Skip to comments.Iranian Population Educated, Urbanized and Young: Census (Iranian fertility rate plummets to 1.29)
Posted on 07/31/2012 2:04:59 PM PDT by JerseyanExile
According to the latest census, Irans population is at 75.2 million, with 99.4 percent being Muslims, 55 percent under the age of 30, and the literacy rate at 93 percent
Iran is a very urbanized society with a largely educated, young Muslim population that ranks as the Middle Easts second-largest, its latest census figures published yesterday show.
The snapshot, issued on the website of the presidencys planning and strategic supervision department (www.amar.org.ir), also corrected some misconceptions about the country, notably by reporting fewer than expected Jews and Internet users.
The census, whose data was collected in 2011 and presented in resume last week by the departments officials, gave Irans total population as 75.2 million, 99.4 percent of whom are Muslim. That was larger than any other country in the region except for Egypt (81 million, according to the World Bank).
Iranians accounted for 73.5 million of the total, with 1.5 million Afghans making up the biggest minority living in the country. Other minorities included Iraqis (51,500), Pakistanis (17,700) and Turks (1,600). An overwhelming proportion of the population -- 71 percent -- lived in urban areas, and Tehran and its satellite towns are home to 12.2 million inhabitants.
The literacy rate for those aged between 10 and 49 was 93 percent.
Most of the population is young, with 55 percent aged under 30.
The proportion of young Iranians use to be even higher, but a rapidly slowing birth rate -- an average 1.29 children per couple, compared to 1.62 in the last census in 2006 -- has resulted in a decrease in recent years.
The supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has recently sought to reverse a previous policy favoring birth control in a bid to boost the population to between 150 million and 200 million. Even though Iran -- a Shiite theocracy -- is almost completely Muslim, other faiths are present. There are 8,756 Jews in the country, according to the census. That was fewer than the 20,000 figure previously estimated.
There are also 117,704 Christians, the census said, as well as 25,271 Zoroastrians (adherents of a faith that dominated pre-Islamic Persia), and 49,101 listed as other. A total 265,899 people did not give a religion.
Education is an important value in Iran, as seen by a big jump in the number of people pursuing higher studies at university or in religious institutions (10.5 million, up from 6.9 million in 2006).
Men and women are split almost equally 50-50 in this category, underlining the growing number of educated Iranian women.
Iran has the biggest group of Internet users in the Middle East -- although the figure of 11.2 million declaring themselves connected was far smaller than the estimate of 36 million advanced by the telecommunications ministry.
“The literacy rate for those aged between 10 and 49 was 93 percent.”
How hard is it to memorize “Death to America” the primary thing taught in Muzzieland?
That profile of highly educated, smaller families and internet users is not the profile of a country run by an authoritarian theocratic dictatorship. I think the end of that government is a question of when.
As JerseyanExile notes, a lot of Iran isn’t Iranian. Also, the Iran-Iraq war fed 100s of 1000s to the guns, and those dead pro-Khomeini fanatics didn’t survive to reproduce. The Iranian mullahcracy is and has been propped up by a (mostly Arab) international cadre of jihadist a-holes, oh, and various nuclear weapons experts from Russia, China, and Pakistan.
Food prices are up and without oil sales there is less subsidization of food. High unemployment and few prospects, even fewer babies per woman. And in a nation with mandatory contraceptive lessons for newlyweds, they have a culture of contraception to build upon.
No money, no food, no kids.
On a long enough timeline...
>>>”A couple of things here stand out - for political reasons, it seems that many of Iran’s ethnic minorities were classified as Iranians (the Balochs, Azerbaijanis, ect.).”<<<
For ACTUAL/REAL reasons (linguistic & racial, included) , Iran’s ethnic minorities *ARE*, in fact, *Iranians*.
Would you categorize only English/Irish/Welsh/Scots, as “classified” AMERICANS?
Sunkenciv said: “As JerseyanExile notes, a lot of Iran isnt Iranian.”
Wrong. See the above.
What & How do you define an American?
Jewish? Christian? Mormon? Muslim? Bah’ai?
Irish, English, Scottish, Welsh?
Perhaps German or French, Spanish, Mexican, Japanese & Chinese? Native English speaking ethnic grps in the USA (America is not, solely, the USA, by the way) ?
If you think the above are in fact Americans, or, for selective/political reasons/purposes, are to be categorized as Americans, then the same would stand very true for other countries, in war or peace.
Bear in mind that America’s political history is only just over 200 yrs old, to name the above mentioned multitude of *ethnic groups*.
Iran’s history, political and otherwise, has many centuries prior to 1776, and, at present, continuing...
Just pointing out the very obvious, *Political* Spiel... - Btw, “Spiel” is a German word and is pronounced as “Sh-peel”. ;-)
And everything after that was downhill all the way.
