ETHNIC
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
Not ALL speak Persian
17-May-2008
Reading through comments, under articles related to the Iranian identity and its diverse nature, maybe one more article, further elaborating the subject, would not hurt. Some things may become repetitive, so I would like to 'warn' readers that they might not find the article very interesting unless they have followed related subjects before.
Beside angry comments which usually bring no arguments, some opposing ones do bring arguments that have been helpful in somehow assessing how various views hover around, and where they may come together. Unfortunately many opposing comments bring up issues which have wrongly been interpreted as being denied, or even mentioned, in my previous articles.
Nevertheless I do understand that such comments often bode well with those viewers who do not bother to read the article and go straight to the comments section, and in case they see a comment blasting at the author for purportedly having claimed something, they assume that the author had indeed (there or before) mentioned what the respective comment had brought up! This is an old and somewhat solid measure of misinformation, though in the long run (in an open and transparent medium) it can have less of an effect.
In my last article "Not pan-Turkism", I had brought up the subject of Iran's identity, again. There were some interesting comments under the article and I wish to go through some of them.
One commentator says "No one forced Persian on Azeris. There is one official language, since the constitutional revolution. Just because the country has one official language, it does not mean it is forced. The country can't have 30 official languages." Let me give a tiny little food for thought! Did anyone FORCE the Islamic regime on Iranians? The Islamic regime of Khomeini organised a referendum and got approval of unprecedented proportions. Doesn't that make the IRI an incredibly legitimate one? No, it doesn't.
First of all the Iranian regimes of the past century have not respected their own constitutions! Secondly, while a regime does not accept the participation of opposition in elections in a fair and transparent manner, then it cannot base its legitimacy on the approval it got in the past. Beside this, let's focus on the subject of the comment; the official language! Having one single official language for all of Iran is nothing wrong, though it is not absolutely necessary. The comment actually does not argue AGAINST anything I had written, but somebody reading it might think it does.
Is Persian forced on ALL Iranians? Yes, in schools, in case you do not speak Persian you cannot pass and there are many Iranian regions where locals simply do not know much about Persian. I have never said that we shall not teach our children Iran's official language! The official language was established in Iran's first constitution, in 1906, in which the people of Azerbaijan, Gilan etc heavily participated. And that is one of the most important signs that Iran is not based on a one-nation (depending on how we define nation) or one-ethnicity, philosophy, whether be it Persian, Azeri or else. The same constitution, and even Iran's current one, has never been truly applied, and they both give Iranians democracy of some sort, and their own rights for practising and promoting local languages and traditions!
Many people may justly argue that if English is used in America, why not use ONLY Persian in Iran? I do agree with one very simple argument, that it would be more practical and much simpler for ALL of Iran not to just write in Persian (Farsi) but even to speak in Persian, and Persian only. Persian is a beautiful, rich and old language! But I am also a strong believer in freedom and human rights. If the people of one of American states spoke a local language and would choose to establish that language, and that language only, as the official language (not English at all) then that would be the reality.
Americans freely have largely chosen English. Some American states have official LANGUAGES (plural), while the whole US has no official language. Iran being such a large and diverse country would be best run decentralised, not necessarily a federation, but definitely decentralised, in a way that regions would be able to devise various local policies and plans according to what their respective populations demand. This would reduce greatly the possibility of discrepancy in policies on local realities and desires, which are very often different from one place to another. Can one compare the people of Baluchistan to those of Gilan? They are likely more different than, let's say, Sicilians and Portuguese!
The same commentator continues "The Turks/Mongols that attacked Iran were barbarians, but it doesn't mean they are associated with Azeris." This is indeed something I had mentioned in the article. Iran's Azeri population call themselves Turks, and other Iranians call them Turks too. So, they have some things in common with those Turks who migrated to Iran! How much they have in common? That's nothing certain. But in common they do have some things, especially the language, which is similar to other Turkic languages.
