NATIONALISM
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
Not pan-Turkism
05-May-2008
Comments calling me a pan-Turkist, or a secessionist, have been aplenty, even under articles which have had nothing to do with anything that might have been interpreted relevant to the accusations (subjects such as the war in Iraq, or the US presidential campaign). Some of the commentators may not be aware of the meaning of the term 'pan-Turkist' and some may just use words that are meant to slander or discredit some person. This is also part of freedom of expression, though in real life, where real identities can be checked and real accusations provided as proof, accusers may end up in court, in jail, or paying heavy compensations, for their defamatory accusations. However it is not the case here, in this virtual space where anonymity creates a whole new foundation, both for freedom of expression, and for freedom of baseless accusation. And it is worth it, at least for the Iranian community.
Referring to the accusations, let's see what is pan-Turkism! It has quite a clear meaning, and that is "a political movement aiming to unite the various Turkic peoples into a modern political state, a confederation, or an economic union closely resembling that of the European Union" (according to Wikipedia). Other definitions, given by other sources (as Wikipedia is not to be taken as a source, but rather as a means of quick information, not always reliable), are bound to be on the same line. I am pretty sure no reasonable person would realistically believe that the above is on my agenda! While I am unable to find one single large Muslim country to be properly ruled, managed or organised, providing the possibilities of prosperity to its citizens, how can I be seriously wishing for the creation of a super-state for all Turkic peoples, who are by no means similar to one another? And what are we supposed to do with their local thugs, and malicious dictators in many cases?
Pan-Turkism has never been the true desire, or idea, of any serious or popular Turkic, or even Turkish, leader or ruler or even intellectual. It was mostly used by the Soviet Union in order to intimidate, and blame, their Muslim citizens against any sort of desire for self-determination, especially based on their religion, and not ethnicity or race. And the term was adopted by Iranian regimes, or some intellectuals and leaders of opinions, to do the same thing against their Azeri Turk population. And nowadays the only remaining country where this accusatory term is still (and increasingly) widely popular is Iran. The blog-sphere of the Iranian community, from inside or outside of Iran, especially those written in Persian (Farsi), is absolutely full of such slander.
The reason for the usage, just as it was the case for the Soviet Union, is the fear for desire of self-determination by Iran's Turkic population, especially in Azerbaijan of Iran. Iranians who fear losing parts of their country (my country too), therefore using such aggressive and accusatory tones against some of their Azeri Turk fellow Iranians, do not consider some very important realities. First of all, it is not anything strange that the vast majority of the population of Iranian Azerbaijan, or Iran's Turkic people in general, do not, and did not, have any desire to separate from Iran. Why is this the case? It is most probably related to their long historical attachment, ever since the Safavid, to the rest of Iran, and even more plausibly their common Shia faith with the rest of Iranian peoples. Secondly, in case, one day, some 20 or 25 percent of Iran's population will truly want to have their own country, or unite with some other country, then there will be a serious problem at hand that will not be solved just by calling them pan-Turkists.
There are some things that are not okay, and addressing them with good faith is much better than calling names and throwing insults. Some of these issues are not just about the Iranian regime but are deeply rooted in the post-Pahlavi Iranian mindset. Iran's huge diversity (half of the population being of other ethnicites rather than the majority Persian) requires the Iranian identity to be non-national, non-ethnic, and a non-centric one as well. Of course, it is up to the non-Persians to preserve and promote their own languages, customs, or their own local history, but for that to be possible the Iranian central authority needs to create the right premises.
Let me give a few simple examples! Imagine you were a Tajik (if you are a Tajik, you are pretty much similar to an ethnic Persian) born in Afghanistan and you were taught Pashtun in schools, the TV was in Pashtun, you had to do anything official in Pahstun language, and everything you read in your newspapers or history books praised Pashtun heroes and even attacked and loathed your Tajik Persian culture, history and heritage! The hypothesis is not the reality in Afghanistan. I am just making a case, close to home. Imagine then you were an Iranian Azeri Turk, you almost have Iranian-ness in your genes because of your long history, your ancestors have fought against Sunni Turks, Christian Russians and other non-Iranians for almost five centuries to defend their country called Iran.
Then you go to school and you have to learn only a foreign (unknown) language (Persian), absolutely nothing of your own language, your history books are full of what happened to Persians, what Persians did, and eventually what happened to Aryans (supposedly the race that Iranians are led to believe they belong to). Imagine it the other way, you were in the situation where you lived in your own country where your parents and their parents and grandparents made so much sacrifices to build, you are a Persian, and all you learn in school is about Turks, Azeri Turkish literature, Dede Qurqut, Kor Oghlu, Fuzuli, Nasimi, Sabir, Shahriar, and so on, and no sign of Ferdousi, Hafez, Saadi etc and Shahnameh heroes (just a hypothetical example) are actually portrayed as savages and barbarians! Would that be okay? Would that be fair? Wouldn't that be a an insult? Wouldn't that be a great disservice and dishonour to some extraordinary people?
And in reality official history books of Iran very easily and freely even go as far as openly attacking Turks, calling them names and reducing them to uncivilised barbarians. Although they might often refer to Turks before the Safavid era, isn't it inappropriate to have such texts for millions of kids, and adults, who call themselves Turks too? Imagine that you turn on TV and all you hear is Persian. It is true that there are some very few and short programs in some sort of an Azeri language (or some other local languages) as well, but the Azeri they use is often better unheard (when I listened, it was so Persianised and so manipulated and messed-up it was not much different from reading the history books loathing Turks).
