohabitation. This explains  the phenomenon that no matter how much pressure there is on the societies to converge, the cultural and religious factors do play an important role in response to these forces. In many ways ethnic groups may emphasize traditional family values, Massey (1981) reported that traditional family values do decline with time in the United States; immigrant families nonetheless retain many traditional components. At any point in time, immigrant families therefore tend to represent a composite of two cultural systems, with the mix depending on the length of time the group has been in the United States and on social class. Within any country, ethnic groups and minority groups may assimilate or resist assimilation based on the social factors in the receiving country. For example, Goldscheider and Uhlenberg (1969) argued that race or minority group membership can have an independent effect on fertility, even when the effects of other socio-economic factors are controlled. The primary mechanism is discrimination and prejudice towards minority group members that leads to higher fertility and more traditional life despite the pressures from modernization, urbanization and industrialization. “Resistance to assimilation tends to enforce the persistence of traditional patterns of family life conducive to high fertility in spite of technical and economic conditions that might otherwise lead to lower fertility” (p.371). Portes and Zhou (1993) proposed the segmented-assimilation hypothesis, which explains how and why new immigrants and their children may follow rather different paths of incorporation into the American society. Segmented assimilation implies a diversity of outcomes within and between contemporary immigrant streams. One of the paths is the limited or segmented assimilation, in which immigrant parents seek to sponsor their children’s educational success but limit their children’s acculturation into American youth society by reinforcing traditional cultural values. The segmented-assimilation interpretation is supported by case studies of particular immigrant/ethnic populations that have been able to utilize community resources to pursue a strategy of encouraging their children’s socio-economic mobility, but supporting only  4 selective acculturation to American society. The Sikh immigrant children were successful precisely because they were able to accommodate to the American educational environment without losing their ethnic identity and assimilating to American society. Furthermore, according to Portes, minority members with higher socio-economic levels are exposed to greater levels of discrimination in the competitive job markets. They are expected to exhibit greater ethnic consciousness than their counterparts with lower socioeconomic status who are largely insulated from the harsh reality often encountered in the workplace. Hence, higher socioeconomic status has a negative relationship with assimilation (Hwang et al. 1997). It is evident from above, that in order to resist assimilation any ethnic group will maintain their culture through generations. Also, discrimination from the host country will lead to stronger ethnic identity and stronger maintenance of culture. The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between perceived discrimination, intergenerational homogeneity and ethnic identity. Ethnic identity is viewed as a measure of resistance to assimilation among the South Asian and Chinese community in Canada. Moreover, it is proposed following Goldscheider and Uhlenberg (1969) and Portes and Zhou (1993) that the relationship between intergenerational homogeneity and perceived discrimination determines the strength of ethnic identity. Using a nationally representative sample of minority groups living in Canada, I will test the hypothesis that perceived discrimination and stronger intergenerational homogeneity will lead to stronger ethnic identity.  5 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW There are many definitions of culture; it is defined as the system of defined beliefs, values, customs, behaviors and artifacts that the members of society use to cope with their world and with one another, and that are transmitted from generation to generation through learning. Culture is transmitted through language, material objects, ritual, institutions, and art from one generation to another. According to many social theories, value socialization plays an important role in social change and social stability. To maintain a stable culture, continuity of values is to be maintained and needs to be transmitted from one generation to another. The family is usually considered the most important mechanism in value socialization (Bengston, 1975). Most of the intergenerational transmission of culture takes place in the family. Religion, language and ethnic ancestry can be easily traced and measured in order to determine the intergenerational transmission of culture. As Canada is known for its multiculturalism policy, there should not be an argument why a traditional South Asian or Chinese families cannot preserve their rituals, traditions and customs here in Canada. Canada allows each minority group to preserve its culture through its multiculturalism policy. Policy aside, forces of modernization known as the convergence hypothesis is the dominant perspective in explaining the change in family pattern by various researchers and scholars. Goode (1993) and Parson (1955) argue that due to industrialization, urbanization and globalization all family systems are moving towards one family pattern. Goode (1993) argue that all family systems are converging to a single model (the conjugal family) due to various forces by the society. The present trends are towards avoiding long-term emotional and economic investments in the family. No doubt this would put pressure on traditional South Asian or Chinese family to converge into the Canadian family system. Educational researchers, sociologist and economists find the common sense assumption that families must change to fit  6 modern economic system requiring geographic mobility, educational success and occupational specialization to be intuitively appealing. Though most of the researchers currently maintain the convergence hypothesis in explaining the change in the family patterns, Tsuya and Bumpass (2004) recognized there are families that are not demonstrating the convergence. They explained that different families move at different rates but still in the same direction. They identified cultural determinants such as values responsible for the differential rates. They acknowledge that families have preexisting family values and systems and they act as a “filter” through which market economies alter family life. They admit all family systems will move toward the same direction but the rate of convergence depends on the cultural values that a group holds. Tsuya and Bumpass argue that the effects of moving to a market economy have leaded these countries families to have similar family patterns to those in the U.S. This convergence can be measured in numerous ways such as declining fertility and increasing divorce rates. However, cohabitation and non-marital fertility continue to be very low in the Asian countries raising the issue as to whether this is a delay in the timing of convergence or an example of the strength of cultural family patterns. In contrast, Therborn (2004) argues that culturally based family patterns are much more resistant to the pressures of modernization and family cultures are more resistant to the effects of industrialization and modernization. He argues that many of the family patterns are relatively persistence and indelible to change. He argues that if families are not part of economic and social system, there is no pressure for them to converge to the conjugal family pattern. Huntington (1996) believed that some groups resist the pressure to converge not because of origin but due to shared language, shared beliefs and shared ethnicity. He points out that convergence of material culture should not be confused with convergence of symbolic culture of that particular group. But, for the Sikh community not wearing a “Turban” which is a symbolic or material culture should not be confused with change in their belief system or their cultural values and norms.  7 “Turban” is considered to be a symbol of Sikhism, which was worn by almost every Sikh in the past. Besides, fundamentalists’ majority of the Sikh population can be found without a “Turban” not only in Canada but also, in India. This population still consider themselves as Sikhs and share common language, religion and beliefs. Hence, factors such as mobility and convenience made them change the symbolic culture but it should not be confused with change in their religion and cultural values. Portes and Zhou (1993) propose selective assimilation, through which a group engages in rapid economic advancement with the deliberate preservation of the immigrant’s community’s values and tight solidarity. In their study of second generation Punjabi immigrants in America, they found that as their parents felt and perceived discriminated, the second generation are more likely to preserve their cultural values and norms. Dhruvarajan (1993) reported among the first generation Hindu Asian Indians, religiosity is very important in accounting for ethnic cultural retention and transmission. As traditional South Asian families do not believe in giving an allowance to children because it does not promote the development of family solidarity and mutual interdependence. This show how strong the belief system and dependency is in South Asian families. As Canada is a multicultural country and promotes multiculturalism, these tolerances allow us to examine different rates of intergenerational homogeneity. The typical South Asian family is believed to be highly homogenous as they share common culture, religion, language and belief systems. Intergenerational Homogeneity The intergenerational homogeneity of any ethnic group can be determined by examining their resistance to assimilate with the host country. For the present study, it is assumed that ethnic groups will show resistance to assimilation by showing stronger intergenerational homogeneity, i.e. stronger language, religion and ethnic ancestry intergenerational homogeneity.  8 Religion offers one of the most significant aspects of cohesion among the immigrants. Bhat and Sahoo (2003) claimed Sikhism provides a forum for the Sikhs in particular and Punjabis in general to live together in peace and harmony regardless of race, religion, culture and nationality. The “Gurudwara” or the temple is the sacred place of their worship and is the best example of cohesiveness of the community. Wherever the Sikhs have migrated the first thing they did was to establish Gurudwaras in order to restore the community bond among the members. Today there are thousands of Gurudwaras around the world and approximately 75 in Canada, which promote both religious and cultural life of Sikhs and maintain religious networks by organizing functions and festivals (p.22).This implies that Sikhs are successful in preserving the religion in a country like Canada, where the pressure is to converge due to modernization, industrialization and urbanization. The Punjabi language is part of Sikh identity and the Sikhs take sufficient care to promote it among the younger generation. Punjabi is the second non-official language spoken at home in Canada. “Language is an important vehicle for maintaining ethnic identity. It is an ethnic symbol, like dress or physical features, which distinguishes one group from other (Singh & Barrier, 1999). It is evident that South Asians are maintaining their religion, language and ethnicity in Canada beside pressures to converge. Kwak and Berry (2001) compared Vietnamese, Korean and East Indian to examine how immigrant families construct new cultural values across generations of parents and their adolescent children by examining family relations and acculturation attitudes. Their findings revealed that even as differences develop between parents and their adolescent children through a process of negotiation within the hierarchical family structure. Asian groups in Canada continue to maintain strong family unity through a high degree of cooperation within the family. This implies Asians families are successful in resisting the assimilation pressure from the host culture. Costigan and Dokis (2006) examined the similarities and differences in acculturation  9 among mothers, fathers, and children in immigrant Chinese families in Canada. Results indicated children and mothers reported stronger feelings of belonging to the Chinese group. Ethnic identity and Asian values showed the greatest evidence for intergenerational similarity. It is assumed that the stronger couple homogeneity will represent stronger parent-child homogeneity. Some researchers have accepted intermarriage as a key indication of assimilation (Alba & Golden, 1986; Gordon, 1964; Lieberson & Waters, 1990). Hwang et al, (1997) examined the structural model and the assimilation model to study Asian American