Neo Iranians: The Case of Azeri Turks

[jgk3]

Re: Neo Iranians: The Case of Azeri Turks

She is Persian and not German. She looks typical Persian. She definitely does not look German. I will show you later,



According to you, everybody in Iran look the same. They look "Iranian". They only speak different languages and have different political views. Soon Armenians are going to look "Iranian" too. Choosing between Persian identity and Iranian identity, Iran chooses Iranian identity.

Very nice discussion for American think thanks who do not know anything about Iran.

I am speaking on behalf of all Persians and specially those with aryan origin. The natives of Iran consider you "Iranians" as nothing more than insects!!!!

We are Iranians to you? That's funny. I understand that Persians have their own appearance, they have phenotypes that aren't as frequent in these "Iranians" as you call them, but the differences between your ethnic groups lies in your genepools, which have some leeway depending on the particular subregion you look at, who the particular ancestors of an individual family where, etc...

But seriously, Persians just traditionally constituted the majority group in the Persian empire, and they still do in Iran. They were, and continue to be, one of the main IRANIAN peoples in Iran. Modern ethnographers employed by government agencies in the west, and possibly in your own country, attempt to cloak just what this modern idea of Iranian ethnic group that is distinct from Persian, constitutes.

It is understood though that the present administration in your country likes (aside from its orientation to pan-Shiism and using its aura of Fundamentalist Islamic regime as a weapon against western interests) the idea of pan-Iranism modeled in such a way as to make Farsi the national language and wishes to discontinue the identification of Persians, or any minority Iranian groups with other names, with these traditional delineations. Everyone is Iranian. That's all. If that angers you, that's fine, but this has nothing to do with Armenian politics nor with fake Azerbaijan as Hellektor termed it.

Armenia's relationship with Iran is a political one, keep that in mind, and they are a strategic partner, not an enemy. As hellektor mentioned, Azarbaijan in Iran is not the same as the Turkish Azerbaijan, stop trying to convince us that they are. The one in Iran speaks a Turkish language but is Iranian in origin, just like you Persians, while the latter is not Iranian in origin at all. The latter has nothing to do with Persians whatsoever.

We have good political relations with the Iranian Azeri leadership of Iran. Tough luck for you if that bothers you. We can barely hold our own in the Caucasus, like we need to make an enemy of Iran.

[oslonor]

Re: oslonor is an "Azeri" spambot that wants the destruction of Iran and Armenia

Man, you don't make any sense. We are mostly "Anti-Anatolian turk" especially.

Mr. Hellhektor is correct on one point. The Problem of Armenia is Bernard Lewis project. But Bernard Lewish project is not the one they have declared publicly. The real Bernard Lewis project is the Turkification of Armenia by exporting pure Iranians into Armenia. The Republic of Azerbaijan is actually a satelite state to Iran. The Azeris in the republic will be declared "Iranians" soon by Iran. Hellhektor attacks only Turkey because his statements are based on Iran's foreign policy and not Armenian's national interest.

[oslonor]

Re: Neo Iranians: The Case of Azeri Turks

We are Iranians to you? That's funny. I understand that Persians have their own appearance, they have phenotypes that aren't as frequent in these "Iranians" as you call them, but the differences between your ethnic groups lies in your genepools, which have some leeway depending on the particular subregion you look at, who the particular ancestors of an individual family where, etc...

I am not from Iran. I have European American background. My wife is Persian. She writes the comments. I post them.

I do not think you understand what is Persian. Persian is not a homogenous group. But whatever their origin they are not Dinaric Alpine. Only Azeri Turks or Iranians are dinaric alpine. And I have posted the pictures of your Iranians.

Also you do not understand Iran at all. Nobody in Iran identifies himself ethnically as Iranian except Azeri Turks. Iranian is another name for Azeri Turks.

The difference between Iranian and Persian is Iranians can speak Persian language but they do not have Persian culture. Iranians are dinaric alpine. Persians are either nordic or cro-magnid. Persians are either natives of Iran or they aryan origin. Iranians have oghuz turks as their origin.