Let's be clear on one thing; why do some people call Mongols or Turks who invaded Iran barbarians? Were they barbarians? I doubt they were nice to their enemies anyway. Has any Iranian, after having read Iran's history written by various people of prejudice, thought why some people are considered barbarians while others civilised? I have also seen many Iranian nationalists calling Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar a barbarian because he killed tens of thousands of people in Kerman, and he was a Turk, though nonetheless an Iranian. Was he a barbarian? Yes, he definitely was a man of limited humour, at best! He was a ruthless man.
But, the funny thing I have always found is that the same nationalistic Iranians talk about how big and glorious Iran was, and they long for those days of imperial and majestic oriental triumphalism. What the hell people! Wasn't the same blood-thirsty Agha Mohammad Khan, a barbaric Turk, who united this same old bloody empire you talk about? Didn't the same mass-murderer unite and re-create Iran? Then you say he was an uncivilised Turk who killed the ethnic Persian people of Kerman? Big, really big, smell of hypocrisy here! Nationalists must make their minds! What about Mohammad Ali Shah Qajar who subdued all of Iran except Azerbaijan, whose actions caused famine in Tabriz?
And what about Shah Ismail Safavi who cared no less if his Sunni opponents were Fars or Turk? His men showed no mercy! There was indeed almost no Fars-Turk issue with our historic tyrants. All they cared about was power! Either you stick with the 'civilisation' of Aryanism and Persianism, or with modern Iranian imperialism where barbaric Turks have been the cause of the foundation and preservation of the Persian Empire you so avidly take pride in! I definitely do not condone Iran's tyrants whether they were Turks, Persians etc, but the fact of the matter is that usually the same people who call Turks barbarians (even the historic Turks) take pride in the same empires those barbarians created and defended! Anyway, the other interesting thing is that historically speaking the winner has always been called barbarian by those who were defeated.
Greek philosophers called then-Persians savages and barbarians, and evidence is aplenty in Plato's and other Greek philosophers' rich and beautiful literary works cursing Xerxes and Persians in general. Romans called then-Germans barbarians! And Persians called then-Turks barbarians! Chinese called Mongols barbarians! Turks have never really called anybody barbarians as far as I know. Germans have never really called anybody barbarians either. Even British or Americans do not have a similar tradition.
So, it seems that those historians of one or two millennia back used to call their enemies barbarians, no matter what. And peoples who did not have such an old and rich tradition of writing have not joined the crowd of barbarian-bashers, or at least there is no evidence left. Were they really barbarians? I think everybody was a barbarian back then. And if they weren't barbarians, they were very often doomed to be taken over and even slaughtered by barbarians! It all seems to be public relations, archaic style. Now you call them terrorists. Then they were called barbarians. You call your enemies barbarians, they call you barbarians. Whoever won in the end burnt all the books and called the other barbarians!
And the same commentator ends with "Finally the immigrants to Tehran are from all over the place in Iran. That is a problem in any 3rd world country. Azeris are generally economically much better off than other Iranians." Yes, immigrants to Tehran are from all over the country. This part of the comment also does not ague AGAINST anything I had written, but there are some points worth clarification. Modern Iranian regimes of the past decades have invested heavily in Tehran and in some other more central areas of Iran. The reasons are not likely ethnic, but the facts exist. Protesting against such discriminatory investment policies are justified.
One example is that Tabriz has become Iran's fourth largest (and populous) city, though it used to be Iran's second, after Tehran. Azeris are doing better than some other Iranian groups, but that is largely because they have moved to Tehran and some of them have prospered there. And even Azeris in Azerbaijani areas are also doing better than areas such as Kurdistan or Baluchistan, maybe because Baluchis and Kurds are Sunni and have much less representation in Iran's central government.
Another comment mentions my remark that President Ahmadinejad congratulated "the Farsi (Persian) speaking peoples of the world" and I was wondering why he didn't also congratulate Azeri and Kurdish speaking people of the world! Are they any less Iranian? The comment was "the president congratulated all Iranians and also Persian speakers outside of Iran. So I think it is really covering everyone. For example Tajiks are not Iranian citizens but speak Persian." This may seem odd to some people that something seemingly so minor has bothered me. It is not just this, but the confusion that surrounds the whole Iranian identity, which is reflected in Mr Ahmadinejad's, and most other leaders', talks and actions.