Imagine that almost half your relatives have moved far away, especially to areas surrounding Tehran, but also to other Persian-populated areas of Iran, to search for jobs, because consecutive governments have largely skipped your areas from their investment activities. And imagine that when you celebrate Nouruz you turn on state TV (the only Iranian channels), or radio, or you read official newspapers, and Mr Ahmadinejad (or some other leader) congratulates the new year to all "Persian-speaking peoples" of the world. Why doesn't he congratulate the Azeri or the Kurdish people of the world too? Are they any less Iranian? If any Iranian leader wants to be a true Iranian leader, for all Iranians, isn't it appropriate to have Iranian-ness completely separate from any individual Iranian ethnicity and not make any differences? So, you live in a country that your ancestors have fought so hard to build and preserve, and you are treated like nothing but a more or less tolerated foreigner? This is very often the impression you get when you live in a non-Persian region of Iran. Just imagine what I described above, and put yourself in the person's shoes! That person might say that he's not so happy with the realities, and you call him a pan-Turkist?
Let's be clear on one thing, for the sake of the unity of Iranians, and for having the possibility for all Iranians to easily communicate with each other, it is needed to have a common language (beside local languages) to be taught at schools too, and that common language is absolutely okay to be Persian because Persian-speakers (or those whose languages are dialects of, or very close languages to, Persian) are the majority. But this logic is not supposed to be turned into a nationalistic weapon or a means of ethnic assimilation.
I have never had any timidity in expressing my view, about how I see the issues. Things would have been completely different if all of Iranian regions were indeed mostly Persian, and a relatively small Turkic population (or Kurdish population etc) also lived among them, as a small minority group. They would, mostly for the sake of practicability, prefer assimilation with the larger population and would not really expect much acknowledgement for their distinctness. Just as it is the case for various populations of minorities living within European countries, countries that are openly based on nation-state identities, as their names suggest too. Germany is the country of the Germans, France is the country of the French, and Hungary is the country of the Hungarians. Even these countries have not been without problems with minorities in areas they have been more concentrated. However the United States, not being a nation-state, but a country of all groups, making no distinction between any ethnicites or nationalities, has been able to absorb all populations and create a national union out of diversity. The United States does not even have an official language! Please check that out! The United States, as the federation, has no official language.
Iran is a country where half the population speaks a different language than Persian, regions have their own languages and customs that often differ greatly from Persian. Even regions such as Gilan and Mazandaran that are usually considered to be populated by Persians with local accents, are in fact, from a linguistic point of view, not Persian-speakers, but Iranians who speak their own separate languages. However Iran's official identity, according to central government policies and actions, is one which pretty much goes in line with a Persian nation-state. There is only one schooling possibility for all Iranians (I think Armenians are the exception, because of their Christian faith), and there is only one language that can be used officially anywhere, and that is Persian, even if some local from a far-flung Iranian land does not understand or speak Persian. Regional governors are sent from Tehran and all investments and policies are decided in Tehran.
There are these serious problems that I have mentioned. Solving them probably needs a serious reform and eventually a democratic system. That is not the case now. And that is indeed the priority. Struggle for democracy! But one of the major movements toward democracy is just here, on the Internet, in writings and discussions. These open debates can do wonders in time. This is the fear of the Iranian regime too, and this website (or many others) is banned in Iran for that reason.
However calling people names because they express their dissatisfaction is not fair either. Expressing dissatisfaction about unfair policies toward a large part of the Iranian population does not convey a desire for secessionism, and it doesn't even convey a desire for any speicfic political ends (it can convey more likely a social end). While our population does not often have the tolerance to discuss such issues how can we realistically think about solutions, and how can we realistically dream of proper democracy? And I do think that Iranians, as individuals first, must believe that in order to respect Iran's diversity, it is necessary to believe in Iran's diversity.
Persian nationalism for all of Iran will backlash by creating greater nationalistic movements in Iran's non-Persian areas, according to their own regional realities. But Iran's realities dictate a belief in Iran's diversity, and the fact that all Iranians (a vast majority anyway), from all backgrounds, form the Iranian population based on their free will. Having open and transparent debates about such issues can only be useful to strengthen what is common and debate what is not. Even when I am in a gathering with friends who are ethnic Persians (Fars as they are called in Iran) we do not usually discuss such issues because they have not been un-tabooed yet. It almost feels like two Iranians talking about their sisters' relationships. That doesn't happen among Iranians (even those living in the West) because it is taboo.
Talks about Iran's identity doesn't happen because up until around 80 years ago we were only Muslims (mostly Shia Muslims) and that was the only identity we knew. And now, we are not really sure what we are. If I say I am an Iranian Turk (Azeri), then I can only be a pan-Turkist secessionist. If a Persian Iranian says that he is a Persian (instead of Iranian) then he's believed to be an intolerant racist by the rest! What is the problem with letting the genie out and have open debates about the identity of the Iranian?
I have said what I believe, and I strongly believe that a powerful, democratic and united Iran, or an Iranian community, needs to truly accept (and respect) its diversity and even celebrate it. For this, we need to have good faith and accept our differences too. Being an Iranian will never be a unifying factor for all Iranian citizens unless it is truly believed to be not Persian, not Azeri, not Kurdish and so on, but a union of all. That is not exactly the case currently, not only according to the policies that are applied in Iran, but also according to beliefs and thoughts among various Iranians. Open discussion can only be useful in this regard.�
| 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 |
Re: Amin287
by Ben Madadi on Sat May 10, 2008 05:56 AM PDTThank you for all your comments, and please do come back and I respect and appreciate all readers. To make things clear please take may LAST post too, for you! Is saying "Please contribute to this website by writing your article/articles..." giving advice? You can callit a suggestion too. You are a reader TOO. I am a reader too. I and you have had dual qualities here. I write for your, and others, READER side. In the virtual world we often do things for their practiability. I do not want any individual to change. I hope that maybe 1%, or more, of the viewers can take something positive out of what I write. It is against the spirit of freedom even to wish to change a person. Thanks again for your comments!