intermarriage. Out of all the Asian groups, Chinese and Asian Indian women were found to be least likely to marry inter-ethnically. Furthermore, except other Asian men, only Asian Indian men, were found to be least likely to marry inter-ethnically. This represents greater couple homogeneity among Asian Indian and Chinese, which further would contribute in stronger, intergenerational homogeneity Ethnic Identity Phinney (1990) argued that the past research’s maj or emphasis has been on the attitudes of members of the majority or dominant group toward minority group members and less emphasis has been on the psychological relationship of ethnic and racial minority group members with their own group. It is after the ethnic revitalization movements in the 1960’s that brought some awareness about “ethnic identity” (p. 499). It is this movement and the growing literature of society differences associated with ethnic group membership that brought awareness of increased ethnic consciousness and pride (Laosa, 1984). Weinreich (1983) reported that attitudes toward one’s ethnicity are central to the psychological functioning of those who live in societies where its group and its culture are poorly represented and are the recipients of discrimination. Many researchers argue that there are inconsistencies in defining the term “ethnic identity”. Some researchers defined ethnic identity as the ethnic component of social identity, self-identification and others emphasized feelings of  10 belonging and commitment, the sense of shared values and attitudes or attitudes towards one’s own group (Singh, 1977; Ting-Toomey, 1981; Tzuriel & Klein, 1997). Whereas some researcher defined ethnic identity in terms of cultural aspects like language, behaviour, values and knowledge of ethnic group history (Rogler, Cooney & Ortiz, 1980). The focus in this paper will be on the linear model of ethnic identity, in which ethnic identity is conceptualized along a continuum from strong ethnic ties on one extreme to strong mainstream ties on other (Andujo, 1998; Makabe, 1979; Simic, 1987; Ullah, 1985). The assumption underlying this model is that a strengthening of one requires a weakening of the other; that is strong ethnic identity is not possible among those who become involved in the mainstream society, and acculturation is inevitably accompanied by a weakening of ethnic identity. The intergenerational research on ethnic identity has revealed mixed responses, however, a study of third and fourth generation Japanese-American youth revealed virtually no generational differences (Wooden, Leon, & Toshima, 1988) and a study of Chinese Americans suggests a cyclical process whereby ethnic identity became more important in third and fourth generation descendents of immigrants (Ting-Toomey, 1981). Rosenthal and Feldman (1992) found that among adolescents Chinese immigrants, ethnic knowledge and behavior decreased between the first and second generations, but that there was no change in the importance or positive valuation of ethnicity. The authors suggest that although some behavioral and cognitive elements of ethnic identity decline, immigrants retain a commitment to their culture. Therefore, specific programs can foster the ethnic identity. Perceived Discrimination Whitebeck et al (2001) argued that cultural values play an important role in responses to perceived discrimination. Each minority group will respond differently to discrimination depending on their cultural values and social support system. A study on perceived  11 discrimination and substance abuse among American Indian children revealed different results than the American African due to the different cultural norms. They argued that as discrimination causes stress, stress-reducing behaviours that work for African-Americans may be unacceptable or unavailable in some American Indian cultures where direct defiance and assertion of self over others is not socialized in the traditional culture. This shows that minority groups socialize their children in a way that helps them cope with the perceived discrimination. Mossakowski (2003) found a strong relationship between ethnic/racial discrimination, ethnic identity and mental health. The strength of identification with an ethnic group was found to be directly associated with fewer depressive symptoms associated with discrimination. This suggests that ethnic identity is a coping resource for ethnic groups. Therefore, ethnic groups who perceive discrimination will have a strong ethnic identity as a coping mechanism and this in turn will result in resistance to assimilate with the host country. The ethnic groups who perceive discrimination will show greater intergenerational homogeneity as a coping mechanism. Rambaut (1995) examined ethnic identity, self-esteem and segmented assimilation among children of immigrants from Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean. He found that the perceptions of discrimination affect the way children define their ethnic identities. Those who experienced being discriminated against are less likely to identify as American; those who perceive that people will discriminate against them no matter the level of education they may achieve are more likely to remain loyal to a national-origin identity. This shows a strong relationship between perception of discrimination and strength of ethnic identity.  12 Hypothesis The specific research question that was examined in this thesis was: Is stronger perceived discrimination and intergenerational homogeneity (language, religion and ethnic ancestry) having an effect on the strength of ethnic identity? The focus is on the individual level rather than group level analysis.  Perceived Discrimination  Strength of Ethnic Identity  Intergenerational Homogeneity (Language, Religion & Ethnic Ancestry)  Hl: Stronger the individual’s perception of discrimination of the ethnic group stronger the ethnic group identity. H2: Stronger the individual’s intergenerational homogeneity stronger the ethnic group identity. a. Stronger the individual’s intergenerational language homogeneity stronger the ethnic group identity. b. Stronger the individual’s intergenerational religion homogeneity stronger the ethnic group identity. c. Stronger the individual’s intergenerational ethnic ancestry homogeneity stronger the ethnic group identity.  1—  I-,  H3: There is a strong linear association between perceived discrimination by the individuals of the ethnic group and intergenerational homogeneity. a. There is a strong linear association between perceived discrimination by the individuals of the ethnic group and intergenerational language homogeneity. b. There is a strong linear association between perceived discrimination by the individuals of the ethnic group and intergenerational religion homogeneity. c. There is a strong linear association between perceived discrimination by the individuals of the ethnic group and intergenerational ethnic ancestry homogeneity.  14 CHAPTER 3 METHODS Ethnic origin, as defined in the Census, refers to the ethnic or cultural group(s) to which the respondent’s ancestors belong. An ancestor is someone from whom a person is descended, and is usually more distant than a grandparent. Ethnic origin pertains to the ancestral “roots” or background of the population, and should not be confused with citizenship or nationality. For the present study, “Chinese” and “South Asian” ethnicity has been selected. According to Statistics Canada (2001), Chinese are the most populous visible minority in Canada about 1 Million and South Asians come at second place with 917, 000 people. Moreover, Chinese and Punjabi take the first two places for non-official language spoken at home. Both ethnic groups shared many social and cultural characteristics such as patriarchal, patrilocal and system of patrilineal descent. Both ethnic groups are known for their diverse languages and diverse religion in China and India. Both ethnic groups migrated to Canada around the same time and are well settled in the Country. The focus in this paper is to examine how much these ethnic groups can maintain to resist assimilation in Canada, beside pressures to converge due to industrialization, modernization and urbanization. South Asians first came to Canada around 1905; most of them came from the northern state of India called “Punjab”. The main purpose of migration was economic well-being; many came with the idea of earning money and returning back to their country. As majority of these immigrants were not well educated and came from agricultural background, they settled in the province of British Columbia (Basran, 1993). In 2001, the Canadian population of South Asian origin surpassed 900,000, representing 3% of the nation and 23% of Canada’s visible minority. Some of the important characteristics of traditional Indian families as described by Mindel, Habenstein, and Wright (1998) are: Asians are allocentric i.e. group oriented and the individual is expected to make sacrifices for the good of the group especially the family, males are valued  15 more than the females, they are the breadwinner and lead the household, role of the children is to bring honor to their families by exhibiting good behaviour, high achievement and contributing to the well being of the family, there is a high level of dependency in the family with females depending on the husbands for financial support and family for emotional support. The traditional Indian family is a joint family, where two or three generations live together in one household. The concept of arranged marriage is prevalent in Indian families where the parents find the best match for their children. The Sikh family is known for preserving its culture and traditions in India. They are known for their strong belief system, as they share common language, religion and ethnicity. Sample and Procedure The Ethnic Diversity Survey (EDS; 2005) contains data collected jointly by Statistics Canada and the Department of Canadian Heritage. The main two objectives of the survey are, the data will help to better understand how people’s backgrounds affect their participation in Canada’s social, economic and cultural life and will help to better understand how Canadians of different ethnic origins interpret and report their ethnicity. Respondents were selected based on their responses that they had provided to certain questions in the last census. The Ethnic Diversity Survey targeted population consisted of persons aged 15 and older living in private dwelling in Canada’s ten provinces. Canadian citizens, landed immigrants and non-permanent residents (holders of student, work or ministerial permits, refugee status claimants and family members living in Canada with them) were part of the target population and persons who declared an Aboriginal ethnic origin, Indian reserve were not included in the sample. Out of 23,092,643 persons representing the Canadian Population in the Ethnic Diversity Survey, 57,242 were selected for the survey and only 42,476 respondents participated in the survey.  16 Data were collected using Blaise software and the computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) method. Other than English and French, interviews were conducted in seven non-official languages as required. A two-phase stratified sampling design was used to select the sample and to ensure the sufficient counts of the sub-populations in the sample. Furthermore, the questions on birthplace and birthplace of parents were used to establish the respondent’s generational status. Because the Ethnic Diversity Survey (EDS; 2005) is a complex dataset using both stratification and cluster sampling, weights are used to correct for the sampling. I followed the Statistics Canada (2003) recommendations on the User Guide. For the analysis purposes, normalized final weights are used. Because weights can change variance in the variables and the results can be inconsistent with the weighted data. In those cases, unweighted data is used as it is more correct. Measures Dependent Variables Strength ofEthnic Identity. Ethnic Identity was measured by using variable ElI 1“Derived- Importance of ethnic identity  —  rating for  st 1  identity response asked about in  IDQ 130”. This variable is derived from ID_Q100 (What is your ethnic or cultural identity?), respondents identified themselves with 27 identities and ID_Q 130 (Using a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not important at all and 5 is very important, how important is your identity to you?). Results were significantly skewed -.47. This measure was recoded in two categories for analysis purposes. Scores 4 and 5 on the original scale were recoded as 1 “Important”, scores on 3, 2 and 1 were recoded as 0 “not important”. The categories were combined to reduce the skewed results.  