>>>>”And everything after that was downhill all the way.”<<<
It has since been an uphill battle, up to both the West (the USA, in particular), and Iranians to not let it slide down further.
Unfortunately, it takes both sides to move in a positive direction, not something for one, essentially, powerless group (i.e. many anti-mullah Iranians).
The USA should, as it has mostly done, take a Leadership role. We are missing the Positive LEADERSHIP from the USA.
-- true, except for Turkmen and Arabs of course. the ones mentioned by Jersey (Baluchis and Azeris) are Irani people. Baluchis in particular speak a west-irani language. Azeris speak a Turkic language but genetically are Iranis -- descendents of those Iranis who were Turkicised (just as the present day population of Turkey are not very Turkic in blood). Their culture is Irani.
nearly 80% speak Iranic languages: whether Persian, Baluchi, Kurdish, Gilaki etc.
There are Turkic speakers (Azeris), but as I said above, they are Irani by race and culture though not by language.
There ARE other Turkic speakers (Turkmen etc.) who are NOT Irani by race or language, but are a small minority
the other small non-Irani minority are Aryanic like the Indic speakers: Pathans or Armenians. There are also Arabs, Assyrians and Georgians, but their numbers are small -- about 4%
Sorry, sc, but that statement is incredible incorrect -- the Arabs fear and loathe Iranis. Saddam and the Saudis called them Persian flies to kill and that's why Saddam's war against them was financed by Saudia, the UAE, Kuwait etc. etc. Besides racial hatred spanning 3000 years (since Median times), there is also sectarian hatred
And no, the Pakis don't give nukes to the Iranis -- they have a history of invasion from Iran and coupled with the Sunni-Shia mix, they won't arm their enemy (but the pakis would give nukes to Libya or Saudia in a heartbeat)
The Sassanids were also great in trade and culture.
After the Moslem conquering and then Timur-i-lang's massacres Iran didn't fluorish until the 16th century and then was under threat from the Turks, the Mughals and the Russians.
I’m sorry, but to ignore the separate ethnic groups inside Iran strikes me as optimistic at best, unrealistic at worst. To do so can create a distorted view of the situation. Imagine trying to understand the status on the ground in Turkey, while pretending that Kurds were Turks. Or the complexities of Afghanistan, while ignoring the heavy regional differences and just assuming that Afghanis were all Pashtuns.
Iran may have held territories in the west and east for centuries, may consider these lands to be an integral part of the nation, but often the decrees of governments and feelings of majority ethnic groups are ignored by the residents of such regions. Russia held what is now the modern Ukraine since the 1600s, but that didn’t stop separatist movements, even armed ones, from arising. And today, the Ukraine is now an independent country. Bulgaria was once considered a part of the heartland of the Ottoman Empire, and had been held for centuries. And yet again, we see various separatist groups eventually gaining strength, and leading armed revolts, before gaining independence (though only through the intervention of a foreign power).
My point is, just because territory has been held for long periods of time, does not mean that the people residing there will see themselves as being a part of the government of the nation or people they are now a part of. The ever changing map of much of the world bears ample testament to this fact. There are significant Kurdish and Baloch ethnic minorities inside Iran, and these groups are not fully satisfied with being a part of Iran. Widespread armed separatist movements have been ongoing for years (decades even) in these regions, and they have a significant amount of popular support.
As for your example, I think that it doesn’t work on several levels - first, “American”, no matter how many people may wish it, isn’t an ethnic group. Second, the United States is not founded on the concept of ethnic nationalism like most nations. And while the modern Iranian state, growing from historic Persia, wasn’t explicitly a country founded on that notion either, the sense that Iran is seen as the country of the Iranian people has pervaded it. Persianization efforts have existed since the early 1900s under the Shahs. And third, there are no major, violent separatist movements in the US that exist across ethnic lines. I don’t know of many Scotch-Irish running around the mountains, planting roadside bombs, and advocating for an independent Republic of Appalachia, or Inuit blowing up Air Force radar stations and calling for a Free Inuit state for their brothers across the border in Canada to join.
Sorry, I might not have made myself clear...I meant everything went downhill after the celebration of 2500 years of the history of Persia.
Thanks to the assistance of the United States of America.
Carter should have kept his nose out of it.
>>>”Im sorry, but to ignore the separate ethnic groups inside Iran strikes me as optimistic at best, unrealistic at worst. To do so can create a distorted view of the situation.”<<<
I am not being optimistic. You are being unrealistic - am sorry.
>>>”Imagine trying to understand the status on the ground in Turkey, while pretending that Kurds were Turks. Or the complexities of Afghanistan, while ignoring the heavy regional differences and just assuming that Afghanis were all Pashtuns.”<<<
Turkey, Afghanistan, et al, are not comparable to Iran, historically, or to present day. That’s your uninformed, theoretical opinion. Am sorry.