Hamdeli az hamzabâni behtar ast
by Amin287 on Fri May 09, 2008 06:03 PM PDTSorry for giving advices. Advices are not bad, you can give them to me too. For example when you say that I am wrong in something, you are actually giving me an advice implicitly. Actually you did it explicitly here: "Please contribute to this website by writing your article/articles, and I truly mean it. There is nothing wrong in it and I would be pleased to read it/them."
By telling that I was busy I didn't intend to bring my level up, it was just a plain reality.
You are right, here is not a place for serious discussions.
Actually I suffer from many things but I am trying to remedy them. I am not a super human.
>Yes, you are suffering. Or maybe I am wrong?
>Mr Amin, if you think I may change, but not
>over night, I am telling you that I don't care
>if you change. I am only wrting for viewers.
I am one of the viewers, if you don't care if I change then how you can hope for your articles have any influence on other viewers like me. After all we write articles and comments to change something.
After all, I prefer you to some talking Aryan mummies here.
This is my last post, but I will continue to read yours and others'.
(((( Ey basâ Henduo Torke hamzabân
Ey basâ do Tork cun bigânegân
Pas zabâne hamdeli xod digâr ast
Hamdeli az hamzabâni behtar ast ))))
Rumi
Re: Amin287
by Ben Madadi on Fri May 09, 2008 03:47 PM PDTMr Amin, I know pretty much nothing about you. I am not even curious to know. In case you take yourself or the exchange I have had with you seriously, I would like to mention that my intention from responding to you or to anybody else is for viewers, readers, only. I never intend to have one-to-one disucssions just for the sake of it on this website, or the Internet pages generally (I am only active here anyway), because it is not something practical. I offered to post a discussion as an article, also again, only for viewers, not to convince you about anything. And I am also writing this, also for viewers.
I have tried before to have some sort of an exchange with other nationalistic Iranians, also for the sake of readers, viewers, but I have failed. Here, in comments section, it is not practical to offer a serious discussion FOR VIEWERS. I have also noticed that you are quite generous in giving me advice. You are also aware of something you are suffering from, which you also attibute to me, called Middle East syndrome. I am sorry, I don't know what that is. If you know you are suffering from something, then I suggest solving it. I am unaqare of any such ailment in me. You are also saying that if some ID tries to use character-assassination but at the same time he has a good point, then I shall not assume he is wrong on other things he is saying. You are getting quite profound here. You see Mr Amin (if that is your name, which is not of importance), neither I, nor you, need advice HERE. In case you are busy, please attend your businesses! You are giving me a lot of personal advice here, even diagnosis etc, seriously, more, or less. I would have been pleased to know some point you disagree with. I have tried this before with some other commentators but no use. Unfortunately, this is probably the Middle East syndrome you were talking about. Yes, you are suffering. Or maybe I am wrong? Mr Amin, if you think I may change, but not over night, I am telling you that I don't care if you change. I am only wrting for viewers.
Being anonymous, dosn't matter
by Amin287 on Fri May 09, 2008 07:48 AM PDTDear Ben,
>So, you made this id for me.
No. I did it for Iran (not the soil, but our lives who unfortunately depend on borders at the present time).
>the Middle East syndrome
I am a middle easterner myself. I suffer from the same. BTW, I used smiley, it was not so serious.
>Send me [...] an e-mail.
I wish I could do, but I am busy and cannot continue more than this. We discussed here. There are other places for discussions. By that "thank you" post I actually wanted to say goodbye. On the other hand I am not knowledgeable, I hope knowledgeable posters will contact you and we will see good resulting publication on Iranian.com.
>an e-mail in which write everything you disagree with me
I did it here.
>And I am pretty sure you have commented also with other id's
No, that is not correct.
Believe me, it doesn't matter that I am anonymous. I cannot reveal my name and I don't have any other ID in "The Iranian". I don't usually read Iranian.com. I think I was enough sincere having one ID for this subject so that you can track what I believe and say. In two cases I was lazy to sign in and posted as anonymous, but then I said who I am. Even if I had posted under several anonymous IDs, it wouldn't have mattered. As Imam Ali says (implication): "Look what people say, not who they are."
Mr Farhad Kashani says:
>Mr Madadi, great article. Just remember, you should
>be proud when intolerqant people like Mamad and
>Anonymous 2 and others call you name and
>charatcer assasinate you..thats when you
>know you're right !
Don't be misleaded by his support. When somebody calls names or character assassinates, it doesn't have anything to do with his properness in other parts of his post, and it doesn't mean that the addressee is right. For example someone may come here and calls me "Fârse sage šuvinist" and at the same time counter to my arguments. His calling names doesn't mean that he is wrong in his counterarguments. At the same time name-calling is wrong and shows a shallow culture.
Several times I said that I agree with your main points. For example when you said that you are not a pan???? I accepted that. I agreed when an Azeri wants more rights to be educated in Turkic, it doesn't mean that he is pan?????. so I don't understand what is the problem and what we should discuss on "Not pan-Turkism". I think the complication is that you wanted to present other things along with your main points (which I countered). For example you say "I am pretty sure no reasonable person would realistically believe that the above is on my agenda!". That's good. But in the next paragraph you continue to cleanse all Turkic people/leaders/rulers/intellectuals. We know that Gray Wolves are nothing compared to the great culture of Turkish people, but why you feel the need to absolve all, while pan-Turkism is extant. It defies the main point of the previous paragraph, i.e. it gives the impression that you want to support the Turks as a whole.