Let's assume that the Iranian president said this "I congratulate all the Iranians for Iran's new year and also all the Kurdish-speaking people of the world!" Wow! That would mean the end of his political career, wouldn't it? Okay, in case he would mention Persian too, then that would probably be less of a catastrophe, but in case he ONLY mentions Kurdish-speaking people, wouldn't he suddenly become a PAN-KURDIST (I think this is also a favourite word in some Iranian corners)? I do think that Persian-speaking people of the world, Fars Iranians, Tajiks of Afghanistan and Tajikistan, and others, have all the rights to care for each other, and also keep in touch with each other for cultural reasons. That would not make them pan-Persianists, pan-Farsists, or anything. That would only mean their expression of their cultural freedoms, their rights, and it would be something normal for people who speak the same language to have some special contacts with each other.
The same would normally go also for non-Persian Iranians who have relations with citizens of other countries. Some other commentator suggested that pan-Turkism may mean more than just a belief in the creation of a super-state for all Turkic peoples. It would also mean relating to Turkic peoples culturally and to focus on being Turks. So then hasn't Mr Ahmadinejad by just congratulating Persian-speakers of the world focus on Persian-speakers, therefore become a pan-Persianist?
If we do expand the meaning of pan-Turkism so far, in order to use it as a tool of intimidation and insult, therefore it would be fair to call believers in cultural links between ethnic Persians and Tajiks as pan-Persianists! Which I don't agree with anyway, because there is nothing wrong in having relations with others with whom one has strong cultural ties. But Iran's president is supposed to be the president of ALL Iranian peoples, and not make any differences. Or that is supposed to be the theory! Are we worried that statements, or actions, that relate to some ethnic groups, inside or beyond Iran, would weaken Iran's unity or possibly encourage separatism? Many Iranians have genuine concerns about this. This is even more important especially because Iran is located in the Middle East, surrounded by Middle-Eastern countries.
Okay then, that is even more strong a motive for leaders and politicians for NOT using race and ethnicity related statements or policies which are used for the whole of Iran. So, what I am trying to say is that when representing the WHOLE of Iran it is not okay to associate it with ANY ethnic group. I strongly believe that the vast majority of Iranians make up the Iranian population on free will. I do believe that statistics are right in showing that the vast majority of Iranians, Persians, Azeris and others WANT to be part of Iran FREELY. So, why all this empty and cheap attempt to label people? Azeri Turks did not all-the-sudden feel they were part of Iran after all the Pahlavi-era propaganda about Iran's Aryan supremacy or the glorification of the pre-Islamic Persian Empire. They already felt very strongly about Iran based on their FREE WILL. I know that the term 'free will' is not a commonly used one in a Middle-Eastern country, but in case we want to move toward freedom and democracy we ought to get used to it.
Jokes about Turk, Luri, Rashti or others in Iran are not something to care about. They are harmless, and very funny. In case there are almost no jokes about Persians it is because there is not really an ethnic reality called Persian in Iran. Or we can at least say that it is a dodgy matter. There are also jokes about Isfahanis who speak Persian with their local accent. Luris may also be considered Persians, with their own accent. But when the central government invests in some areas and ignores other areas, then that is absolutely wrong. When the central government openly encourages (by not allowing to study their languages in schools or in any sense officially in their own areas) ALL Iranians to forget their own local languages and traditions, that is absolutely wrong too. And when the Iranian identity is related to one race or ethnicity, whether it is the so-called Aryan race, or Persians in particular, that is absolutely wrong too. It is generally wrong for any country to base its identity on race, but it is particularly wrong for such a diverse country like Iran.