17 Independent variables Perceived Discrimination: Perceived discrimination was measured by the respondent’s response to the question, “In the past five years, do you feel that you have experienced discrimination or been treated unfairly by others in Canada because of your ethnicity, culture, race, skin, colour, language, accent or religion?” Respondent’s response included either “yes” or “no” depending on their experience. In this question, the text “In the past five years” was replaced with “Since arriving in Canada” for those respondents who had immigrated to Canada fewer than five years prior to the survey. There are two values to the measure “Perceived Discrimination” (N  5555) and “Did not Perceive Discrimination” (N  =  34,839). It should be  pointed out that perceived discrimination is not the same as actual discrimination. However, perceived discrimination is used for this study as it is the only measure in the dataset that measures discrimination. Intergenerational Homogeneity: The intergenerational homogeneity is a constructed measure of preserving one’s own culture through generations; it is resistance to the effects of modernization, urbanization and industrialization. It is assumed that in order to resist assimilation, ethnic groups will preserve their language, religion and ethnic ancestry. This is a complex measure: if the respondent identifies ethnic ancestry as the same for both parents, it implies both stronger couple homogeneity and parent-child homogeneity. Hence, the stronger the couple homogeneity, the stronger will be the intergenerational homogeneity. This is same for both language and religion intergenerational homogeneity measures. Intergenerational Ethnic Ancestry Homogeneity: This variable compares the ethnic ancestry of the respondent to the ethnic ancestry of their mother and father. This was measured by combining “Derived Ethnic ancestry- Respondent compared to the mother -  ancestry” and “Derived Ethnic ancestry -  —  Respondent compared to the father  —  —  Detailed Detailed  ancestry” measures. “Derived Ethnic ancestry- Respondent compared to the mother -  —  Detailed  18 ancestry” is derived from ID_QO 10 (What were the ethnic or cultural origins of your ancestors?), ID Q020 (In addition to “Canadian”, what were the other ethnic or cultural origins of your ancestors on first coming to North America?”) and PB Q025 (What were the ethnic or cultural origins of your mother’s ancestors?”). Interviewers were provided with the following instructions in ID_Q0l0/ID_Q020 (similar instructions were provided in PB_Q025): “Do not provide examples” and “This question refers to ethnic or cultural origins of your ancestors including ancestors from both sides of your family. An ancestor is someone from whom you descended and is usually more distant than a grandparent. Ethnic or cultural ancestry refers to your “roots” or cultural background and should not be confused with citizenships or nationality. Other than Aboriginal persons, most people can trace their origins to their ancestors on first coming to this continent”. This variable was measured as  —  “Ethnic ancestries or ancestries  completely the same” includes respondents who reported the same ethnic ancestries for themselves and their mother: for example, the respondent’s ethnic ancestry was “English and German” and the mother’s ethnic ancestry was “English and German”, “Ethnic ancestries partly the same” includes respondents who reported partly the same ethnic ancestry or ancestries for themselves and their mother: for example, the respondents ethnic ancestry was “English and German” and the mother’s ethnic ancestry was “English” and “Ethnic ancestries different” includes respondents who reported different ethnic ancestries for themselves and their mother: for example, the respondent’s ethnic ancestry was “German” and the mother’s Ethnic ancestry was “English”. The same procedure was used for “Derived Ethnic ancestry -  compared to the father  —  —  Respondent  Detailed ancestry” measure. Each variable was recoded in two  categories as 0 “ethnic ancestries different” and as 1 “ethnic ancestries completely the same”. To measure the intergenerational ancestry homogeneity the two variables were combined and recoded into three categories as 1 “not same as either mother or father”, 2 “same as either mother or father” and 3 “same as both mother and father”. Respondents with a higher score represent  19 greater intergenerational ethnic ancestry homogeneity. This variable is based on detailed ancestries on variable EAC 1 (Appendix 1). In EAC 1, hyphenated responses, other than FrenchCanadian, have been treated as multiple responses and split into their component parts. For example, a respondent responding “Chinese-Canadian” would have been split and assigned to both “Chinese” and “Canadian”. Hence, if the “Chinese-Canadian” was the respondent’s only response, the code for “Chinese” will be present in EAC 1. Hence a child can either be same as 1 parent, same as both parents in which case both parents will have the same ancestry or the respondent can be not the same as either parent. For example: If the respondent’s mother’s ancestry is Canadian and Punjabi, and the respondent is Canadian and Punjabi, this is measured as 1 “same ancestry as mother”. If the mother’s ancestry is Canadian and Punjabi and respondent is Canadian, this is measured as 0 “not same ancestry as mother” and if the mother’s ancestry is Punjabi and respondent is Canadian, this is also measured as 0 “not same ancestry as mother”. Also, for father ancestry same measure was used, if the respondent’s father’s ancestry is Canadian and Punjabi, and the respondent is Canadian and Punjabi, this is measured as 1 “same ancestry as father”. If the father’s ancestry is Canadian and Punjabi and respondent is Canadian, this is measured as 0 “not same ancestry as father” and if the father’s ancestry is Punjabi and respondent is Canadian, this is also measured as 0 “not same ancestry as father”. These two measures were combined to create the intergenerational ancestry homogeneity. If the respondent have ancestry same as mother and different as father, this is measured as 1 “same as one parent”, if he have same as father and different as mother, this is also measured as 1 “same as one parent”, if the respondent have same ancestry as mother and father, this means stronger couple homogeneity, this is measured as 2 “same as both parents”. And if the ancestries are not same as either mother or father, this is measured as 0 “not same as either parent’. It should be noted that the child can pick only one ancestry as hyphenated ancestries are not valid in the measure. This means a child cannot pick Canadian and Punjabi.  20 Intergenerational Language Homogeneity: This variable compares the first language of the respondent to the language of their mother and father. This was measured by combining “Derived Language- Respondent compared to the mother -  “Derived Language -  —  Respondent compared to the father  —  —  Detailed first language” and Detailed first language” measures.  The same procedure was used as for measuring intergenerational ethnic ancestry homogeneity. Responds were recorded in three categories, first language completely the same, first language partly the same and first language different, separately for both mother and father. The responses for both mother and father were recoded in two categories as 0 “first language different” and as 1 “first language completely the same”. To measure the intergenerational language homogeneity the two variables were combined and recoded as 1 “not same as either mother or father”, 2 “same as either mother or father” and 3 “same as both mother and father”. Respondents with a higher score represent greater intergenerational language homogeneity. Intergenerational Religion Homogeneity: This measure compares the religion of the respondent to the religion of their mother and father. This was measured by combining “Derived -  Religion- Respondent compared to the mother  Respondent compared to the father  —  —  Detailed religions” and “Derived  —  Religion  —  Detailed Religion” measures. The responses were recorded  in two categories as “same religion (including no religious affiliation)” and “different religion” for both mother and father separately. The responses for both mother and father were recoded in two categories as 0 “religion different” and as 1 “religion completely the same”. To measure the intergenerational religion homogeneity the two variables were combined and recoded as 1 “not same as either mother or father”, 2 “same as either mother or father” and 3 “same as both mother and father”. Respondents with a higher score represent greater intergenerational religion homogeneity.  21 Control Variables The control variables being used are socioeconomic status (SES), ethnic identity and generational status. The socioeconomic status was measured using three variables education of -  the respondent, household income, occupation of the respondent. These variables were chosen because they are the factors that may influence perceived discrimination, strength of identity and intergenerational homogeneity. Socioeconomic Status: Socioeconomic status and social mobility have been shown to have a significant influence on ethnic identification (Ethnic Diversity Survey, 2003). Research has shown education, income and occupation has an influence the assimilation process of ethnic groups. A negative relationship is found between education and assimilation (Hwang et al., 1997), and ethnic groups with higher education, occupation and income are susceptible to discrimination by the host country and this put pressure on ethnic group to preserve its culture and cultural values (Portes and Zhou, 1993). Education: This was measured using the variable “Derived Detailed”. This was recorded on a scale of 1 to 7. where 1 (includes no schooling), 2  =  high school diploma, 3  =  =  —  Highest level of schooling  less that a high school diploma  some college, nursing school, trade, some university, 5  technical or vocational school or business college, 4  =  diploma or certificate  from college, nursing school, trade, technical or vocational school or business college, 6 bachelor’s or undergraduate university degree and 7  =  —  =  earned doctorate, master’s degree or  degree in medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine or optometry. Household Income: This was measured using the variable “Derived  —  Income  —  Household income groups in ranges”. This was recorded on a scale of ito 10 where, 1 than $10,000 (includes no income), 2 $30,000. 4  =  =  $10,000 to less than $20,000, 3  $30,000 to less than $40,000, 5  =  =  less  $20,000 to less than  $40,000 to less than $50,000, 6  =  $50, 000 to less  22 than $60,000, 7  =  $60,000 to less than $80,000, 8  =  $80,000 to less than $100,000 and 10  =  $100,000 or more. Occupation: This was measured using variable “Derived  —  Occupation (summary) based  on the Standard Occupation Classification (SOC) 1991”. The categories were assigned prestige scores from the “Occupational Prestige in Canada: 2005” Survey as this is the most commonly used scale in Canada. The variable was 0 Manufacturing and Utilities, 2  =  =  no work, 1  Occupations Unique to Primary Industry, 3  and Equipment Operators and Related Occupations, 4 Occupations in Art, Culture, Recreation and Sport, 6 Education, Government Service and Religion, 7  =  =  =  Trades, Transport  Sales and Service Occupations, 5  =  Occupations in Social Science,  Health Occupations, 8  =  Natural and Applied  Business, Finance and Administrative Occupations and I  Sciences and Related Occupations, 9 =  Occupations unique to Processing,  Management Occupations. Generation Status. This was measured using variable “Derived  uid st 2 1  and  =  =  id 2  generation  —  3’ generation or more  —  —  —  born  Born in Canada with one or both parents born outside  —  Born in Canada and both parents born in Canada.  Ethnic Identity. This was measure using the variable “Derived Detailed responses  Generational status generation  generation or more”. This variable was recorded as 1  outside of Canada, 2 Canada and 3  —  —  Ethnic identity  —  response”. Respondents were asked to respond to the question “your  ethnic or cultural group or groups to which you feel you belong”. In total 27 ethnic identities were identified. This was used in order to control the effect of all other ethnic identities. This variable was recoded into a dummy variable, with ethnic identity Canadian ethnic identities  =  0.  =  1 and all other  Li  CHAPTER 4 RESULTS  Sample Description The independent samples t-test of each visible minority i.e. Chinese and South-Asian on the strength of ethnic identity was conducted. There is a significant difference between the two groups on strength of ethnic identity. Chinese scored low on strength of ethnic identity as compared to the South Asians. This gives evidence to run descriptive analysis separately for each visible minority group (See Table 1). The South-Asian sample consists of 47.7% females and 52.3% males. The median age of respondents is 35-44 years with a range of 15-65 years. The South-Asian sample consisted of 59.9% married, 28.8% single- never married, 3.7% widowed, 3.4% divorced, 2.4% separated and 1.3% common-law. For number of persons in household 4.8% reported 1 person in the household, 12.8% reported 2 persons, 15.4% reported 3 persons, 27.1% reported 4 persons, 19% reported 5 persons and 20.9% reported 6 or more persons in the household. For number of children, 43.3% have no children, 24.8% have 2 children. 