We are Iranians to you? That's funny. I understand that Persians have their own appearance, they have phenotypes that aren't as frequent in these "Iranians" as you call them, but the differences between your ethnic groups lies in your genepools, which have some leeway depending on the particular subregion you look at, who the particular ancestors of an individual family where, etc...

But seriously, Persians just traditionally constituted the majority group in the Persian empire, and they still do in Iran. They were, and continue to be, one of the main IRANIAN peoples in Iran. Modern ethnographers employed by government agencies in the west, and possibly in your own country, attempt to cloak just what this modern idea of Iranian ethnic group that is distinct from Persian, constitutes.

It is understood though that the present administration in your country likes (aside from its orientation to pan-Shiism and using its aura of Fundamentalist Islamic regime as a weapon against western interests) the idea of pan-Iranism modeled in such a way as to make Farsi the national language and wishes to discontinue the identification of Persians, or any minority Iranian groups with other names, with these traditional delineations. Everyone is Iranian. That's all. If that angers you, that's fine, but this has nothing to do with Armenian politics nor with fake Azerbaijan as Hellektor termed it.

Armenia's relationship with Iran is a political one, keep that in mind, and they are a strategic partner, not an enemy. As hellektor mentioned, Azarbaijan in Iran is not the same as the Turkish Azerbaijan, stop trying to convince us that they are. The one in Iran speaks a Turkish language but is Iranian in origin, just like you Persians, while the latter is not Iranian in origin at all. The latter has nothing to do with Persians whatsoever.

We have good political relations with the Iranian Azeri leadership of Iran. Tough luck for you if that bothers you. We can barely hold our own in the Caucasus, like we need to make an enemy of Iran.

[oslonor]

Re: Neo Iranians: The Case of Azeri Turks

Persian Zoarastrian


Persian Bakhtiary


Persian (Khorasan or Caspian region)

[jgk3]

Re: Neo Iranians: The Case of Azeri Turks

what is so nordic about these people? What is cro-magnid? can you explain?

Also, last I heard, dinaric alpine is an oxymoron. Lack of long headedness in European phenotypes often means the difference between dinaricism and alpinism.

The difference between what we believe concerning Azarbaijanis in Iran is that you think they are Oghuz Turks, yet we think they are natives of western Iran, while we consider their northern neighbours to be the Oghuz Turks who label themselves as Azeri.

And yes I do understand Iran in the sense that I know Persians are a subgroup of Iranians. Iran is a name for the region that is home to many historic peoples. Kurds are Iranians in this sense too btw. Forget what these groups would like to identify themselves as today. Just like Norwegians and Swedes are Germanic peoples, Kurds, real Azeris, Parthians, Bactrians, Persians, etc... are all Iranian people.

It's just maybe the political leaders of Iran today give "Iranian" a connotation of socio-linguistic assimilation that is not appreciated by those who identify themselves as Persians today.

[oslonor]

Re: Neo Iranians: The Case of Azeri Turks

what is so nordic about these people? What is cro-magnid? can you explain?

Also, last I heard, dinaric alpine is an oxymoron. Lack of long headedness in European phenotypes often means the difference between dinaricism and alpinism.

I will post some info later. But for a more detailed discussion you may post the pictures on anthropology forums and ask them to classify them. Alpine is a basic type. Dinarization is a process that converts a basic type to a different form. I never heard anybody say dinaric alpine is an oxymoron. It is a concept used in physical anthropology. Do you have an alternative name for Iranians please let me know.

The difference between what we believe concerning Azarbaijanis in Iran is that you think they are Oghuz Turks, yet we think they are natives of western Iran, while we consider their northern neighbours to be the Oghuz Turks who label themselves as Azeri.