My intention is indeed to bring the subject to the attention of my fellow Iranians, and not really to ask for changes of policy from the Iranian government. The reason we have an undemocratic government which misuses our resources, and mismanages our country and mistreats every and each of our countrymen is mainly because we believe that we cannot have any say in all of it. We are used to believe that we are not supposed to rule our society. And that is because we have historically proved to be idolisers of rulers and the powerful. Our tyrants usually told us something, and we either agreed, or in case we didn't agree we tacitly went along. It's time to look for different views and think them on our own!
| Recently by Ben Madadi | Comments | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Moving forward | 33 | Nov 06, 2008 |
| Testing democracy | 15 | Nov 02, 2008 |
| Playing dumb? | 72 | Sep 29, 2008 |
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
Iran has one problem and
by David ET on Sun May 18, 2008 12:53 PM PDTIran has one problem and that is the Islamic Republic Regime. The language and ethnicity is a non-issue and if it ever is, it is a creation of the rulers of the regime or foriegners.
In a democratic Iran all races, languages, genders, religions and ethnicities of us Iranians are respected.
Ben, I wish you would
by Rostam-e-Dastan (not verified) on Sun May 18, 2008 12:50 PM PDTBen, I wish you would shorten your articles and instead improve its quality. You branch out to so many things that it is not even clear what your point is. Hope to see better articles from you in the future.
Feedback for Ben
by Ara Serjoie (not verified) on Sun May 18, 2008 12:44 PM PDTIf you are trying to articulate a point about the central government's actions towards ethnic and religious minorities, then say so. But, do not spin it as a general attitude by all Iranians and certainly do not make it a historical tradition of wrong-doing.
Please note that the current government's deeds are being practiced towards anybody who is opposed to the administration. In fact, they have demonstrated expert unbiased behavior. Regardless of ethnic background or religious conviction, you are destined for the same fate, if you publicly disagree.
I am completely in favor of democracy, freedom of religion or lack thereof, etc... However, I disagree with the distorted viewpoint that having over a dozen languages taught in our school systems would accomplish that goal. Further, I find your tenor of amassing hatred from one ethnicity towards another, to be a disturbing approach. That is why I believe your intentions are not pure. People like you have tried to lead separation movements throughout our history.
Navid...
by Ben Madadi on Sun May 18, 2008 12:14 PM PDTA tiny correction, if I may. You probably meant "... because they happened not to be Shia Muslims." :)
Iran's governments have not usually went so far to kill people because of ethnicity. They have usually killed people for political reasons. But they have killed non-Shia for ideological reasons, some times. Thanks!
to ARA
by navid on Sun May 18, 2008 11:26 AM PDTI disagree with you. Over the past Glorious FIFTY years you mentionsed how many Baluchis, Kurds, Azeri, Turkmen, Arabs, Sunnis, Bahais, jews, Christians, Lurs, etc have been BUTCHERED by the central goverment in IRAN because they happend not to be PERSIAN and SHIA Muslim
The Past 50 years have been a dark chapter in the history of Iran and Iranians
Re: Ara Serjoie
by Ben Madadi on Sun May 18, 2008 10:59 AM PDTDear commentator,
Can you please elaborate your opinion; why do you think my intentions are not pure?
And, I am quite relaxed about not representing your standing, because you are a free person. However how do you know I do not represent ANY other ethnically diverse Iranian on the 'issue'? Can you be sure there isn't even one single Iranian, more or less 'mixed', who doesn't agree with me on THIS issue?
Ben is not talking about not being proud of Being Iranian
by navid on Sun May 18, 2008 10:40 AM PDTLook we are all proud of Being Iranians. But the thing that most of you are missing is that where is political/economical/social justice that should gurantee all groups in Iran. That is what at stake. Can Iran be democratic and Persian only. Can iran be democratic and Islamic only.
THe ANSWER IS THAT IT CANNOT BECOME DEMOCRATIC if the vision is Islamic and Persian
a
close
Re: Anonymous 1 million and counting
by Ben Madadi on Sun May 18, 2008 10:07 AM PDTYou didn't know I owned Iranian.com? Did I say I owned Iranian.com? I do? Do I? Maybe you know better :)
Thanks for your comments!
Re: Not ALL speak Persian
by Ara Serjoie (not verified) on Sun May 18, 2008 09:40 AM PDTBen,
I am of Azari decent and proud of that heritage. Yet, my ethnicity is secondary to my nationality. I am first and foremost an Iranian.
One of the most beautiful and unifying factors about our country is that all of the various ethnicities consider themselves Iranians who happen to be of differing backgrounds.