19.2% have 1 child, 9.8 % have 3 children and 3.0% have 4 or more children. Among South-Asian, 92.1% respondents reported their ancestry as Non-European only, 1.1% reported Non-European and European only and 2.2% reported others. When asked for detailed ancestry  —  first response was 11.6% Punjabi, 45.6%  East Indian, 16.2% other South Asian, 2% Chinese, 10.3% Vietnamese and 4.4% Other East and South East Asian. When asked about importance of Ancestry, 52.2% reported very important and 4.5% reported not important at all. On ethnic identity 14.8% identified themselves as Canadian only, 61.5% Non- European only and 12.1% Non-European and Canadian only. When asked about detailed ethnic identity- first response, 24.1% reported Canadian Only, 27.3% East-Indian, 22.8% Other South Asian and 11.1% Other East and South East Asian.  24 Among all the South-Asian respondents, 87.5% are born outside of Canada and 12.4% are born in Canada. Generational Status  —  87.5%  st 1  generation was born outside of Canada and  51.7% of lS generation respondents arrive before 1991 and 35.2% arrived between 1991 and 2001. Among South- Asian, two major religions were identified  22.4% Hindu and 26.2% Sikh.  Also, 16.7% Muslim, 8.6% Buddhist, 9.6% Catholic were selected by respondents. 16.6% reported English only as the first language and 75.1% reported non-official language as their first language. The South-Asian sample consists of 23.5% of respondents with less than a high school diploma, 18.9% high school diploma, 10.2% trade, technical or vocational school or business college and 21.1% undergraduate university degree. The median for household income is $60,000 to less than $80,000 with a range of less than $10,000 $100,000 or more. -  In comparison to South Asian, the Chinese sample consists of 51.6% females and 48.4% males. The median age of respondents is 3 5-44 years with a range of 15-65 years. The Chinese sample consisted of 56.7% married, 33.4% single- never married, 4.8% widowed, 2.5% divorced, 1.3% separated and 1.1% common-law. For number of persons in household 8.2% reported 1 person in the household, 17.2% reported 2 persons, 22.1% reported 3 persons, 27.4% reported 4 persons, 15% reported 5 persons and 10.1% reported 6 or more persons in the household. For number of children, 50.5% have no children, 20.8% have 2 children, 23.2% have 1 child, 4.5 % have 3 children and 1.1% has 4 or more children. Among Chinese, 95.3% respondents reported their ancestry as Non-European only, 1.1 % reported Non-European. When asked for detailed ancestry  —  first response was 9 1.6% Chinese and 4.4% Other East and  Southeast Asian. When asked about importance of Ancestry, 4 1.3% reported very important and 3.3% reported not important at all. On ethnic identity 14.5% identified themselves as Canadian only, 55.6% Non- European only and 24.1% Non-European and Canadian only. When asked about detailed ethnic identity- first response, 34.6% reported Canadian Only, 56.5% Chinese27.3% and 3.5% Other East and South East Asian.  25 Among all the Chinese respondents, 85.2% were born outside of Canada and 14.8% were born in Canada. Generational Status  —  85.2% l generation was born outside of Canada and  St generation respondents arrived before 1991 and 39.5% arrived between 1991 and 44.9% of 1  2001. Among Chinese, 12.5% reported Buddhism, 53.4% reported no religious affiliation, 12.7% Catholic, 9.6% Protestant and 9% Christian. 6.8% reported English only as the first language and 86.8% reported non-official language as their first language. The sample consists of 20.9% of respondents with less than a high school diploma, 21.8% high school diploma, 13% trade, technical or vocational school or business college and 22% undergraduate university degree. The median for household income is $80,000 to less than $100,000 with a range of less than $10,000 -  $100,000 or more. Description of Variables Dependent Variable Strength ofEthnic Identity: The dependent variable strength of ethnic identity was  measured as 0=not important and 1  =  important. Out of N 37111 respondent, 74.5 %  (N31060) reported that ethnic identity is important to them and 14.5% reported that ethnic identity is not important to them. The mean, median and mode were .83, 1.0 and 1 respectively with a standard deviation of .36. Skewness was significant at -1.8 with a standard error of .01 (See Table 1). Independent Variables Perceived Discrimination: The respondent responded “yes” if they ever perceived discrimination and “no” if they never perceived discrimination. Out of N  =  40394 respondents,  83.6% (N=34839) reported that they did not perceived discrimination and 13.3% (N=5555) reported that they perceived discrimination. The mean was .13 and standard deviation was .34. Intergenerational Language Homogeneity: This independent variable was measured as 1 =  language not same as either parent, 2  =  language same as either father or mother and 3  =  26 language same as both mother and father. Out of N= 39906 respondents, 7.9% (N=3277) reported language not same as mother or father, 11.0% (N=4599) reported language same as either mother or father and 76.8% (N=32030) reported language same as both mother and father. The mean was 2.7 with a standard deviation of .60. Intergenerational Religion Homogeneity. This independent variable was measured as 1 religion not same as either parent, 2  religion same as either father or mother and 3  =  =  religion  same as both mother and father. Out of N= 38073 respondents, 17.8% (N7408) reported religion not same as mother or father, 12.2% (N=5099) reported religion same as either mother or father and 6 1.3% (N=25565) reported religion same as both mother and father. The mean was 2.4 with a standard deviation of .79. intergenerational Ancestry Homogeneity: This independent variable was measured as 1 ancestry not same as either parent, 2  ancestry same as either father or mother and 3  =  ancestry  same as both mother and father. Out of N= 35039 respondents, 33.8% (N14074) reported ancestry not same as mother or father, 15.0% (N=6240) reported ancestry same as either mother or father and 35.3% (N=14725) reported ancestry same as both mother and father. The mean was 2.0 with a standard deviation of .90. Control Variables Household Income: The respondents were categorized into 9 categories depending on their house hold income. Out of 32,742 respondents, 2.4% (N= 1019) reported household income less than $10,000 (includes no income), 6.4% (N= 2667) reported $10,000 to less than $20,000, 8.2% (N3420) reported $20,000 to less than $30,000, 8.7% (N=3627) reported $30,000 to less than $40,000, 8.4% (N=3499) reported $ 40,000 to less than $50,000, 8.2% (N=3420) reported $50,000 to less than $60,000, 13.0% (N=5418) reported $60,000 to less than 80,000, 8.5% (N=3552) reported $80,000 to less than 100,000 and 14.7% (N=6121) reported  27 $100,000 or more. The mean, median and mode were 6.0, 6.0 and 10.0 respectively with a standard deviation of 2.6. Occupation: The respondents were categorized into 10 categories of occupation based on the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) 1991. The categories were compared against the prestige scores on “Occupational Prestige in Canada: 2005” survey. This measure was recoded to adjust the prestige scores for each category, where Occupations Unique to Processing, Manufacturing and Utilities were given the lowest prestige score whereas Management Occupations got the highest prestige score. Out of 40,175 respondents, 42.5% (N==17,721) reported they did not work, 4.2% (N=1739) reported occupations Unique to Processing, Manufacturing and Utilities, 1.9% (N78 1) reported Occupations Unique to the Primary Industry, 7.9% (N=3305) reported Trades, Transport and Equipment Operators and Related Occupations, 12.0% (N=4997) reported Sales and Service Occupations, 1.5% (N=620) reported Occupations in Arts, Culture, Recreation and Sport, 4.2% (N1735) reported Occupations in Social Sciences, Education, Government Service and Religion, 3.1% (N=1307) reported Health Occupations, 4.1% (N 1701) reported Natural and Applied Sciences and Related Occupations, 9.6% (N= 4002) reported Business, Finance and Administrative Occupations and 5.4% (N=2267) reported Management Occupations. The mean, median and mode were 3.1, 2.0 and 0 respectively with a standard deviation of 3.5. Education: The respondents were categorized into 7 categories depending on the highest level of schooling, where 1  less that a high school diploma and 7  =  Earned Doctorate, Master’s  degree or degree in Medicine, Dentistry, Veterinary Medicine or Optometry. Out of 40,280 respondents, 26.0% (N=10,821) reported less that a high school diploma (includes no schooling), 21.4% (N= 8931) reported high school diploma, 6.4% (N= 2656) reported Some college, nursing school, trade, technical or vocational school or business college, 5.7% (N= 2390) reported some university, 18.0% (N 7485) reported Diploma or certificate from college, nursing school, trade,  28 technical or vocational school or business college, 14.5% (N= 6043) reported Bachelor’s or undergraduate university degree and 4.7% (N1955) reported Earned doctorate, Master’s degree or degree in Medicine, Dentistry, Veterinary Medicine or Optometry. The mean, median and mode were 3.3, 3 and 1 respectively with a standard deviation of 2.0. Generational Status: The respondents were asked to respond to a scale from 1 to 3, where 1  =  generation  —  Born outside Canada, 2  parents born outside Canada and 3  =  2’ generation  3’ generation or more  —  —  Born in Canada with one or both Born in Canada and both parents  born in Canada. Out of 40,713 respondents, 22.8 % (N=9521) reported outside Canada, 17.0% (N=7082) reported  nd 2  generation  —  st 1  generation born  Born in Canada with one or both  parents born outside Canada and 57.8% (N= 24,110) reported  generation or more  —  Born in  Canada and both parents born in Canada. The mean was 2.3 with a standard deviation of .83. Ethnic Identity: The respondents were asked to identifi themselves with the ethnic identity they feel they belong to. In total 27 ethnic identities were identified. This was recoded into dummy variable to examine the effect of belonging to the ethnic identity other than Canadian. Out of N  =  41,695 respondents, 20,265 respondents identified their ethnic identity as  Canadian and 21,430 respondents identified their ethnic identity other than Canadian.  29 Table 1 Descriptive Statistics ofthe Dependent and Independent Variables. Variables  %  1. Strength of Ethnic Identity 0  not important, 1  =  =  =  No, 1  =  74.5  SD  N  .36  37111  important  2. Perceived Discrimination 0  M  13.3  .13  40394  76.8  2.7  .60  61.3  2.4  .79  2.0  .90  Yes  3. Intergenerational Homogeneity Language 1  =  not same, 2 3  same as one parent,  same as both parent  Religion 1  =  not same, 2  =  same as one parent,  same as both parent  3  Ancestry 1  not same, 2 3  39906  =  same as one parent,  same as both parent  35039  3  Group Differences The Employment Equity Act defines visible minorities as “persons, other than Aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour”. The visible minority population includes the following groups: Chinese, South Asian, Black, Arab, West Asian, Filipino, Southeast Asian, Latin American, Japanese, Korean and other visible minority groups Pacific Islanders. For the present study out of all these visible minorities Chinese (n 1475) and South Asians (n=1472) were used for analysis (See Table 2). These two groups Chinese and South Asian show a wide range of religious, language and ethnic identity diversity. In case of religion, among South Asian there is no respondent who identifies their religion as “Buddhist” which is the common religion among most of the Chinese etimic group. Among Chinese, there is not a single respondent who identifies their religion as “Sikh”. Similar diversity can be seen in “Language” and “Ethnic Ancestry”. Out of Chinese (n1475), two groups “Chinese” (n=834) and “Canadian” (n=511) emerged based on ethnic identity identified by the respondents. For South Asians, there is unexpected heterogeneity and four groups emerged were “Canadian” (n355), “East Indian” (n4O2), “Other South Asian” (n=335) and “Other East and Southeast Asian” (n163). One way ANOVA’s were conducted on each of the six groups i.e. South Asian Canadian, South Asian  —  East Indian, South Asian  —  Other South Asian, South Asian  —  —  Other  East and Southeast Asian, Chinese-Canadian and Chinese Chinese with dependent variables as -  strength of ethnic identity, intergenerational language homogeneity, intergenerational religion homogeneity, intergenerational ancestry homogeneity and perceived discrimination. On strength of ethnic identity, significant differences were found between South AsianlCanadian and Chinese/Chinese. Significant differences were also found between Chinese/Canadian and Chinese/Chinese on strength of ethnic identity. There was no significant difference found between groups on perceived discrimination.  .3  On intergenerational language homogeneity, significant difference was found between South Asian/Canadian and South Asian 1 Other South Asian. The groups found to be significant on intergenerational religion homogeneity are South Asian/Canadian South Asian/Canadian  —  —  —  Chinese/Chinese, South Asian/Other South Asian  South Asian/Other South Asian  —  —  Chinese/Chinese, South Asian/East Indian  Asian! Other East & SE Asian, South Asian/East Indian —  South AsianlEast Indian,  South Asian/Other South Asian, South Asian/Canadian  Chinese/Canadian, South Asian/Canadian  Indian  —  —  South  Chinese/Canadian, South Asian/East —  South Asian/Other East &SE Asian,  Chinese/Canadian, South Asian/Other South Asian  —  Chinese/Chinese, South Asian/Other East &SE Asian Chinese/Canadian and South Asian/Other -  East &SE Asian Chinese/Chinese. -  The groups found to be significant on intergenerational ancestry are South Asian/Canadian South Asian/East Indian, South Asian/Canadian Chinese/Chinese, South Asian/East Indian  —  —  Asian  —  Chinese/Canadian, South Asian/Canadian  Chinese/Canadian, South Asian/East Indian  Chinese/Chinese. South Asian/Other South Asian  —  —  Chinese/Chinese.  —  —  Chinese/Canadian. South Asian/Other South  Chinese/Chinese, South Asian/Other East & SE Asian  Asian/Other East & SE Asian  —  —  Chinese/Canadian and South  3  Table 2 Scheffe Post Hoc Test  —  Group significance Difference Difference  Variable  Significance  Strength of Ethnic Identity South Asian/Canadian Chinese/Canadian  —  —  Chinese/Chinese  Chinese/Chinese  .  19  .00  .17  .00  Perceived Discrimination No significant difference was found between groups. Intergenerational Homogeneity Language South Asian/Other South Asian  -.21  .02  South Asian/East Indian  -.18  .04  .24  .00  Chinese/Canadian  .44  .00  Chinese/Chinese  .40  .00  South Asian/ Other East & SE Asian  .28  .00  Chinese/Canadian  .63  .00  Chinese/Chinese  .58  .00  South Asian/Other East &SE Asian  .34  .00  Chinese/Canadian  .69  .00  Chinese/Chinese  .64  .00  South Asian/Other East &SE Asian Chinese/Canadian  .34  .00  South Asian/Other East &SE Asian Chinese/Chinese  .29  .00  South Asian/Canadian  —  Religion South Asian/Canadian South Asian/Canadian South Asian/Canadian South Asian/Canadian  —  —  —  —  South Asian/East Indian South Asian/East Indian South Asian/East Indian  South Asian/Other South Asian  —  —  —  South Asian/Other South Asian South Asian/Other South Asian South Asian/Other South Asian  —  —  —  -  -  -  Difference  Variable  Significance  Ancestry South AsianlCanadian South Asian/Canadian South Asian/Canadian  —  —  —  South Asian/East Indian South Asian/East Indian  South Asian/East Indian  -.25  .00  Chinese/Canadian  -.47  .00  Chinese/Chinese  -.53  .00  Chinese/Canadian  -.21  .00  Chinese/Chinese  -.28  .00  Chinese/Canadian  .69  .00  Chinese/Chinese  .64  .00  Chinese/Canadian  -.28  .00  Chinese/Chinese  -.35  .00  —  —  South Asian/Other South Asian South Asian/Other South Asian  —  —  South Asian/Other East & SE Asian South Asian/Other East & SE Asian  —  —  Hypothesis Testing Hypotheses were tested using bivariate correlation procedures and regression analysis. Correlations were conducted significant at a p  0.05 level. Prior to hypothesis testing, a  correlation matrix was run computing Pearson’s Correlation coefficients for the dependent variables, independent variables and control variables, in order to highlight the fact that there is no statistically significant correlation between the dependent variable and any of the control variables (See Table 3). Hypothesis 1 and 2 Hypothesis 1 states that stronger the individual’s perception of discrimination of the ethnic group stronger the ethnic group identity and Hypothesis 2 states that stronger the  3  individual’s intergenerational (language, religion and ancestry) homogeneity stronger the ethnic group identity. For the analysis purposes weighted data are used. Because weights can change variance in the variable, the results can be inconsistent. In those cases, unweighted data will be used as it is more correct. Logistic Regression was used for the Model 1 with the independent variables perceived discrimination, intergenerational language homogeneity, intergenerational religion homogeneity, intergenerational ancestry homogeneity, dependent variable strength of ethnic identity and control variables education, occupation, income, ethnic identity and generational status. In Table 4.1, the variables were computed for the whole sample (N=2439 1). For perceived discrimination the beta is .151 and is statistically significant at p is .108 and is significant at p  .001. The R squared  .001 level. For intergenerational language, religion and ancestry  homogeneity the beta is .113, .204 and .015 respectively. Also, intergenerational language -  homogeneity and intergenerational religion homogeneity are statistically significant at p  .001  level. For control variables, income, education, ethnic identity and generation status are significant at p <.001 level with beta -.02 1, .045, 1.5 and -.125 respectively. In Table 4.2, when the same variable were computed just for the Chinese and South Asian ethnic groups (N  =  1531), the beta for perceived discrimination is .131 and not statistically  significant. The R squared is .041 and significant at p  .001 level. For intergenerational  language homogeneity the beta is .106 and not significant, intergenerational religion homogeneity the beta is .325 and is significant at p  .001 level, for intergenerational ancestry  the beta is -.082 and is not statistically significant. Also, none of the control variables were found to be statistically significant except ethnic identity for which the beta is .794 and is statistically significant at p  .001 level.  .5  Table 3 Means, Sd and Pearson Correlation CoeffIcients for Variables (Whole Sample).. Variables 1. Strength of Ethnic Identity 2. Intergenerational Language Homogeneity  1  2  3  6  5  4  7  9  8  I -  3. Intergenerational Religion Homogeneity  .01  .03  1  4. Intergenerational Ancestry Homogeneity  -.04  .03  .13  1  -.06  -.04  .02  5. Perceived Discrimination  -  1 I  6. Income  .01  -.03  -.03  -.06  7. Education  .02  -.05  -.06  -.01  .09  .30  1  -.02  -.02  -.02  .04  .32  .34  .14  .01  -.31  -.14  .03  -.07  .02  -.06  -.14  -.20  -.05  .14  .07  .06  8. Occupation 9. Generation Status  10  -  -  10. Ethnic Identity  .22  Mean  .O_,  Z.I  Standard Deviation  .36  .60  0  .,I  £.u  .79  .90  -  I  .1.5  .34  O.U  2.6  Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) Note: Due to the Logistic Regression there is a difference between the beta and the above coefficients.  .5..)  2.0  .09  1  .5.1  £.i  3.5  .83  .49  Table 4.1 Logistic Regression Coefficientsfor the effect ofPerceived Discrimination and Intergenerational Language, Religion and Ancestry Homogeneity on the Strength ofEthnic Identity. (N=2439])  P  Sig.  .151  .005  Language  .113  .000  Religion  .204  .000  Ancestry  -.015  .494  Income  -.021  .006  Education  .045  .000  Occupation  -.006  .258  Generation Status  -.125  .000  1.5  .000  Variables Perceived Discrimination Intergenerational Homogeneity  Ethnic Identity Rsquared= .108  sig. =000  Table 4.2 Logistic Regression Coefficients for the effect ofPerceived Discrimination and Intergenerational Language, Religion and Ancestry Homogeneity (South Asian & Chinese) on the Strength ofEthnic Identity. (N = 1531)  Variables Perceived Discrimination  P  Sig.  .131  .348  .106  .192  Intergenerational Homogeneity Language  3  Sig.  Variables  Religion  .325  .000  Ancestry  -.082  .401  Income  .020  .447  Education  -.005  .876  Occupation  -.023  .250  Ethnic Identity  .794  .000  Generation Status R Squared = .041  -.345 sig. = .000  .065  Table 4.2a Logistic Regression CoeffIcients for the effect Perceived Discrimination and Intergenerational Language, Religion and Ancestry Homogeneity (South Asian) on the Strength ofEthnic Identity. (N  1232)  Sig.  Variables .403  .051  Language  .135  .230  Religion  .350  .012  Ancestry  -.059  .630  Income  .020  .598  Education  -.048  .314  Occupation  -.023  .432  Ethnic Identity  .783  .006  Perceived Discrimination Intergenerational Homogeneity  Variables Generation Status R Squared  .038  P  Sig.  -.122  .685  sig.  =  .02  Table 4.2b Logistic Regression Coefficientsfor the effect Perceived Discrimination and Intergenerational Language, Religion and Ancestry Homogeneity (Chinese) on the Strength of Ethnic Identity. (N= 10281  Variables  Sig.  Perceived Discrimination  -.144  .459  Language  .086  .472  Religion  .245  .016  Ancestry  -.029  .877  Income  .001  .989  Education  .045  .349  Occupation  -.0 12  .676  Ethnic Identity  .809  .004  Generation Status  -.447  .080  Intergenerational Homogeneity  R Squared  =  .039  sig.  =  .038  39 Hypothesis 3 Hypothesis 3 states that there is a strong linear association between perceived discrimination by the individuals of the ethnic group and intergenerational language, religion and ancestry homogeneity. Model 2 is computed with independent variable perceived discrimination and the dependent variable intergenerational language homogeneity with control variables, income, education, occupation, ethnic identity and generation status. In table 4.3, for the whole sample (N=3 1611) the beta for perceived discrimination is -.03 9, significant at p squared is .035 and is significant at p  .001 level. R  .001 level. For control variables, income, education,  ethnic identity and generation status are significant at p  .001 level with beta -.0 18, -.026, -.083  and .155 respectively. Only, occupation was found to be not significant with beta .011. -  In Table 4.4, the same variables were computed for the South Asian and Chinese ethnic groups (N=2002). The beta for perceived discrimination is .012 and not significant. The R squared is .017 and is significant at p  .001 level For control variables, only generation status  and ethnic identity are significant at p  .001 level and beta is -.1 11 and -.036. Income, education  .  and occupation are not significant. In Table 4.5, the same variables were computed for the South Asian ethnic group (N= 1072). The beta for perceived discrimination is .025 and is not significant. The R-Squared is .029 and is significant at p  .001 level. For control variables, generation status is significant at p  .001 level and the beta is -.125, ethnic identity is significant at p .069, education is significant at p  .001 level and the beta is  -  .01, the beta is -.077. Income and occupation were found to  be not significant. In Table 4.6, the same variable were computed for the Chinese ethnic group (N930). The beta for perceived discrimination is .003 and is not significant. The R squared is .020 and is significant at p  .001 level. For control variables, only generation status is significant at p  .01  40 level and the beta is -.107. All other control variables, income, education, ethnic identity and occupation are not significant. Model 3 is computed with independent variable perceived discrimination, dependent variable intergenerational religion homogeneity and control variables income, education, occupation, ethnic identity and generation status. In Table 4.7 for the whole sample (N= 30305), the beta for perceived discrimination is -.03 5 and is significant at p is .028 and is significant at p  .001 level. The R squared  .001 level. The beta for income is -.019 and is significant at p  .001 level, the beta for education is -.042 and is significant at p  .001 level. Occupation is the  only control variable found to be not significant. The beta for generation status is .024 and is significant at p E .01 level. The beta for ethnic identity is -.152 and is significant at p  .001  level. In Table 4.8, the same variables were computed for South Asian and Chinese ethnic groups (N1945). For perceived discrimination the beta is -.0 14 and is not significant. The R squared is .014 and is significant at p at p  .001 level. The beta for income is .047 and is significant  .01 level.The beta for education is -.055 and is significant at p  occupation is -.085 and is significant at p and is significant at p  .01 level, the beta for  .01 level and the beta for generation status is -.060  .01 level, the beta for ethnic identity is -.079 and is significant at p  .01  level. In Table 4.9, the same variable were computed for the South Asian ethnic group (N=r1057). The beta for perceived discrimination is -.038 and is not significant. The R squared is .021 and is significant at p  .01 level. Out of all the control variables, only income and  education were found to be not significant. Generation status is significant at p the beta is -.078, the beta for ethnic identity is -.086 and is significant at p occupation is -.099 and is significant at p  .001.  .001 level and  .001. The beta for  41 In Table 4.10, the same variable were computed for the Chinese ethnic group (N887). The beta for perceived discrimination is .004 and is not significant. The R squared is .014 and is significant at p  .01 level. Out of all the control variables, only education and ethnic identity  were found to be significant at p  .001 level and the beta is -.105 and -.06 1 respectively. Other  control variables, income, occupation and generation were found to be not significant. Model 4 is computed with independent variable perceived discrimination, dependent variable intergenerational ancestry homogeneity and control variables income, education, occupation, ethnic identity and generation status. In table 4.11, the variables were computed for the whole sample (N=28033). For the perceived discrimination the beta is -.022 and is significant at p  .001 level. The R squared is .116 and is significant at p  .001 level. The beta for income  and generation status is -.028 and -.272 respectively and are significant at p identity is significant at p  .001 level. Ethnic  .001 and the beta is -.175. The beta for education is -.011 and is not  significant. The beta for occupation is .011 and is not significant. In Table 4.12, the variables were computed for South Asian and Chinese ethnic groups (N=1946). The beta for perceived discrimination is .041 and is not significant. The R squared is .032 and is significant at p generation status at p  .001 level. The only control variable found to be significant is  .01 level and the beta is -.080. All other control variables were found to  be not significant. In Table 4.13, the same variables were computed for only South Asian ethnic group (N 1017). The beta for perceived discrimination is .017 and is not statistically significant. The R -  squared is .019 and is significant at p significant at p  .01 level. The beta for generation status is -.079 and is  .001 level. The beta for ethnic identity is -.086 and is significant at p  .01. The  beta for income and occupation is .063 and -.06 1 respectively and are significant at p E .01. Education is the only control variable found to be not significant.  42 In Table 4.14, the same variables were computed for only Chinese ethnic group (N=928). The beta for perceived discrimination is .077 and significant at p E .01 level. The R squared is .066 and is significant at p  .001 level. The generation Status and ethnic identity are  the only control variables found to be significant at p  .001 level and the beta is -.232 and .074  respectively. Other control variables, income, education and occupation were found to be not significant.  Table 4.3 Standardized Regression Coefficients for the effect ofPerceived Discrimination by the Individual ‘s of the Ethnic Group on the Intergenerational Language Homogeneity (N=3]61]).  Variables  Sig.  Perceived Discrimination  -.039  .000  Income  -.018  .000  Education  -.026  .000  Occupation  -.011  .069  Ethnic Identity  -.083  .000  Generation Status  .155  .000  R Squared  sig.  =  .035  =  .000  Table 4.4 Standardized Regression Coefficients for the effect ofPerceived Discrimination by the Individual ‘s of the Ethnic Group (South Asian & Chinese) on the Intergenerational Language Homogeneity (N  2002).  Variables  p  Sig.  Perceived Discrimination  .012  .589  Income  -.030  .212  Education  -.034  .153  Occupation  -.002  .944  Ethnic Identity  -.036  .050  Generation Status  -.111  .000  R Squared  sig.  =  .017  =  .000  Table 4.5 Standardized Regression Coefficients for the effect ofPerceived Discrimination by the Individual ‘s of the Ethnic Group (South Asian) on the Intergenerational Language Homogeneity (N= 1072).  Variables  P  Sig.  Perceived Discrimination  .025  .418  Income  -.034  .289  Education  -.077  .023  Occupation  .013  .710  Ethnic Identity  -.069  .008  Generation Status  -.125  .000  R Squared  sig.= .000  =  .029  44  Table 4.6 Standardized Regression Coefficientsfor the effect ofPerceived Discrimination by the Individual ‘s of the Ethnic Group (Chinese) on the Intergenerational Language Homogeneity (N930).  Variables  P  Sig.  .003  .917  Income  -.022  .555  Education  .019  .602  Occupation  -.025  .513  Ethnic Identity  .008  .806  Generation Status  -.107  .002  R Squared = .020  sig.  Perceived Discrimination  =  .000  Table 4.7 Standardized Regression Coefficients for the effect ofPerceived Discrimination by the Individual ‘s of the Ethnic Group on the Intergenerational Religion Homogeneity (N = 30305).  Variables  Sig.  Perceived Discrimination  -.03 5  .000  .019  .003  Education  -.042  .000  Occupation  -.003  .654  152  .000  .024  .000  Income  Ethnic Identity Generation Status R Squared  =  .028  -.  sig.  =  .000  45 Table 4.8 Standardized Regression Coefficients for the effect ofPerceived Discrimination by the Individual ‘s of the Ethnic Group (Chinese & South Asian) on the Intergenerational Religion Homogeneity (N  =  1945).  Variables  Sig.  Perceived Discrimination  -.014  .541  Income  .047  .059  Education  -.055  .007  Occupation  -.085  .001  Ethnic Identity  -.079  .001  Generation Status  -.060  .001  R Squared = .014  sig  =  .000  Table 4.9 Standardized Regression Coefficients/or the effect ofPerceived Discrimination by the Individual ‘s ofthe Ethnic Group (‘South Asian) on the Intergenerational Religion Homogeneity (N= 1057).  Variables  Sig.  Perceived Discrimination  -.03 8  .214  Income  .054  .100  Education  .054  .155  Occupation  -.099  .005  Ethnic Identity  -.086  .001  Generation Status  -.078  .005  R Squared  sig.  =  .021  .001  46 Table 4.10 S’tandardized Regression Coefficients for the effect ofPerceived Discrimination by the Individual ‘s ofthe Ethnic Group (Chinese) on the Intergenerational Religion Homogeneity (N 887).  Variables  Sig.  P  Perceived Discrimination  .004  .900  Income  -.022  .563  Education  -.105  .000  Occupation  -.041  .289  Ethnic Identity  -.06 1  .027  .053  .129  Generation Status R Squared  =  .014  sig.  =  .002  Table 4.11 Standardized Regression Coefficientsfor the effect ofPerceived Discrimination by the Individual’s of the Ethnic Group on the Intergenerational Ancestry Homogeneity (N  28033).  Sig.  Variables Perceived Discrimination  -.022  .000  Income  -.028  .000  Education  -.011  .069  Occupation  .011  .070  Ethnic Identity  -.175  .000  Generation Status  -.272  .000  RSquared =116  sig..000  47  Table 4.12 Standardized Regression Coefficientsfor the effect ofPerceived Discrimination by  the Individual ‘s of the Ethnic Group (South Asian & Chinese) on the Intergenerational Ancestry Homogeneity (N  =  1946).  Sig.  Variables Perceived Discrimination  .041  .021  Income  .007  .788  Education  .006  .817  Occupation  .010  .691  Ethnic Identity  -.00 1  .954  Generation Status  -.080  .001  R Squared = .032  sig.  .000  Table 4.13 Standardized Regression Coefficients for the effect ofPerceived Discrimination by  the Individual’s ofthe Ethnic Group (South Asian) on the Intergenerational Ancestry Homogeneity (N  =  1017).  IE  Sig.  -.017  .596  Income  .063  .021  Education  -.015  .669  .061  .038  Ethnic Identity  -.086  .002  Generation Status  -.079  .005  Variables Perceived Discrimination  Occupation  R Squared = .019  -  sig.  =  .000  48 Table 4.14 Standardized Regression Coefficients for the effect ofPerceived Discrimination by the Individual ‘s ofthe Ethnic Group (Chinese) on the Intergenerational Ancestry Homogeneity (N  928).  Variables  Sig.  Perceived Discrimination  .077  .017  Income  .009  .811  Education  .037  .284  Occupation  -.015  .680  Ethnic Identity  .074  .025  Generation Status  -.232  .000  R Squared  sig.  .066  =  .000  49 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Sample and Variable Description The purpose of the present study was to examine which ethnic groups resist assimilation i.e. maintain their own culture and which ethnic groups do not maintain their culture in Canada. Since Canada is a multicultural country and have an official multicultural policy, which supports that ethnic group should maintain their culture in Canada. Many researchers support the convergence theory and argue that due to pressure of industrialization, urbanization and modernization all the families are converging to a common family pattern (Parsons, 1954; Goode, 1963; CaIdwell, 1976; Freedman, 1975). Some researchers have argued that even if there is pressure to converge some ethnic groups are able to maintain their ethnic culture. This is supported by difference in religious practices and discrimination. Portes and Zhou (1993) supported segmented assimilation, where the ethnic group assimilate with the host country for education and occupation but at the same time are successful in maintaining their own culture. Goldscheider and Uhlenberg (1969) also argue that discrimination and prejudice towards minority group members leads to more traditional life despite the pressures to converge from modernization, urbanization and industrialization. It was proposed following Portes and Zhou (1993) and Goldscheider and Uhlenberg (1996) that the relationship between intergenerational homogeneity and perceived discrimination leads to strength of ethnic identity. For the present study, “Chinese” and “South Asian” ethnicity has been selected. According to Statistic Canada (2001), Chinese are the most populous visible minority in Canada about 1 million and South Asians come at second place with 917, 000 people. Moreover, Chinese and Punjabi takes the first two places for non-official language spoken at home. Both ethnic groups shared many social and cultural characteristics such as patriarchal, patrilocal and system of patrilineal descent. Both ethnic groups are known for their diverse languages and diverse  50 religion in China and India. Both ethnic groups migrated to Canada around same time and are well settled in the Country. The focus in this paper is to examine how much these ethnic groups can maintain to resist assimilation in Canada, beside pressures to converge due to industrialization, modernization and urbanization. The descriptive data of the sample shows that there are more South Asian male respondents than the females. For Chinese, there are more female respondents in the survey than males. This could be due to South Asian group is male dominant and are valued more than females. For South Asians, 20.9% respondents reported 6 or more persons in the household as compared to Chinese who reported only 10.1%. This is consistent with the South Asian family characteristic that the traditional Indian family is a joint family, where two or three generations live together in one household (Mindel, Habenstein, and Wright, 1998). Moreover, more South Asians were found to have 4 or more children as compared to the Chinese sample. As South Asians are known for their intergenerational homogeneity, South Asians decide to have more children in order to carry on the family name through generations. Also, sometimes preference for a male child leads to have more children. More South Asians reported that their  ancestry is very important for them as compared  to the Chinese. Also, more Chinese reported their  st 1  ethnic identity as Canadian as compared to  the South Asian. Almost half of the Chinese sample reported no religious affiliation as compared to South Asian. This is consistent with the past research that religion is more important to the South Asian population. On the other hand, more Chinese reported using non-official language at home as compared to the South Asians. But more South Asians reported using English and non official language at home than Chinese respondents. There was not much difference in the sample in terms of personal income and education. Almost equal number of South Asian and Chinese respondents reported perceived discrimination. For South Asians strength of ethnic identity is more important as compared to  51 Chinese respondents. In terms of intergenerational language homogeneity, there was no difference found between the two ethnic groups. Intergenerational religion homogeneity is stronger among South Asian ethnic group as compared to the Chinese ethnic group. Surprisingly, intergenerational ancestry homogeneity was found to be stronger among Chinese ethnic group as compared to the South Asian ethnic group. Group differences For the present study out of all the visible minority groups, only Chinese and South Asian were used for the study. These two groups Chinese and South Asian show a wide range of religious, language and ethnic identity diversity. In case of religion, among South Asian there is no respondent who identifies their religion as “Buddhist” which is the common religion among most of the Chinese ethnic group. Among Chinese, there is not a single respondent who identifies their religion as “Sikh”. Similar diversity can be seen in “Language” and “Ethnic Ancestry”. Out of Chinese visible group, two groups “Chinese” and “Canadian” emerged based on ethnic identity identified by the respondents. For South Asians, there is unexpected heterogeneity and four groups emerged were “Canadian”, “East Indian”, “Other South Asian” and “Other East and Southeast Asian”. For South Asians/Canadian ethnic identity is more important than Chinese/Chinese. Also, for Chinese/Canadian ethnic identity is more important to them than Chinese/Chinese. There was no difference found between the two groups on perceived discrimination. As expected, South Asians/Other South Asian had greater intergenerational language homogeneity than South AsianlCanadian. For South Asian/East Indian group intergenerational religion homogeneity was found to be stronger than the South Asian/Canadian group. Similarly, for South Asian/Other South Asian group intergenerational religion homogeneity was found to be stronger than the South Asian/Canadian group. Also, intergenerational religion homogeneity was found to be stronger among South Asian/Canadian than the Chinese/Canadian.  