These are fairy tales by Iranians. Soon Azeris in Republic will declared Iranians too. Some of them have been given even Iranian passports and sent to Armenia as pure Iranians. Armenians could not tell Azeris apart from pure Iranians and let them in. That shows that pure iranians in Iran and Azeris in the republic are all the same people. Also I heard they have been involved in spying activity for the Republic of Azerbaijan.

This is President Ahmadinejad a pure Iranian. He is related to Borat an Illyrian Turk. They look very similar. He is not related to Nuristanis in Afghanistan who are descendants of Scythians or Sakas.



Nuristanis in Afghanistan


To confuse people Pure Iranians claim that Persians are mixed with Arabs. Actually Arabs have gene marker Haplogroup EU10. Nobody in Iran has this gene marker. So nobody in Iran is mixed with any Arabs.

[oslonor]

Re: Neo Iranians: The Case of Azeri Turks

And yes I do understand Iran in the sense that I know Persians are a subgroup of Iranians. Iran is a name for the region that is home to many historic peoples. Kurds are Iranians in this sense too btw. Forget what these groups would like to identify themselves as today. Just like Norwegians and Swedes are Germanic peoples, Kurds, real Azeris, Parthians, Bactrians, Persians, etc... are all Iranian people.

It's just maybe the political leaders of Iran today give "Iranian" a connotation of socio-linguistic assimilation that is not appreciated by those who identify themselves as Persians today.

This is a very confused way to talk. Do not mix up Iranians with the natives of Iran. Do not talk in general terms. Iranians are not related to Kurds or Persians or anybody else. What you are trying to say is ancient Aryan tribes were related which is correct. We only use Iranians to refer to Azeris. Do not mix up concepts with different meanings. Talk very specifically.

I like to know about "socio-linguistic assimiliation" and what ever is their agenda. Then I will analyze what they are trying to do.

Also do not attribute personal motives to people. I am not even from that region. Do not say "you are angry for this or that." It lowers your intellectual level.

[Hellektor]

Re: oslonor is an "Azeri" spambot that wants the destruction of Iran and Armenia

Hellhektor attacks only Turkey because his statements are based on Iran's foreign policy and not Armenian's national interest.

This statement is so absurd that deserves no reply, if there's one thing about my posts it is that I have never been ambiguous in what I say.

However, if we only hypothetically took chosnonor's claim that this spam producing robot is of American European background and his “Persian” wife writes the comments (not that I buy it, mind you) if there's a grain of integrity in this person(s), then why doesn't he tell us what he is after?

There's no doubt the purpose of pan-Turkism in naming the nonentity forged on Armenian territory in 1918 “Azerbaijan” was not an innocent affaire. The inability to usurp this vital Iranian province through centuries of war in the Safavid era, all fought on Armenian territory causing unspeakable pain and suffering for Armenians, led the cunning Turk to resort to this trickery. They faked a nation that never existed throughout history, by morphing the primitive, nomadic Tatar tribes, leftovers of Oghuz invasions, as “Azerbaijanis” a couple of decades after the counterfeiting.

Now this bogus nation is so desperate that they are projecting their nothingness on Iranians spreading this sort of meaningless rants to confuse the potentially uninformed reader, resorting to fallacious racial arguments and what not. First of all, race is absolutely irrelevant, especially when Turks are concerned. Racially speaking, there is hardly 10% Turkishness (whatever the hell that is) in the inhabitants of Turkey or fake “Azerbaijan”. There's more Greek, Armenian, Assyrian and Balkan “genes” in Turkey than their original Mongoloid features. It's about affinity. If your affinity is to Turkishness then you are Turk. Bringing ridiculous Dinaric, Moronic, Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon, etc., bullshit confirms the weakness of their theories.

People in Iran consider themselves Iranian. It's true, they may say “ma Mosalmoona” (us Muslims), “shoma Armaniha” (you Armenians) in friendly conversation, but if you ask ANY Iranian of ANY region what their nationality is, the answer would unquestionably be Iranian.