I don't expect you to change your mind in one night, as you don't do about me. We usually change in the long run after much analysis and contemplation plus being a little fair.
Women are wonderful!
by An I-r-a-n-i-a-n (not verified) on Fri May 09, 2008 05:17 AM PDTWomen are wonderful. You think why I bring the unrelated matter into this. However, think about women when you'r being a radical (I mean both parties). Think about your mother when sitting for praying, when she welcomes anybody without thinking about his language or ethnicity. Think about your wife or girlfriend who might speak another language or is from another ethnicity differnig from yours. If you don't have wife or girlfriend, belive me, you may find one with a different ethnicity and fall in love with. Or imagine, just imagine a candle, a table with delicious food on it and a bed, with a beautiful Azeri-speaking (in case of one party) or a beautiful Persian-speaking (in case of the other party) sitting on a chair smiling behind the table waiting for you.
Let me tell you about my encounter with an Azeri in Iranian Azerbaijan. He looked sad. He had fallen in love with an Armenian girl in Khoy but it didn't get through, they could not marry. I felt the beginning of radicalness in his behaviour. We were there for an industrial expedition. Talking about scientific matters in the field, with a group of Azeri and Persian speaking cooperators. Contrary to others he always shifted to Azeri while we should knew what he was saying because we wanted to come to a conclusion.
Think about women, then you will calm down and can discuss more fairly and more kindly with your human counterpart!
Re: Amin287
by Ben Madadi on Fri May 09, 2008 04:43 AM PDTI saw that your historic (track) on this website is pretty much on my articles. So, you made this id for me. That is very kind of you. You were also helpful in trying to find what I may be suffering from, the Middle East syndrome. That is even more lovely. Okay, just kidding about this. If you are serious about having a serious debate, discussion etc. Or if anybody else is. We can do something quite good and interesting for the viewer. Send me (you, or anybody else with a good ability to discuss, write etc, preferrably better than me) an e-mail in which write everything you disagree with me, or my general beliefs about Iranian identity, Fars-Turk bla bla. We can have a few e-mail exchanges, then publish them on Iranian.com. But it needs to be also interesting for the viewers. Otherwise JJ might delete it. I am pretty sure you have read almost all my articles. And I am pretty sure you have commented also with other id's. I welcome anybody to do this, and I will gladly participate in it. Wherever you see a flaw in what I write, or in general about this type of writing, please let's bring them up and make an article of it. Waiting for the reply! If you use this website contact form it will reach my e-mail. Thank you!
Thank you
by Amin287 on Thu May 08, 2008 01:48 PM PDTDear Rostam-e-Dastan, thank you very much.
Dear Ben, I hope we will understand each other more by talking.
Propoganda of creating hatred & division among people
by Anonymouss (not verified) on Thu May 08, 2008 01:08 PM PDTBen is trying very hard to create ethnic hatred and divisions among Iranians for the sake of weakening Iran, though very indirectly now, oh them "Persians" and the rights of the abused "pan-Turks", excuse me, "Azeri nationals".
What about the "Persians" and "pan-Turks" in Israel Ben, don't you care for them?
As is very clear in your many comments in the past, your heart goes out for Israel, but you don't care for the people there and never write even one "ethnic" article about Israel?
Why Ben, where's your humanity, aren't they humanbeings also? (lol)
-------------
p.s. I agree 100% with M. Hojjat's comment, about respecting and living with people, not about hating and creating hatred.
Thanks Amin287
by Rostam-e-Dastan (not verified) on Thu May 08, 2008 09:27 AM PDTI just wanted to thank Amin287 for his detailed comments. Damet Garm!
Re: Amin287
by Ben Madadi on Thu May 08, 2008 04:57 AM PDTI don't know who you are, what you have ever commented or anything alike. There are many comments out there and many people comment with different anonymous names, so I cannot know them all. I think I am an unbiased person. It is up to readers to judge, choose, decide, think, evaluate etc.
When I said that comments don't affect me you were quick to see a syndrome. That is nice of you to help out. Hateful comments do not have an emotional effect on me, but I dubt that is a bad thing. Thanks for your comments!
Edit (I wrote this after I looked at those articles you had mentioned): I have too many articles. You cannot seriously expect me to go and watch out for every one of them. Please contribute to this website by writing your article/articles, and I truly mean it. There is nothing wrong in it and I would be pleased to read it/them. You may think that I am wrong. You may even think thay I simply don't know, or maybe that I do know but I have some personal ambitions or desires that may me ignore facts. That is okay. This is all a part of a free and open discussion. I don't reply to ALL comments because 1) they are too many, 2) it is impractical to have serious discussions here because we don't know who we are talking to. One single paerson is able to make up as many anonymnous id's as he wants, offer approving comments, even use some as good-cop bad-cop, and so on and so on. So, I would really believe that the best way for you to offer a counter-argument to my aritcle/article is to write your counter article/artciles. You are not RIGHT. I am not RIGHT either. I think I am an unbiased person. I think many readers would agree with this. You may think otherwise. You cannot blame somebody for his opinion. If he is LYING, then prove him wrong. But you must be able to PROVE him wrong by facts, not by your opinion. If his opinion is not a lie, but simply one version of what is abour, or around, one or another fact or popular belief, then you can only bring your own opinion to the table. IN the end, readers decide. They may be right, or wrong. But this is all about writing, or jouranalism. Thanks for your comments again!