52  For South Asian/Canadian intergenerational religion homogeneity is stronger than the Chinese/Chinese. Intergeneration religion homogeneity was also found between South Asian groups, this is due to different religions in South Asia. Intergenerational religion homogeneity was found to be stronger among South Asian/East Indian as compared to South Asian/Other East and South East Asian. Intergenerational religion homogeneity was also found stronger among South Asian/East Indian as compared to Chinese/Canadian. For South Asian/East Indian intergenerational religion homogeneity is stronger than Chinese/Chinese. Surprisingly, intergenerational religion homogeneity is also stronger for South Asian/Other South Asian than South Asian/Other East and South East Asian. South Asian/Other South Asian were also found to have stronger intergenerational religion homogeneity as compared to Chinese/Canadian and Chinese/Chinese. Similarly, South Asian/Other East and South East Asian were also found to have stronger intergenerational religion homogeneity as compared to Chinese/Canadian and Chinese/Chinese. On intergenerational ancestry homogeneity, group difference was found between following groups. Stronger intergenerational ancestry homogeneity was found among South Asian/East Indian as compared to South Asian/Canadian. Chinese/Canadian was found to have stronger intergenerational ancestry homogeneity as compared to the South Asian/Canadian. Chinese/Chinese were found to have stronger intergenerational ancestry homogeneity as compared to the South Asian/Canadian. Also, South Asian/East Indian were found to have less stronger intergenerational ancestry homogeneity as compared to both Chinese/Canadian and Chinese/Chinese. But, South Asian/ Other South Asian were found to have stronger intergenerational ancestry homogeneity as compared to both Chinese/Canadian and Chinese/Chinese. Also, South Asian/Other East and South East Asian were found to have less stronger intergenerational ancestry homogeneity as compared to both Chinese/Canadian and Chinese/Chinese.  3  Hypothesis 1 It was hypothesized that perceived discrimination by an ethnic group will lead to stronger ethnic group identity. If an ethnic group perceives discrimination, the group will resist assimilation and is going to depend on its own ethnic group for support; hence there will be a stronger sense of ethnic identity. The hypothesis was tested on the overall sample, including all the ethnic groups net of controls (See Table 4.1). At most, 10% of the variance on strength of ethnic identity is explained by all the variables in the equation and the hypothesis was accepted. The hypothesis was also tested on the South Asian and Chinese sample and was rejected. I also examined these two groups separately, and found that this hypothesis was supported by South Asian and not Chinese (See Table 4.1 .1 & Table 4.2.2). South Asians perceived discrimination and had a stronger ethnic identity. No such relationship was found among Chinese sample. Hypothesis 2a. It was hypothesized that stronger intergenerational language homogeneity will lead to stronger ethnic identity. This hypothesis was tested on the overall sample net of controls (See Table 4.1) and was supported. At most 10% of the variance on strength of ethnic identity is explained by all the variables in the equation. The hypothesis was also tested on South Asian and Chinese sample and was rejected. The individual testing of the hypothesis on the Chinese and South Asian sample did not support the hypothesis as well. Hypothesis 2b. It was hypothesized that stronger the individual’s intergenerational religion homogeneity stronger will be the strength of ethnic identity. The hypothesis was tested on the overall sample including all the ethnic groups net of controls and this was accepted by the whole sample (See Table 4.1). The hypothesis was also tested on the two ethnic groups South Asian and Chinese and this is the only intergenerational homogeneity hypothesis supported by these two groups (See Table 4.2). At most 4% of the variance on strength of ethnic identity was explained by all  54 the variables in the equation. The hypothesis was tested on both these groups, South Asians and Chinese separately and was supported by the two groups. At most 3% of the variance on strength of ethnic identity was explained by all the variables in the equation.  Hypothesis 2c. It was hypothesized that stronger the intergenerational ancestry homogeneity stronger will be the ethnic group identity. The hypothesis was tested on the overall sample including all the ethnic groups net of controls (See Table 4.1). The hypothesis was rejected. The hypothesis was also tested on the South Asian and Chinese sample and was also rejected. The individual testing of the hypothesis on each ethnic group South Asian and Chinese did not support the hypothesis either.  Hypothesis 3a. It was hypothesized that there is a strong linear association between perceived discrimination by the individuals of the ethnic group and intergenerational language homogeneity. The hypothesis was tested on the whole sample including all the ethnic groups, South Asian and Chinese sample together and individually on South Asian and Chinese sample net of controls (See Tables 4.3 4.6). The hypothesis was found to be significant but was -  rejected due to the different direction than hypothesized. This concludes that stronger intergenerational language homogeneity leads to less perceived discrimination by the ethnic group. At most 3% of the variance on the intergenerational language homogeneity is explained by all the variables in the equation. The hypothesis was rejected by the South Asian and Chinese sample and I % variance on the intergenerational language homogeneity was explained by all the variables in the equation. The hypothesis was also rejected by the both South Asian and Chinese  55 sample individually and for both groups, at most 2% of the variance on the intergenerational language homogeneity was explained by all the variables in the equation. Hypothesis 3b It was hypothesized that there is a strong linear association between perceived discrimination by the individuals of the ethnic group and intergenerational religion homogeneity. The hypothesis was tested on the overall sample including all the ethnic groups net of all controls (See Table 4.7). The hypothesis was found to be significant but was rejected due the different direction than hypothesized. At most 2% of the variance on intergenerational religion homogeneity was explained by all the variables in the equation. The hypothesis was also tested on the South Asian and Chinese sample and was rejected. At most 1% of the variance on the intergenerational religion homogeneity was explained by all the variables in the equation. The individual testing of the hypothesis on each group South Asian and Chinese was also rejected. Almost 2% and 1% of the variance on the intergenerational homogeneity was explained by all the variables in the equation for South Asian and Chinese respectively. Hypothesis 3c. It was hypothesized that there is a strong linear association between the perceived discrimination by the individuals of an ethnic group and intergenerational ancestry homogeneity. The hypothesis was tested on the overall sample including all the ethnic groups net of all controls (See Table 4.11). The hypothesis was found to be significant and was rejected due to the different direction than hypothesized. This implies that strong intergenerational ancestry homogeneity by an ethnic group leads to less perceive discrimination. At most 11% of the variance on intergenerational ancestry homogeneity was explained by all the variables in the equation. The hypothesis was tested on the South Asian and Chinese sample and was accepted. This implies that stronger the intergenerational ancestry homogeneity stronger is the perception of discrimination. At most 3% of the variance on intergenerational ancestry homogeneity was  56 explained by all the variables in the equation. The hypothesis was rejected by the South Asian sample (See Table 4.13) and was accepted the Chinese sample (See Table 4.14). Almost 6% of the variance on the intergenerational ancestry homogeneity was explained by all the variables in the equation. Hypothesis Hl Perceived Discrimination  Strength of Ethnic Identity + +  Whole Sample South Asian  Hypothesis H2 Intergenerational Language Homogeneity  Strength of Ethnic Identity +  Intergenerational Religion Homogeneity  Whole Sample  Strength of Ethnic Identity + + + +  Whole Sample South Asian & Chinese South Asian Chinese  Hypothesis H3 Perceived Discrimination  Intergenerational Language Homogeneity -  Whole Sample  Perceived Discrimination  Intergenerational Religion Homogeneity -  Perceived Discrimination  Whole Sample  Intergenerational Ancestry Homogeneity Whole Sample + South Asian and Chinese + Chinese  -  Figure 1. Accepted Hypothesis Models.  57 Conclusion The overall finding of the study is that the perceived discrimination by any ethnic group leads to stronger ethnic identity. Out of the two ethnic groups South Asians perceive discrimination, and have stronger ethnic identity. This is consistent with the past research, the ethnic groups who perceive discrimination have a stronger ethnic identity as a coping mechanism and this in turn results in resistant to assimilate with the host country (Mossakowski, 2003). A strong relationship was found between intergenerational language homogeneity and strength of ethnic identity. Also a strong relationship was found between intergenerational religion homogeneity and strength of ethnic identity. Surprisingly, no relationship was found between intergenerational ancestry homogeneity and strength of ethnic identity. Hence, the present study concludes that perceived discrimination by any ethnic group and stronger intergenerational language and religion homogeneity by the ethnic group is associated with stronger ethnic identity. A strong negative relationship was found between perceived discrimination and intergenerational language, religion and ancestry homogeneity. This is contrary to the assumption that ethnic groups who perceive discrimination will have stronger intergenerational homogeneity i.e. the ethnic group will try to preserve its culture due to discrimination. This is also contrary to Portes and Zhou (1993) segmented assimilation theory which is focused on American sample. As Canada has its multicultural policy, which allows helping people, overcome the barriers related to race, ethnicity and cultural or religious backgrounds. Minority groups are given opportunity to develop their own cultures in Canada. The American society is considered as a melting pot where all the cultures melt together to one common American culture, whereas Canadian society is best described as a tossed salad where one can see people from diverse backgrounds together. Hence, there is a possibility that due to discrimination by the  58 maintain stream in America leads to stronger intergenerational homogeneity. In comparison, the opportunity to preserve its own culture is promoted through the multicultural policy in Canada. Both South Asians and Chinese were found to have strong intergenerational religious homogeneity associated with strong ethnic identity. It is possible that the South Asians perceive discrimination due to their religion as they have stronger intergenerational religious homogeneity. The Sikh religion has a physical aspect to it, for example wearing a turban. Also, a typical Sikh is expected to follow the Five K’s (Kanga Comb, Kirpan Ceremonial Sword, -  Kara Steel bracelet, Kacha -  —  -  Drawers and Kesh Long unshorn hair). The “Gurudwara” or the -  temple is the sacred place of their worship. In Canada, there are approximately 75 Gurudwaras, which promote both religious and cultural life of Sikhs and maintain religious networks by organizing functions and festivals.This makes them not only a visible minority group but also specific minority group. It might be that the perceive discrimination is related to enclave status but this study does not examine the effects of enclave status. On the other hand, though Chinese have stronger intergenerational religious homogeneity but they do not perceive discrimination. This could be due to the non-physical aspect to the Buddhist religion. Chinese with strong intergenerational ancestry homogeneity perceive discrimination. This suggests that those who see themselves as Chinese also perceive discrimination; this might be due to their enclave status. This could be the reason, why Chinese identity themselves as Canadian. This is contrary to the past research that claims perceived discrimination by an ethnic group is associated with stronger ethnic identity, which is not true for the Chinese community. The convergence hypothesis states that, all families are moving towards a common family pattern and will be moving towards a common family pattern in order to survive the pressures of modernization, industrialization and urbanization. Hence, ethnic groups will have to assimilate with the host country in order to survive these pressures. The overall sample does not  59 support the convergence hypothesis; the resistance to assimilate is shown by stronger ethnic identity and stronger intergenerational homogeneity. Majority of the South Asians identified themselves as South Asian as compared to Canadian and have strong intergenerational homogeneity. Therefore, South Asians in Canada are able to maintain their own culture in Canada despite the pressure to converge. This could be due to the multicultural policy in Canada that allows them to promote their own culture. On the other hand, majority of the Chinese identify themselves as Canadian as compared to Chinese. Also, majority of the Chinese identify themselves with no religious affiliation. Hence, not due to the convergence hypothesis that this group is assimilating with the host country. It was assumed that Chinese are less religious group as compared to the South Asians that leads to assimilation of Chinese into the host country.  