Read our poetry, listen to our music, and study our literature. Hundreds upon hundreds of poems, songs, and writings that celebrate the ethnic diversity of Iran: our languages, customs, cultures, and traditions.
For example: just in the past half a century, how many songs have been produced that praise the beauty of ALL Iranian women: Kurds, Turks, Lurs, Gilakis, Baluchis, Bandaris, etc...
Now, tell me of just even one song produced in the US that speaks of anything that is collectively good about the Hispanics, Asians, Blacks, etc...
You will hardly find any such evidence that indeed the white-male dominated politics and media of the US take any pride in the ethnic diversity of their people. In fact, quite the contrary.
We were a melting pot of the world long before America coined that term.
In my opinion, your intentions are clearly not pure. You do not represent the standing of neither me nor any other ethnically diverse Iranian on this issue.
Anonymouss
by Kurdish Warrior (not verified) on Sun May 18, 2008 09:11 AM PDTYes I did state what you are quoting regards federalism, however as I said before and I say it now, I'm totally against seperation, my family fought for Iran and I am proud to be an Iranian Kurd, however we need to understand the definision of that word before making any judjments. Federalism as one of the tools that can be used against those minority seperatists. Look at Canada for example, has that country fallen apart??
To Ben
by Anonymous100000000000 (not verified) on Sun May 18, 2008 08:31 AM PDTTo Ben
I didn't know you owned Iranian.com? Your knowledge on history and social studies are basically zero and your arguments are just pure emotions rather than facts. And your constant rant against Iran, Aryans, Persians and etc. is becoming tiring. Lets remember some facts, Iran as a cultural entity is an ancient entity and Persian as a common culture language is one of the most important facts of this cultural entity.
I don't care if you talked about Maktab or not. Do you own Iranian.com ? no. The Maktab was important to explain the fact that Azeri in Iran never had any wide precedence as a teaching language. When you say a language is forced, you mean the teaching is not voluntary. Whereas Persian has been thought voluntary in both the Qajar era, and now.
As per Qajar/Safavids, when Mongol/Turkic invaders were brought up, you said: "So, they have some things in common with those Turks who migrated to Iran!"
It is simple, and I am not explaining it to you, but for other reasonable reasons, just like the Ottomans who spoke Turkish are not considered Iranians, the mongol/turkish invaders are not considered Iranians. But the Qajars are considered Iranians, because they came from Iran and considered themselves Iranians. So here is the fine point which Ben didn't understand.
Also it is obvious why Tabriz became 4th city, IRI will support Mash-had for obvious reasons.
As to the guy with the name Babek Khorramdin, no there is no school in Talyshi/Kurdish, there is just allegedly a class once a week for a year in some limited schools, which does not encompass all of the Talysh/Kurd areas. In Iran, there is university courses in Azeri and one can show many examples of Azeri made in Iran from youtube. But I have yet to see even one example of Talyshi or Kurdish in youtube made in the republic of Azerbaijan.
Kurdish Warrior...
by Anonymouss (not verified) on Sun May 18, 2008 07:56 AM PDTYou said:
...Without Kurds there wouldn't have been Iran. Remember Cyrus, he was Persian/Mede (Kurd).
I am well familiar with iranian history, past and presents. Your statement above is correct and you are right on this part; BUT you seem to ignore that some kurds, misguided as they maybe, use atrocities of IRI as an excuse for separation. You yourself have been asking for separation light, aka federalism, on this site many times. Don't you think that you are also ignoring the "recent" history of iran?
What the hell are you talking about????Try to think before you talk so you don't offend your fellow Iranians.
No offfense was intended towards any "iranian". You tell me what I am talking about:
//iranian.com/Diaspora/2004/October/KA/in...
//www.ekurd.net/mismas/articles/misc2005/9/in...
//news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article....
P.S. we're talking about iran here, not syria, iraq, or turkey.