>>>” Russia held what is now the modern Ukraine since the 1600s, but that didnt stop separatist movements, even armed ones, from arising. And today, the Ukraine is now an independent country. Bulgaria was once considered a part of the heartland of the Ottoman Empire, and had been held for centuries. And yet again, we see various separatist groups eventually gaining strength, and leading armed revolts, before gaining independence (though only through the intervention of a foreign power).”<<<
Again, no comparison between Iran, Russia, Ukraine, and the so-called “Eastern Bloc”. In many respects. Nor Ottoman Empire.
The people who think in a similar fashion as you do, regarding Iran, are dime a dozen - don’t take it personally.
I presume you are an Anglo-Celtic American, who reads so-called history, online or in books, and draws conclusions, based on theory & what is disseminated? Perhaps you have a few Iranian “friends”, or spent some time on the field?
I repeat no comparison between the countries & cultures you mentioned in the quotes above, and Iran.
>>>”My point is, just because territory has been held for long periods of time, does not mean that the people residing there will see themselves as being a part of the government of the nation or people they are now a part of.”M<<<
Your point is taken. No, Many “People” do Not see themselves as part of the “government” in the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI), including Balouchi, Kurd, or Azaris etc...
And, there are a few separatist movements in Iran that the US likes to feed, every now & then, since well before the Khonmeinist regime in 1979.
However, the issue is the present day Islamic government in Iran, not Iran or the Iranians.
Am sorry, but the majority of the above mentioned Ethnic Groups see themselves as IRANIANS, regardless of the Mullahs’ Regime.
>>>”Widespread armed separatist movements have been ongoing for years (decades even) in these regions, and they have a significant amount of popular support.”<<<
“Widespread armed *separatist* movements” is INCORRECT - CATEGORICALLY.
However, you may wish it to be - note the distinctions. Do tell where you get your information from?!
>>>”first, American, no matter how many people may wish it, isnt an ethnic group. Second, the United States is not founded on the concept of ethnic nationalism like most nations.”<<<
The USA is a country comprising of multitude of ETHNIC GROUPS. The USA constitution is, am afraid, somewhat irrelevant in this context.
And, the USA constitution is most relevant as it stood back in 1776, when the USA was breaking away from its colonial heritage i.e. Britain & Monarchy.
Like it or not, Ethnic Grps, since 1776, make up the cultural makeup of the USA. It is a fact. IOW, the USA exceptionalism is becoming increasingly today & irrelevant in this context.
Take a good look at the USA. That’s why the USA had so many problems with the ETHNIC Indians - Blacks, imported from other parts of the world (Africa to begin with), over the years; Hispanics, etc.. and then there were the Japs (Japanese) the USA monitored during WW2, even those born in the USA.
>>>”And while the modern Iranian state, growing from historic Persia, wasnt explicitly a country founded on that notion either, the sense that Iran is seen as the country of the Iranian people has pervaded it. Persianization efforts have existed since the early 1900s under the Shahs.”<<<
Really?! Sorry, but you ought to read history, THOROUGHLY - both American & Iranian (Persia included) more accurately, and not be so selective about your assertions.
“Since 1900s, since the Shahs” & Persianization, is absolutely ludicrous. The so-called ‘Persianization’ came about more than 2000 years ago, in Iran. The USA did not exist then.
>>>”And third, there are no major, violent separatist movements in the US that exist across ethnic lines. I dont know of many Scotch-Irish running around the mountains, planting roadside bombs, and advocating for an independent Republic of Appalachia, or Inuit blowing up Air Force radar stations and calling for a Free Inuit state for their brothers across the border in Canada to join.”<<<
As I said, the USA has only a history of just over 200 years ago. As it stands, it has gotten worse in the last several yrs in the USA, itself.
To be obvious, I didn’t see any major world-events in Iran in the previous decade, for your point.
BUT, in 2001, we all saw a terrible event: the attack on the USA, NY (major hub of financial and otherwise location) in the USA.
You may not regard the above as a “violent, separatist movement in the US”. However, it was a major violent and Yes, in a sense, a separatist movement.
And, am not so sure, it was purely an “Islamic event”.
At any rate, there are more than ever “Islamic movements” in the USA since.
Just because there hasn’t been one more catastrophic event since then in the USA itself, as was so widely disseminated in 2001, don’t think there won’t be one.
” it seems that many of Iran’s ethnic minorities were classified as Iranians (the Balochs, Azerbaijanis, ect.). “
They’re all Iranians. Maybe your thinking is that they’re not Persians??
hmmm... I agree with Jersey’s first paragaph of not ignoring the separate ethnic groups. however, JE, note that most of those ethnic groups (except the Armenians, Georgians, Arabs and Turks) consider themselves Irani (but not Persian). I don’t think the Persians are a majority either.
That's not true for any of the groups except the Arabs. the Baluchis somewhat, but there is no deep ignorance of them as opposed to what the Punjabis do to the Baluchis in Pakistan controlled Baluchistan.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.