There's absolutely no way whatsoever to determine who is Azarbaijani (real) and who's not. Almost any Iranian will tell you they have at least one grandparent who is from Azarbaijan (the real). They may or may not know Turkish. They look no different than other Iranians despite all the baloney this spambot tries to feed us with nonsensically labeled pictures of people. I was born here, I grew up here and I live here; I know what I'm talking about and if your “Azeri” “wife” has “fooled” you into believing that “she” is Persian, then this is your problem (not that I buy it, mind you).

While “Azeri” is a mid 20th century Turco-Bolshevik invention and unfortunately its use has also gained currency in Iran, probably by commies and infiltration from Azerbaboonistan, the reason an Iranian Azarbaijani will say they are Azari is because they do not like to be called Turk (Tork in Persian), otherwise, just as it is rare to call the people of Khuzestan Khuzi, just as it is not normal to call the people of Khorasan Khori or the people of Mazandaran Mazi, the people of Kerman have never been called Keri, the people of Tehran have never been called Tehi, likewise the people of Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan) have never been called “Azeri” throughout history, since Lesser Media was called Atrpatakan by Armenians, after Atrpat, who maintained the autonomy of the region after the fall of the Achaemenids by Alexander the Faggot.

Azarbaijan (the real, Atrpatakan) is an indispensable region. The map of Iran is a cat and Azarbaijan is its head. Its climate, its history, the personalities who originated from there and its border with Armenia among other things, have contributed to its importance. Without this head there would be no Iran. The destruction of Iran will inevitably drown Armenia in a Turk quagmire, the main purpose of the fabrication of fake “Azerbaijan”. While with its 1.648,195 km2 surface it is a huge country, the whole middle part of Iran is desert. The people have always lived mainly on the periphery of Iran. The Jewey Lewis plan takes off the head and Khuzestan in the south which is its oil rich province. There's no doubt in the malicious intent of the proponents of this scheme of which this chosnonor is a part.

*****

I copy/paste from the Conclusion section of my thingy about fake “Azerbaijan” for those who haven’t read it. If you want to know how I reach this conclusion then please read it:

Delving into treasures left for us and those to come, from the dawn of recorded history, by historians of any corner of the world who have written about the region one cannot conclude but:

• I. Never and in no historical period since the continents have accepted the present form and human societies have developed on this planet, has there ever existed a country called “Azerbaijan” north of the Arax River.
  
  
• II. Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan) has always been to the south of the Arax River, even in those periods when the borders of Aghvank (Aran/Aluania), following the whims of the rulers of the region, sometimes reached the Arax. Generally the River Kur has been cited as the southern and western border of Aghvank with Armenia.
  
  
• III. Regardless of the borders of Aghvank (Aran/Aluania), it’s interesting that, like the ancient Greek and Roman authors, almost all Islamic historians and geographers have unequivocally considered Aghvank part of Armenia. This is proof that long before Turkic invasions, the Aghvans (people of Aran) had already assimilated or in the process of assimilation with the Armenians who they were historically related to.
  
  
• IV. Nowhere and in no historical document is there a word about a nation called “Azeri”. While the Persian dialect of the people of the real Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan) has been called Pahlavi Azari or Irani Azari by some Islamic historians, never has the term ever been applied to a nation before the end of the 1930s, about two decades after the counterfeiting of fake “Azerbaijan”.
  
  
• V. A language derived from Turkish called “Azeri” does not exist. Turks of the Caucasus speak a dialect of Turkish.
  
  
• VI. As a result of Turkic domination in the region, the people of the real Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan) south of the Arax River have gradually lost their native Pahlavi language, however, they are Turkish speaking Iranians and cannot be considered Turks. The obvious reason that backs this claim is that their affinity is to Iran and not to pan-Turkism.
  
  
• VII. The people of Aghvank (Aran/Aluania) living to the north and the people of Azarbaijan (Atrpatakan) living to the south of the Arax River have always been two separate, unrelated entities throughout history in racial, linguistic, religious, cultural and national terms.
  