AZARPAYEGAN - A Brief History on IRAN's Azarbayejan
by I R A N I (not verified) on Wed May 07, 2008 11:36 PM PDTIn traditions of ancient Iran, Orumieh lake (called 'Chichast' in avesta and 'Khanjast' in Shahnameh) was Zarathushra's birth place. (due to another tradition Zarathushtra was born in Balkh, in great Khorasan).
Turkish setteled in Azarbaijan after Saljughians, and especially after Safavians. Language of Azerbaijan was Persian before Safavians and after them became turkish.
There were three important temples under Sassanians. One of them, called Azar-Goshasp (or Atur-Goshnasp), was in Azerbaijan and now its ruins still exist there in Takab. The kings of Sassanian dynasty after Crowning had to go from Ivan-Medayen (capital of the Sassanians, now near baghdad) to Azar-Goshasp to celebrate their Crownings. Due to a tradition Khosro-Parviz walked from Ivan-Medayen to Azar-Goshasp by foots.
Why Azarbaijan called Azarbaijan?
After the death of Alexandre, lands conquered by him, were divided by his followers. Egypt owned to Ptolemios. Iran owned to Selucide. Under Selucide the commender (Satrape) of Little Media was someone whom called Azar-Bad (or Aturpat). After him, Little Media became Azerbaijan in honor of Azar-Bad. (Great Media was 'Hegmataneh' or Hamedan.)
Another thesis claims that it was named Azarbaijan either because of the numerous fire temples or just because it was the province where Azargoshasp (Aturgushnasp) was located there.
"Azar" (pahlavi Atur) means fire. the "-an" at the end is a suffix of location Azarbaijan = Azarpayagan = Azar + payak + an meaning, "land of the base of fire". Azarbaijan is Arabicized version of Azarpayagan due to absence of "P" and "G" sounds in Arabic.
A comment on "Turk from Turkey"
by Amin287 on Wed May 07, 2008 08:34 PM PDTBen, do you see what our brother "Turk from Turkey" says:
"but it is a very difficult process, but Turkie is making moves toward it."
That is why you should let the genie come out slowly.
PS: When I said "brother", I really meant it. Iranian TV broadcasts a Turkish serial called "Kelide asrâr" (The key of mysteries). I like it. It shows how much we have in common. Europeans are trying to be united, we are contending here. Turks, Arabs, Iranians and Pakistanis should have a union.
Some comments to all
by Amin287 on Wed May 07, 2008 08:10 PM PDTI also sent two other comments under anonymous*.
You say:
"Imagine that almost half your relatives have moved far away, especially to areas surrounding Tehran, but also to other Persian-populated areas of Iran, to search for jobs, because consecutive governments have largely skipped your areas from their investment activities."
This is not correct. Azerbaijan of Iran is one of the most industrialized parts of Iran. Sistan (Persian-speaking), Kurdistan (kurdish), Baluchestan (Baluchi) are not. Tabrizi merchants invest in Tehran because it has more revenue. There are other reasons for the migrations than what you say.
Dear Ben, I agree with the spirit of your article, but please stop diverging from the main topic. You don't need to justify everything to prove your main point.
You say:
"Why doesn't he congratulate the Azeri or the Kurdish people of the world too? Are they any less Iranian?"
Our Azeri leader and others including Khatami did what you want many times.
You say:
"you are treated like nothing but a more or less tolerated foreigner?"
That is a big exaggeration. Tajiks and Hazaras of Afghanistan who speak Persian are considered foregin, Azaris not. Once I witnessed a bus driver (an Iranian, maybe an Azeri) who forcefully brought down an Afghan. A friend once talked about a lady (an Iranian, maybe an Azeri) in a bread queue who angrily asked the baker why he gave bread to an Afghan.
You say:
"This is very often the impression you get when you live in a non-Persian region of Iran"
That "you" is you and alike. We don't have any statistics but Azaris that I have seen feel at home when in Tehran.
You say:
"regions have their own languages and customs that often differ greatly from Persian"
Language yes, but customs!? What do you mean by "greatly"?
The point is that Iranian culture is diverse. You cannot single out Persian culture and Azari culture. Azeris in the north of Aras have a history of about 70 years different from Azeris in the south. In the south they are more religious. Does that make them different? In Iran there exist different local music, attire, traditions, etc. As an example Persian speaking people of Taybad in the north-east of Iran and Persian-Speaking people in the vilage of Abyaneh in north-center have traditional dresses which are not shared by Persian speakers of the other parts, but both speak Persian and are Iranian. Yazdis cook "Shuli", people in Fars don't usually, and when they do, they say it is Yazdi. Don't you think by making differences "great", you just want to prove your point?
You say:
"Regional governors are sent from Tehran and all investments and policies are decided in Tehran."
Regional governors of Azerbaijan are not usually sent from Tehran. In Tehran Azeris are governers themselves.
You say:
"who are ethnic Persians (Fars as they are called in Iran)"
In Iran, Persian-speakers are not called "Fars". Their mothers don't learn them that they "Fars", and they don't call themselves one. But if you or anybody want to call them so, that's fine.
You say:
"because up until around 80 years ago we were only Muslims (mostly Shia Muslims) and that was the only identity we knew."
Not correct. What is Shahnameh!? What is "Naghaali"!? During this 80 years (not now) one of the leisure activities of some among Bakhtiari people has been reading Shahnameh. Shah Ismail (The Safavid) named his son: Tahmaasp. Nizami (The great poet of the republic of Azerbaijan) calls Iran "the heart of the universe" in one of his verses. I know that the sense of nationality was not the same as it is now (unfortunatelly the gift of westerners!), but it was existent.