Limitations The present study is a cross sectional study, variables such as perceived discrimination and prejudice are dynamic in nature. These dynamic variables can change over a period of time. The present study measures this over a slice of time. Also, perceived discrimination in not actual discrimination, but this is the only variable in the data set that measures perceive discrimination. All the variables are one item variables; the reliability of the variables cannot be measured. Because the Ethnic Diversity Survey (EDS, 2005) is a complex dataset using both stratification and cluster sampling, weights were used to correct the sampling. For the analysis purposes normalized final weights were used. But unweighted data was used where inconsistent results were found between weighted and unweighted data to adjust the variance. The intergenerational homogeneity measure is a complex measure, for the present study importance of ancestry was not considered. For example, if the mom is Punjabi and father is Canadian and the child is Canadian. The child gets a score of 1 even though he identifies himself as Canadian. As I am interested in intergenerational homogeneity and not the importance of ancestry or what ancestry  60 child identifi himself with. The dependent variable, strength of ethnic identity was measured as important and not important. It does not differentiate between two ethnic groups. For example, a Chinese respondent who feel strongly Canadian gets the same score as a Chinese who feels strongly Chinese. For the present study, this was not considered because selecting only one ethnic group resulted in lost of cases.  Implications for the Future Research This study identifies that South Asians in Canada perceive discrimination. As past research suggests discrimination by ethnic group leads to enclave status. Further research can focus at this particular group in Canada and can examine effect of actual discrimination instead of perceived discrimination. Also, further research can examine effects of physical or symbolic religion and perceived discrimination. A comparison of Buddhist and Sikh religion on discrimination can be examined. South Asian is one of the largest visible minority groups in Canada. According to Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, Canadian society should be free from any discrimination. The present study shows South Asians perceive discrimination, hence it provides an opportunity to examine what can be done to understand this group and keep Canadian society free of discrimination. The results also show that there are other ethnic groups in Canada that perceive discrimination and are not included in the study. This provides an opportunity to examine other ethnic groups that perceive discrimination in Canada. The dependent variable strength of ethnic identity was measured using the linear model of ethnic identity, in which the ethnic identity is conceptualized along a continuum from strong ethnic ties on one extreme to strong mainstream ties on other (Andujo, 1998; Makabe, 1979; Simic, 1987; Ullah, 1985). The assumption underlying this model is that a strengthening of one requires a weakening of the other. Future research can use the other model such as the two dimensional model, which emphasizes that minority group members can have either strong or  61 weak identifications with both their own and the mainstream cultures, and a strong ethnic identity does not necessarily imply a weak relationship or low involvement with the dominant culture (Phinney, 1990).  62 References Alba, R. D., and Golden, R. M. (1996). Patterns of ethnic marriage in the United States. Social Forces, 65, 202-223. Andujo, E. (1998). Ethnic identity of transethnically adopted Hispanic adolescents. Social Work, 33, 53 1-535. Basran, G.S. (1993). Indo-Canadian families historical constraints and contemporary contradictions. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 24(3), 339-352. Bourdais, C. L. and Lapierre-Adamcyk, E. (2004). Changes in Conjugal Life in Canada: Is Cohabitation Progressively Replacing Marriage? Journal ofMarriage and Family, 66, 929-942. Bengston, V. L. (1975). Generation and family effects in value socialization. American Sociological Review, 40; 358-371. Caidwell, J. (1976). Toward a restatement of Demographic Transition Theory. Population and Development Review 2, 32 1-366. Druvaranjan, V. (1993). Ethnic cultural retention and transmission among first generation Hindu Asian Indians in a Canadian prairie city. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 63(17), 1-13. Freedman, R. (1975). The sociology ofhuman fertility: An annotated bibliography. New York: Irvington. Goldscheider, C and Uhlenberg, P.R. (1969). Minority group status and Fertility. The American Journal ofSociology, 74(4) 361-372. Goode, W. (1993). World Divorce Patterns. New Have: Yale University Press. Goode, W. (1963). World Revolution andfamily Patterns. New York: Free Press. Gordon, M. M. (1964). Assimilation in American L/e. New York: Oxford University Press.  03  Huntington, S.P. (1996). The Clash of Civilization and the Remaking of World Order. New York. Hwang, S., Saenz, R., & Aguirre, B. E. (1997). Structural and assimilationist explanations of Asian American intermarriage. Journal ofMarriage and the Family, 59; 75 8-772. Laosa, L.(1984). Social policies toward children of diverse ethnic, racial and language groups in the Unites States. In H. Stevenson & A. Siegel (Eds.), Child Development research and Social policy, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Makabe, T. (1979). Ethnic identity scale and social mobility: The case of Nisei in Toronto. The Canadian Review ofSociology and Anthropology, 16, 136-145. Massey, D.S. (1981). Dimensions of the new immigration to the United States and the prospects for assimilation. Annual Review ofSociology, 7, 57-85. Mossakowski, K. N. (2003). Coping with perceived discrimination: Does ethnic identity protect mental health? Journal ofHealth and Social Behaviour, 44(3,), 318-331. Parsons. T. & Bales, R. (1955). Family, Socialization and interaction process. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Phinney, J.S. (1996). Understanding ethnic diversity. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(2), 143-152. Portes, A & Zhou, M. (1993). The new second generation: Segmented assimilation and its variants. Annals of the American Academy ofPolitical and Social Science, 350, 74-96. Rogler, L., Cooney, R., & Ortiz, V. (1980). Intergenerational change in ethnic identity in the Puerto Rican family. International Migration Reviews, 14, 193-2 14. Simic, A. (1987). Ethnicity as a career for the elderly: The Serbian-American case. Journal of Applied Gerontology,6, 113-126. Singh, V. (1977). Some theoretical and methodological problems in the study of ethnic identity: A cross-cultural perspective. New York Academy ofSciences: Annals, 285, 32-42.  64 Singh, P. and Barrier, G. (1999). Sikh identity: continuity and change. New Delhi: Monohar Publisher. Statistic Canada (2005). Ethnic Diversity Survey. Ottawa, ON: Statistic Canada. Ting-Toomey, 5. (1981). Ethnic Identity and close friendship in Chinese-American college students. International Journal ofIntercultural Relations, 5, 383-406. Therborn, G. (2004). Between sex and power: Family in the world 1900-2000. London: Routledge. Tsuya, N. 0. and Bumpass, L. L (2004). Marriage, work, andfamily life in comparative perspective. Honolulu, HW: University of Hawaii Press. Tzuriel, D., and Klein, M. M. (1977). Ego identity: Effects of ethnocentrism, etimic identification,and cognitive complexity in Israeli, Oriental, and Western ethnic groups. Psychological Reports, 40, 1099-1110. Ullah, P. (1985). Second generation Irish youth: Identity and ethnicity. New Community, 12, _,  I C  —  .,1u-j  Wooden, W., Leon, J., & Toshima, M. (1988). Ethnic identity among Sansei and Yonsei church affiliated youth in Los-Angeles and Honolulu. Psychological Reports, 62, 268-270. Whitebeck, L.B., Hoyt, D. R., Chen, X., & Stubben, J. D. (2001). Perceived discrimination and early substance use among American Indian Children. Journal ofHealth and Social behavior, 42(4,), 405-424. Weinreich, P. (1983). Emerging from threatened identities. In G. Breakwell (Ed.), Threatened Identities. New York: Wiley.  65 APPENDIX 1 Descriptive Statistics for South Asian and Chinese Sample.  South Asian (%)  Variables Sex  Chinese (%)  Male  52.3  48.4  Female  47.7  51.6  Age  15-17  5.5  5.6  (inyears)  18-24  14.3  13.9  25-29  11.1  7.2  30- 34  12.6  9.6  35-44  23.6  20.7  45-54  15.2  19.7  55  8.8  9.8  65+  8.9  13.5  Married  59.9  56.7  Common-Law  1.3  1.1  Widowed  3.7  4.8  Separated  2.4  1.3  Divorced  3.4  2.5  Single, never-married  28.9  33.4  Number of persons in the  1  4.8  8.2  household  2  12.8  17.2  3  15.4  22.1  4  27.1  27.4  Marital Status  —  64  66  Number of Respondent’s Children  Ancestry  5  19  15.1  6or more  20.9  10.1  0 Children  43.3  50.5  1 Child  19.2  23.2  2 Children  24.8  20.8  3 children  9.8  4.5  4 or more children  3.0  1.1  Non-European only  92.1  95.3  Non-European and European Only  1  .8  Other  2.2  .1  Don’t Know  2.1  1.5  Canadian  .1  .3  Punjabi  11.6  .0  East Indian  45.6  .0  Other South Asian  16.2  .0  Chinese  2  91.6  Vietnamese  10.3  .5  Other East and Southeast Asian  4.4  4.4  Derived-Ancestry  Unknown St ancestry Importance 1 response  9.8  3.2  1-not important  4.5  3.3  2  3.5  3.4  3  15.1  23.0  A  ‘+  1O.3  67 5-very important  52.2  41.3  Canadian Only  14.8  14.5  Non European only  61.5  55.6  Non European and Canadian Only  12.1  24.1  Other  11.6  5.8  Canadian  24.1  34.6  East Indian  27.3  .0  Other South Asian  22.8  .0  Chinese  1  56.5  Other East and Southeast Asian  1 1.1  3.5  Other  13.7  5.4  Born in Canada  12.4  14.8  Born outside Canada  87.5  85.2  87.5  85.2  Outside Canada  12.1  13.6  Inside Canada  .2  1.2  Before 1991  51.7  44.9  1991to2001  35.2  39.5  7.1  53.4  9.6  12.7  Protestant  3.1  9.6  Christian  2.7  9.0  Muslim  16.7  .1  Buddhist  8.6  12.5  Identity  Identity 1st Detailed responses  Place of Birth Inside or Outside of Canada —  Generational Status  Year of arrival for first generation  st 1  generation  —  Born outside Canada  No religious affiliation Religion  —  Broad Categories  Catholic  68 Hindu  First language official/non official  Language used most often at home  Highest level of schooling  22.4  .0  Sikh  26.2  .0  English only  16.6  6.8  French only  .6  .2  Non-official language  75.1  86.8  English and Non-official language_(s) English only  3.6  1.9  22.4  14.2  Non-official language  27.8  40.9  English and non-official language_(s) Dentistry, Veterinary, Medicine or Optometry Bachelor’s or undergraduate university degree  43.7  38.5  9.6  6.9  21.4  22.5  Trade, technical or vocational school or business_college High school diploma  10.2  13.0  18.9  21.8  Less than a high school diploma (includes no schooling)  23.5  20.9  Other  16.4  14.9  15.1  22.2  Less than $20,000  26.6  20.7  $20,000 to less than $40,000  22.0  17.9  $40,000 to less than $60,000  11.5  9.0  $60,000 to less than $80,000  5.2  5.6  $80,000 ormore  3.9  3.4  Yes  31.7  32  No  64  64.1  Noincomeorloss Personal Income  Perceived Discrimination  69 Importance of Ethnic Identity  3.4  3.0  10.4  14.3  71.3  58.3  20.0  16.6  6.9  9.3  70.5  70.0  Not same as either parent  9.8  27.5  Same as one parent  3.4  13.4  Same as both parents  81.4  48.9  Not same as either parent  1 8.1  4.6  Same as one parent  9.4  3.3  Same as both parents  63.8  87.6  Not important Important  Very important Intergenerational Language Homogeneity  Not same as either parent Same as one parent  Same as both parents  Intergenerational Religion Homogeneity  Intergenerational Ancestry Homogeneity  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0070875/manifest

Comment

Related Items