  
• VIII. Fact III above alone pulverizes Heydar Aliev’s delirium, in case one would be so uninformed to believe the “Azeris” were the descendants of what they fallaciously and maliciously call “Albanians” (Aghvans), which is of course total baloney. Not only have they no idea of the language, customs, religion, history and culture of the people of Aghvank, they do not show an iota of affinity with this long extinct Christian nation and would exterminate them with sadistic pleasure had they survived until the twentieth century.
  
  
• IX. Their claim to be of so-called “Albanian” (Aghvan) descent faded totally when instead of keeping the name of the nation they pretend to be their origins, these leftovers of Oghuz invaders that lived under a tribal clan system up to and well after the counterfeiting of their fabricated “nation” called themselves “Azeri”, nonexistent in human history.

[jgk3]

Re: Neo Iranians: The Case of Azeri Turks

I'm sorry fella, but questioning people's motives is what I do all the time, and I let them know about it.

Listen, I believe that you may be right concerning Azeri Turks being passed off as Iranians, and thus able to enter our country, it goes to show you these physical differences between adjacent ethnic groups are easily blurred.

Also, I believe your claim about Borat looking like Ahmadinejad is not that strong, it just looks like Borat might have some distant admixture of whatever gives Ahmadinejad that look, but they do not look very similar. I see what you mean about the features that Borat might have that look faintly related, but they're not even a baby version of Ahmadinejad's full fledged traits that give him that look.

And btw, Borat is not an Illyrian Turk but an Ashkenazi xxx.

I will start calling Iranians along my definition as Indo-Iranians for your sake, ok? This is what I am referring to from now on, not Iranians as Azeris.

for starters, the Eu10 marker according to my research is not researched enough amongst east Indo-Iranians, they were just not included in the samples in the papers I've read, although it is well known that the Haplogroup J2 (which is made up of the subgroups of Eu9 and Eu10) are popular throughout Iran and are even found all the way up to Tajikistan and Mongolia, so it would be interesting to determine which subgroup of J2 is the one that found it's way to central and eastern Iran and beyond, don't you think?

the Gene marker Eu10 is not Arabic per se, it is just a Levantine genetic marker of Paleolithic origin which started in the geographic location of the Bedouins in Jordan and spread throughout the middle east with greater frequency in the south than in the north, all before everyone's static ethnic groups were formed, including Armenians, Persians, Arabs, Kurds, etc...

Anyone from the Levant could've migrated to the lands of Persia and beyond in the northeast, and they would've brought with them this genetic marker. I am willing to bet that it's likely these migrations could've occurred, and so I wouldn't be surprised if you found some Eu10 in Persians, though the frequency of it would less than that which is found in Arab populations.

It is easy to confuse Eu10 with Arab expansion however. According to my research (mostly from papers by Semino et al.), North Africa did not originally have men walking about with this genetic marker until the Arabs brought them in there and intermixed. But the spread of Eu10 throughout history has not been exclusively by Arabs.

I consider it more likely that northern Middle Easterners (having a relatively high frequency of Eu9) would've been the more likely candidates to trek through Persia at the time, but nonetheless we have to see the results to come to any conclusions.

We know that J2 (Eu9, Eu10) has reached eastern Indo-Iranians already, if you know of any links that specify the haplogroups deeper than this, please share.

[Armanen]

Re: Neo Iranians: The Case of Azeri Turks

Anyone from the levant would migrated to the lands of Persia and beyond in the northeast would've brought with them this genetic marker, not just Arabs. I am willing to bet that it's likely these migrations could've occurred, and so I wouldn't be surprised if you found some Eu10 in Persians.

Yes, the admixture of semetic blood now found among many in Iran is due to the arab invasions, and with the conversion of Iran to islam, the ethnic differences were not emphasized anymore, instead the ummah (world-wide muslim population) was seen as being above any racial/ethnic/cultural traits.

This is the reason why there are few pure Indo-European blooded Iranians left, something like 20%, a figure I was given by a Parthian aqentence of mine, so it could be higher or lower but I figure he would know more about his country.