You say:
"If a Persian Iranian says that he is a Persian (instead of Iranian) then he's believed to be an intolerant racist by the rest!"
Some or many Iranian immigrants call themselves Persian, because of fast attribution to Iran by others. By the way "Persian" is the other term for "Iranian" in English. In Iran we don't call ourselves "Persians".
You say:
"What is the problem with letting the genie out and have open debates about the identity of the Iranian?"
If you let this genie come out before we solve problems one by one, he might not grant the wishes of all Iranian. This region is harsh, all people and all politicians of the region should change simultaneously. Here is not switzerland and our neibours are not Germany, France, Italy, Austria.
You say:
"Pan-Turkism has never been the true desire, or idea, of any serious or popular Turkic, or even Turkish, leader or ruler or even intellectual."
Pan-Turkism is extant as Pan-Iranism is, but the latter is really weak, however the former more strong. Both are jokes. You know about Grey Wolves. In recent demostrations after that "namana" cartoon drawn by an Azari in "Iran" children newspaper, some people signalled the sign of Grey Wolves by hand in Iran. Poor cockroach was also speaking in Persian and "namana" is a Persian slang too, but some people made a "Milli Qiyaam" from it! It is like some of your arguments, sorry.
Anonymous333 wrote:
"To write English properly we need to obey rules set by the English-speaking people. And English-speaking people use mostly Azeri to describe 1) citizens of Azerbaijan, 2) people who speak a Turkic language called Azeri or Azerbaijani."
OK. what was the correct term for "Farsi", in English? The answer is "Persian". You see, people don't obey the rules. So it is not just about the usage in ENGLISH. What is the correct term for "Babak Khoramdin" in English? It is Babak (//www.britannica.com/eb/article-9002797/Babak), so please refrain from using "Babek", "Bay-Bak" or whatever else.
But what you write is clear: the correct term is "Azeri" in contemporary English.
Turk from Turkey writes:
"Even kurds in turkie have right to their own culture etc, but it is a very difficult process, but Turkie is making moves toward it."
Yes, after much preasure from westerners and in the desire to join the European union! When you were calling "Kurds", "mountain Turks", Iran had a state called "Kurdistan". Shia Kurds have much presence everwhere like in the govenment and proudly call themselves "Kurds". Sunni kurds unfortunately dosn't have the same status. Kurdish, like Azeri Turkic, needs more attention and supprot in Iran.
Anonymous333 writes:
"but with the condition to stick to the subject."
But unfortunately Ben dosn't stick to the subject. He unintentionally changes the realities and history.
Anonymous333 writes:
"realities of the treatment of non-Persian Iranian IDENTITY in Iran now. Identity is the whole issue here."
You cannot draw a sharp line for identity except the language. The differences exist, I don't deny that, but it exists between Persian-speaking people too (see above). Ben wants to dig a deep ditch and fortify with trenches and finnaly say that now let's unite under Iran. This is not correct, there is no such a trench. Language is also mostly a tool. Any language can describe any culture. Even any ethnicity can speak any culture. The most important thing is culture.
Ardeshir writes:
"Whenever there is talk about Iranians I see Iranians come and talk about how Iranians are relatives because of genetic studies or race, or even racial history! What the hell is this? Are we living in the 3rd Reich?"
No. It is because some people wants to disintegrate Iran according to race, so you should present the truth. When I compare the discussions about these issues to those of several years ago, I sense improvements. Several years ago they mostly said: "We are Turk, you are Iranian, we are different", now they say: "We speak Turkic, you speak Iranian, we are different". That is partly thanks to talking about races.
Ardeshir writes:
You know the only reason/reasons Iranians are Iranians? 1) Because maybe they want to, 2) Because maybe they have a citizenship. That's it!
No. It is culture too, not for all Iraninas, but for a part of them. We don't have statistics.
Ardeshir writes:
Please stop these disturbing and utterly backward and harmful racial rants.
We should try to stop it.
Ben Madadi says:
"it kinda saddens me that many people will not read them, and my work will be wasted."
It saddens me that I commented (//iranian.com/main/2007/azerbaijan-iran) and (//iranian.com/main/2008/origins-azeri-turks-0) but you are still stubborn about some issues. :-)
Ben Madadi says:
"But none of the comments, no matter what they contain, affects me whatsoever. I don't know why, but they have no effect on me!"
Third world syndrome :-)
Dear Ben, I agree to the most other parts of your article. My English is poor, so excuse me if I used improper words or phrases.
Azerbaijan of Iran is one of the most industrialized parts
by Anonymous034343434666 (not verified) on Wed May 07, 2008 05:07 PM PDTI am the same previous anonymous.
"Imagine that almost half your relatives have moved far away, especially to areas surrounding Tehran, but also to other Persian-populated areas of Iran, to search for jobs, because consecutive governments have largely skipped your areas from their investment activities."
This is not correct. Azerbaijan of Iran is one of the most industrialized parts of Iran. Sistan (Persian-speaking), Kurdistan (kurdish), Baluchestan (Baluchi) are not. Tabrizi merchants invest in Tehran because it has more revenue. There are other reasons for the migrations than what you say.
Dear Ben, I agree with the spirit of what you say, but please stop diverging from the main topic. You don't need to justify everything to prove your main point.
Your personalities are not called savages
by Anonymous5166601998 (not verified) on Wed May 07, 2008 04:48 PM PDTDede Qurqut, Kor Oghlu, Fuzuli, Nasimi, Sabir, Shahriar,
are not called savages and barbarians in Iran. Those who are partly called so are "Turks", it is in our (and your) history and literature (Shahnameh heroes were Safavid heros).