Can Iran use the SWISS model
by navid on Sun May 18, 2008 06:18 AM PDTCan Iran model itself like Switzerland, rather what it is today. Let's not debate history as to how Iranians speak Azeri or Baluchi or Arabic and etc. They do now. Moshiri's point that Babak did not even know a word of turkish but the fact remains that Babak's children speak it now. We keep saying how bad Turkey is treating the kurds, let see how we treat our own kurdish minority. I make the assertion that if we treat them better and give them their absolute rights, Iran will then gain a lot political influence in the region.
EIther we do it now or the consequences will be what happened in Yugoslovia. Iran's recent history has been very poor as to how we have treat our religious and ethinic minorities.
We need to change that or face the consequences of a broken Iran
Re: B
by Ben Madadi on Sun May 18, 2008 02:54 AM PDTWere you referring to me? My hobby is writing :)
Anonymouss
by Kurdish Warrior (not verified) on Sun May 18, 2008 02:06 AM PDTYour quote; "today is the Persian-ness and Iranian-ness which is under attack from all sides, by Islamic culture, by Arabs, by Turks, by Kurds, by baluchis". By Kurds????? Are you for real????? I guess you never read history in your class or you are just ignorant individual...Without Kurds there wouldn't have been Iran. Remember Cyrus, he was Persian/Mede (Kurd). What the hell are you talking about????Try to think before you talk so you don't offend your fellow Iranians.
"Is Persian forced on ALL"
by Babek Khorramid (not verified) on Sun May 18, 2008 12:43 AM PDTWHo says Republic of Azerbaijan is better than Iran?As you wrote president of Rep of Azerbaijan congratulated all citizens of Azerbaijan as Ahmadinejad.Dont confuse issues , here no one is talking about Turkey , or Azerbaijan.I would like to remind you there exist Lezghi and Talish even Kurdish schools in Republic of Azerbaijan , apart from Iran.
I really felt insulted from all these comments that said "turks are barbars" .Imagine , some citizens insult others ancestors (not themselves)and then begin to talk about Iranian Civilization , or unity.
This guy needs a hobby!
by B (not verified) on Sat May 17, 2008 08:20 PM PDTThis guy needs a hobby!
also, to the person that said nobody would want to take over Iranian Azerbaijan because it has no oil. Really? Because what it does have is a Caspian coastline that entitles the owner to a cut of the Caspian Oil "pie"...
Think before you speak.
Pluralism Does not mean Weak Identity
by local languages (not verified) on Sat May 17, 2008 07:31 PM PDTEncouraging linguistic pluralism does not mean a weak and watered down Iranian identity. Look at India, where local languages are protected by law. Indian identity is strong, and minority languages feel pride as full members of an Indian polity.
----------
As a Persian Iranian, I fully support the growth and strengthening of minority tongues in Iran. It is such a blessing to be able to travel from one province to another, experiencing a new culture and language each time.
----------
The answer to the challenge of linguistic diversity is not restricting languages, but teaching many languages.
To Navid
by Anonymous111 (not verified) on Sat May 17, 2008 06:23 PM PDTNavid jan,
It is not fair to accuse Moshiri like that... you have to tell the whole truth not a piece of the whole...
Moshiri has never ever been blaming the issues we have in Iran based on any specific ethnics.. what you say is not correct.
navid/ben
by Setiz (not verified) on Sat May 17, 2008 06:20 PM PDTnavid: I agree with you that some of moshiri's comments are off-track. I only posted them as another opposite view. I do not fully agree with him either, although he has some historical points too. At any rate, past is past whatever it was; we can only all prosper or all go down as losers of history.
Ben: indeed there are people who want to separate azarbayejan; that is not new. They are motivated by: (1) rewriting of history to further the split between azaris and persians (2) influenced by foreign elements (3) greed that if it separates, they will be the ruling class and prosper (the same motivation that lots and lots of islamists and leftists had before revolution).
To Ben
by navid on Sat May 17, 2008 05:31 PM PDTIran has always been a multi-ethnic and multicultural
country. Persian (Farsi) may be the official language,
but it is only in recent years that speakers of the
language have become a majority of the population.
There are many other language-groups, including
Turkic (spoken by Azeris, Turkmen, Qashqais, and
Shahsevans), Kurdish, Arabic, Baluchi, Armenian, and
Assyrian.
