Is it true that the last three generations were farmers? How do you understand this sentence?

Is it true that the last three generations were farmers? How do you understand this sentence? Of course it makes sense. The main composition of China people is farmers. Three generations ago, most of them were farmers. This statement applies to most people. Probably. However, I am an exception. After five generations, my family is not a farmer. In the past, I loved to say such things. Eight hundred and sixty years ago, all of them were farmers. In fact, there are still a few exceptions. Even the most mature agricultural country or society in the world cannot be 1% composed of a single component.

The meaning of this statement is clear, but actually, three generations are not enough. Because the three generations are at most the Republic of China. The social composition has changed greatly, and industry and commerce have begun to flourish. To accurately convey the original intention of this statement, it is best to turn over several generations to the authentic farming society. At that time, more than 99% were farmers. Of course, everyone understands the original intention of this statement, so don't take it too seriously. The headline is not an academic report.

you just say it at random, and I'll listen at random, so that everyone can get a general idea of what is going on. I basically won't take it too seriously. I'll take it all for you. Tell me it's my appetizer! Some urban residents have lived in cities for hundreds of years. You can never say that their last three generations were farmers, while some urban educated young people who settled in the countryside in 1968 were real farmers for two or three generations, but their last three generations were still not farmers.

Few things in the world are absolute, most of them are relative. The subject of this question is absolute. The saying that "three generations from the top are farmers" makes sense. As the saying goes, counting up to three generations, which city dweller is not "beaten" by farmers? It turns out that the so-called city is a town at best, with a small population. After hundreds of years of development and changes, it has grown from small to large, and the surrounding rural population has been moving closer to it and carrying on the family line, and it has gradually discovered the present metropolis. In the long process of discovery, a steady stream of farmers flowed into the city to multiply endlessly, that is, to marry and have children. The main body of the city is composed of the descendants of farmers. So this statement makes sense, no doubt.