Tell me what we should do? censor them?
زبان هموطنان آذری ما از چه زمان گویشی از ترکی شد؟
I R A N (not verified)Wed May 07, 2008 04:47 PM PDT
For Dear Ben, with all respects:
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnAVvRyP3Io
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=e36Suwg48hA
We are one nation with one flag and one history we are all proud of and all with one goal which is democracy for the future we deserve as the most ancient and authentic country of the region regardless of the world.
To Anonymous333 Yes if a
by Anonymous20404 (not verified) on Wed May 07, 2008 03:34 PM PDTTo Anonymous333
Yes if a Tajik or Afghan or people from Turkey or Caucasia try to meddle in Irans internal problem without sufficient knowledge and background, I would tell them to mind their own business. Iranians will solve their own internal problems without the suggestions of the citizens of these countries: Turkey, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Caucus Azerbaijan and etc.!
Thanks
Dear Mr Kashani
by Ben Madadi on Wed May 07, 2008 01:43 PM PDTI don't really know who they are. Seriously. I read ALL comments, unless they are posted very very late. None of them bother me but I actually care for the quality of my works, my writings, and when comments go too far away form the subject or when they contain too much name-callings and insults... it kinda saddens me that many people will not read them, and my work will be wasted. But none of the comments, no matter what they contain, affects me whatsoever. I don't know why, but they have no effect on me!
But I do appreciate to have readers who like this hobby of mine. I would be really really really proud to see some progress in our society and our country. And I'm sure you and many other Iranians think alike. Reagrds, Ben
Mr Madadi, great article.
by Farhad Kashani (not verified) on Wed May 07, 2008 12:31 PM PDTMr Madadi, great article. Just remember, you should be proud when intolerqant people like Mamad and Anonymous 2 and others call you name and charatcer assasinate you..thats when you know you're right !
To 'Anonymous20404'
by Anonymous333 (not verified) on Wed May 07, 2008 09:03 AM PDTNo, I am not from the Caucasus, or Turkey. I have had friends and acquantainces from Iran. I just wanted to have a refreshing, or maybe unbiased, or challenging, discussion. And if I were an Azeri or Turk, from outside Iran, would that be a problem making such discussions impossible? Would it bother YOU if a Tajik Persian were talking about his fellow Persians (maybe he would call them fellow Persians) inside Iran? They are kind of relatives, right? They share some common history, culture etc. Would you mind a Tajik (from Tajikistan or Afghanistan) talk with Persian or Azeri Iranians about what is going on in Iran? I don't think you would ;) Tajiks and Afghans have their own problems too. It is a personal choice after-all who one identifies themselves with, right? Try to be a good converser to be taken seriously!
to Anonymous333
by Anonymous20404 (not verified) on Wed May 07, 2008 06:03 AM PDTI stuck to all the points in the discussion and gave you a detailed and objective response. I would also suggest you tackle issues within your countries (assuming you are from Turkey or the Caucus who are just agitators that have their own ethnic problems and issues ). These discussions will be solved by Iranians internally and what is important is to have the facts straight or discuss the facts. If there was no external pressure of pan-Turkism at one time (during the Ottoman capture of Tabriz in WWI), then there would not been a reaction to it by Iranian Azeris as the article I pointed to illustrates.
Race?!?!
by Ardashir (not verified) on Wed May 07, 2008 04:23 AM PDTWhenever there is talk about Iranians I see Iranians come and talk about how Iranians are relatives because of genetic studies or race, or even racial history! What the hell is this? Are we living in the 3rd Reich? Please stop these disgusting rants! No modern country is built or based on RACE! Come on! Even reading these comments I see one talking about Aryans, other about Medes etc, reasoning about the unity of Iranians. Probably if Hitler was the ruler of Iran I would not be surprised to see him talk like this. But now, in 2008??? You know the only reason/reasons Iranians are Iranians? 1) Because maybe they want to, 2) Because maybe they have a citizenship. That's it! I have NEVER seen two men, or two groups or peoples, be friends, or be united, because of race. People become friends, or become united, because THEY WANT TO. Please stop these disturbing and utterly backward and harmful racial rants. Those who use such language do not deserve Iran's rich culture and history, and the relative tolerance Iranians have been known for. But we do indeed need to work to improve our society and respect each other more.
To 'Anonymous20404'
by Anonymous333 (not verified) on Tue May 06, 2008 01:32 PM PDTI could have a serious discussion, but with the condition to stick to the subject. If we relate current INJUSTICES to the past in order to justify them, then we are not using human rights as a basis for our discussion about... human rights, maybe, but... something else, maybe... you are a devoted nationalist (I am just asking, wondering) so then, I cannot compete with your arguments. But if as Mr Madadi's article seems to say, the whole issue is about some social problems, probably the lack of respect for identity, then that can be the basis for our discussion.
I know that Iranians of Turk/Azeri background have been, and still are, patriotic Iranians who have done a great deal, immense, contribution to the Iranian society. That does not necessarily come as an argument for/against realities of the treatment of non-Persian Iranian IDENTITY in Iran now. Identity is the whole issue here.
I have never listened to GunAz TV. Some groups may be pan-something, while some other groups may have other objectives! Some groups within a community do not, and cannot, be taken as representative for the whole, or incriminating the whole. Then again, I guess one thing is to talk about human rights, the other is to have one nationalist from one camp against another nationalist arguing. They will never undertsnad each other.