Most Iranians who speak these languages perceive
their ethnic identity as a complement to their national
identity. Indeed, it has long been understood and
widely accepted that this diversity is an asset to one of
the world's oldest continuous civilisations. Yet recent
events and trends reveal that the settlement between
the Persian majority and the ethnic minorities is under
pressure, in ways that are putting the country's
political future into question.
To Setiz
by navid on Sat May 17, 2008 05:24 PM PDTTo me this person Moshiri is very divisive. He claims that the turks have caused all the problems in Iran.
What the Heck.
Ben what Iran needs is a Deomcracy
by navid on Sat May 17, 2008 05:02 PM PDTDemocracies make several assumptions about human nature.
One is that, given the chance, people are
generally capable of governing themselves in a manner that is
fair and free. Another is that any society
comprises a great diversity of interests and individuals who
deserve to have their voices heard and their views
respected.
The voices of democracy include those of the government its
Re: setiz
by Ben Madadi on Sat May 17, 2008 04:57 PM PDTI looked at one of the videos... the guy is saying that those in the north, Republic of Azerbaijan, want to take Iran's Azerbaijan away. Hahahahaha!!!
Come on folks, get serious! Are you nuts? Are they out of their minds? No-one wants to separate Iran's Azerbaijan. The government of Azerbaijan wants Iran's Azerbaijan for WHAT????? For what? Why would a sane normal, relatively not-so-idiot person, or ruler, do with a poverty-stricken land with no oil and totally dependent on subsidies from oil that is extracted from somehwre else? Are you guys out of your mind??? And in case some country would TAKE Azerbaijan from Iran the rest of Iran must pay them to do it folks. Iran less Azerbaijan would have less population to feed from the exactly the same oil revenue. Nobody, absolutely nobody, neither Azerbaijan, nor Turkey, not even Congo, would want Azerbaijan of Iran if you would beg them :))
You guys are too much off the track, those who believe that some country wants to take Azerbaijan from Iran. They wouldn't do it if you paid them, believe me!
Anonymousss
by Anonymouss (not verified) on Sat May 17, 2008 04:32 PM PDTI answer the only two questions in your comment:
"And you say Ben is obsessed????"
I already said he was obsessed with the turkish issue as he has written on similar topics many times. So what is it that confused you?
... Your type are obsessed ...
Yes, my type is also obsessed with losing iran inch by inch to all sorts of "ists" and "isms" and "pan" this and "pan" that: islamists, leftists, pan-arabs, pan-turks, etc.
Any other question?
(don't send me any more "BS" from inside your mind... I have no answer for vulgarity; I can only reflect your creative thinking back at you).
Re: Anonymous1000000000
by Ben Madadi on Sat May 17, 2008 04:24 PM PDTI am also writing this response for... possibly enjoyment, maybe, interest, of viewers, as you dear commentator are... unknown, unidentified. Anyway...
Let's have you reiterations then ;)
1) "Did I talk about maktab? No. Yes, maktab had Farsi and Arabi." Okay, so you agree that I didn't talk about maktab at all. Oh, forced schooling! Yes, but I didn't talk about maktab, nor the case of Latin in Europe. So, you agreed with me, you didn't reiterate that you agreed that I didn't talk about maktab.
2) "In Turkey Kurdish is... PROHIBITED? Did I talk about Turkey's situation. Nope!" Did I talk about Turkey? No? I didn't? You forgot to reiterate that too.
3) "Did I say that Turks and Mongols were not barbarians? No. I said that
during those days they called their foes barbarians. Now they call them
terrorists. Persians were also called barbarians, Germans too." Did I say they were not barbarians? No, I didn't. You forgot that too. Offf...
4) "Did I say Safavid and Qajar were not Iranians? Hmmm, nope! " Did I? No? Okay, let's say what you come up with ;) Here is your 'reiteration' : "Yes you did. You implicitly imply that since we do not consider the
Turks/Mongols that attacked Iran (like even Ottoman Turks), then we
should not consider Qajar/Safavids as Iranians." So, I IMPLICITLY IMPLY... but beside IMPLICITLY IMPLYING, as your say, whatever that is...
5) Iran has no serious influence in Afghanistan my friend, America does. He did separately congratulate Nouruz to "Farsi-speaking peoples of the world" which was the thing I was talking about.
6) Yes, these mad blood-thirsty nasty incredibly outrageous PAN-TURKIST have not got enough land... can you imagine? They want so much land... they are simply outrageous. Aren't they? Yeah... okay. Thanks for your comments! I appreciate!
Pluralism is what is missing in Iran
by navid on Sat May 17, 2008 04:00 PM PDTI don't want to get into all the PAN talk. ALll three groups in the middleeast TURKS, PERSIANS, and ARABS suufer deeply from it, and it has been internalized and they don't even know it. But what Iran needs is Pluralism, and decentralization. That would be a helpful first step towards democracy and prosperty. Ben i think that is what is needed as a first step towards accepting all different groups in Iran.
Misplaced.
by Setiz (not verified) on Sat May 17, 2008 04:00 PM PDTYour attention is misguided and misplaced. Our problem is the islamic republic and lack of an iranian-centric government; Our problem is not shortage of turkish country or lack of freedom for turks or death of turkish language.
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9HG0Uc_tLQ&feature...
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eK4eg-7e7g&feature...
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnAVvRyP3Io&feature...
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=e36Suwg48hA&feature...
To Ben
by Anonymous1000000000 (not verified) on Sat May 17, 2008 03:55 PM PDTTo Ben
What I wrote was a point by point response to your tiring repetition.
Now let me reiterate what you said:
"Did I talk about maktab? No. Yes, maktab had Farsi and Arabi."
You did talked about "forced" schooling since the language is not Turkish. So by your definition Latin was forced on generation of Europeans (since at that time that was the main cultural and scientific language) and during the Qajar era,Persian was forced upon Azerbaijanis.
"In Turkey Kurdish is... PROHIBITED? Did I talk about Turkey's situation. Nope!"
Yes you did talk about "forced" and prohibited several times in different articles. Azeri is not prohibited in Iran. It is just not a schooling language and not a official language, like 30 or more so dialects and languages of Iran.
"Did I say that Turks and Mongols were not barbarians? No. I said that during those days they called their foes barbarians. Now they call them terrorists. Persians were also called barbarians, Germans too."
Barbarian in the original sense means non-Greek. So Persians were non-Greeks. But barbarian in the modern sense means those that committed savagery. Let me give you another example. Ottoman Turks attacked Iran several times and can rightfully be considered Barbarians by some of their actions. Now would that offend you if we learn about them in history!?
"Did I say Safavid and Qajar were not Iranians? Hmmm, nope! "
Yes you did. You implicitly imply that since we do not consider the Turks/Mongols that attacked Iran (like even Ottoman Turks), then we should not consider Qajar/Safavids as Iranians. The problem with you is that you do not understand that the Ottoman Turks would be considered foreigners/invaders but the Qajars would not be considered foreigners/invaders. You base the issue on racial perceptions.
As per the Iranian president, he did the right thing by congratulating people of Tajikistan, Afghanistan and Persian speakers. These are countries Iran has influence in. And no, you didn't prove that he didn't congratulate each of the individual countries that celebrate Nowruz. Plus this year, the guy didn't care too much about Nowruz.
Also I proud to be Iranian, from Mazandaran and Persian. Iran is an ancient country and its name has existed since at least the Sassanid time. I agree with the other anonymous that some of these lands like Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan used to be Persian speaking lands. Now we still have to deal with pan-Turkists in this day and age, it seems they did not get enough.
To anonymouss, and other comments
by Anonymousss (not verified) on Sat May 17, 2008 03:54 PM PDTYou said "Do you want "persians" to displace themselves and their culture in their own historical land so that turkish can flourish beyond the half-dozen historically-persian-now-turkish countries to include all of iran as yet another turkish country?"
And you say Ben is obsessed???? Your type are obsessed and pour BS all over the place, doing nothing but character-assassination. If you have no comment and just try to pour your sad and poisonous internal misery on digital paper, go ahead!