By the way, I am neither Persian, nor any other Iranian. I have just had some long-term personal interests and relations with the Iranian community.
to Anonymous333
by Anonymous20404 (not verified) on Tue May 06, 2008 10:30 AM PDTThanks for your response.
On point 1 I would like to point out the Persian was made official language through the constitutional revolution of 1906. The proclamation was also just in Persian and was not translated. Also traditional Qajar Maktab system only thought Persian and Arabic. It was also like this in the Caucus before it was ripped apart from Iran. So it is important to have knowledge of this.
One thing I do want to mention is that modern Iranian nationalism was formulated by Azeris by in and large and part of it was a reaction towards pan-Turkism:
//www.azargoshnasp.net/recent_history/atoor/r...
Thus the "Persian"/"Iranian" nationalism Ben talks about was formulated/created by Azeris as a reaction towards pan-Turkism. It is very important to know about this point.
On point two, that is true. But 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. Sure he could have mentioned other countries, but the issue is not a big deal since he has also mentioned Iranians Azeris.
On point 3, you are partially right. Seljuqs were there before Mongols. But also the bulk of the Mongol army/troops were also Turks. What is important is that when they teach history, they should mention this while making sure it does not offend Azeris. For example Hazaras in Afghanistan are well known to be descendants of Mongol troops, but they are also among the most honest and decent people. So in reality I think objective view of history is important while at the same time making sure that it is not connected to modern groups. Many Azeris also identify with Medes and etc. All these are personal choices. What is important is not to judge anyone today just because something that happened 100 or 1000 years ago. So that is what is missing in the educational system. Else objectivity should not be sacrificed.
On point 4, from listening (GunazTV) and looking at some nationalist websites, I can say they are pan-Turkist in the sense that they constantly talk about "Turk Dunyasi" (and how Russia, Iran, Armenia are its enemies) and somehow they feel more of connection with Turkey or even Kazakhistan than with Iran. Overall there is also a cultural pan-Turkism trying to de-link Iranian Azeris from the wider Iranian world and connect them more to Turkey and the republic of Azerbaijan. Some going as far as considering Iranian Azeris as a diaspora! So there is a pan-Turkist movement and GunAz TV for example represents such a movement. It does not need a clear cut word by word definition of an ideology. Overall, it can not be called "patriotic" or even "nationalist" but is based on Pan ideas.
On Tehran, I concur with you. But estimates of Azeri population in Tehran is between 1/6 to 1/3 or even more as some suggest. So Those Azeris are getting the benefit as anyone else in Tehran. Specially you will hear more Azeri in the real stock market of the Iranian economy (Bazar of Tehran). Also East Azerbaijan province is more prosperous than Kerman, South Khorasan, Sistan, Bushehr, Persian parts of Khuzestan, .. So I think this whole Tehran issue is really just a 3rd world problem. But Azeris will be affected as any other Iranian. And for example if Tabriz was the capital of Iran, the same problem would exist.
I would also like to point out that Nasimi and Fozuli mentioned by Ben wrote half their material in Persian. Shahriyar wrote 90% of his poetry in Persian and if we go further, most Azeris have written in Persian. Persian is a common cultural language of all Iranians and it does not belong to any ethnic group. The major issue is to ensure in the era of globalization that cultural and regional languages survive and prosper. This is even affecting Persian also in the sense that English words are entering it and if the current World trend continues, we will all be speaking English in 300 years. In the era of mass communication and globalization, local culture will suffer and a micro-version occurs in a country. So some of these issues need to be looked.
Thanks
Great Article
by Anonymous1158 (not verified) on Tue May 06, 2008 10:25 AM PDTThank you Ben for your article.
I really enjoy it and sent it to many yahoogroups
Turk from Turkey
by Abarmard on Tue May 06, 2008 10:02 AM PDTThat was a very funny comment, only because you don't seem to have any idea where Iran is (socially) and that Azaries are the most outspoken and economically dominant part of the Iranian culture.
We also are far a head of you not to call our citizens such as Kurds "mountain Turks".
Your argument works for those Western crowd who are not well read about our region, not with us. You should read more and get out of your shell. If a bald man had cure for baldness, would use it on himself!!
Sorry to break the news but the last thing we need from turkey is to learn "tolerance" from them:)
Don't look that your economy is good, economy comes and goes, the social awareness on the other hand...Well it's for you to find out!
abt gunaz tv (pan-turkism tv show)
by sanazi on Tue May 06, 2008 05:17 AM PDTyeah, i've listened to that show a few times. those guys are real loosers and they have nothing intelligent to say. they say that azaris are generally poor ppl in tehran (in comparison to persians). that is so not true, in fact, Bazaare Tehran is invaded w/ azaris and turks, AND most successful bazaris in tehran are azari/turk, and they are very very rich ppl.
What differences?
by Kamangir on Tue May 06, 2008 04:57 AM PDTWhat differences, is the autor of the article refering to? We are Iranian first and then azari, fars or kurd.
Re: Anonumous20404
by Anonymous333 (not verified) on Tue May 06, 2008 03:40 AM PDTPlease let me answer some of your points:
1) Some countries do have more official languages (India) while other have none (USA)
2) Azeris and Kurds (who are of Iranic/Iranian, but also Uzbeks and many others) celebrate nowrooz too, so addressing specifically Farsi-speakers is not something sensitive, so is calling the Holocaust a myth)
3) Turks are different from Mongols, and Turks were inside the present Iranian territory before the Mongol invasion. Azeris are of course a mix of those Turks and the non-Turks locals of Iran. So, there are strong links, specially of course because of the language.
4) Pna-Turkism is one thing and it means pretty much what the article has suggested. Turkish or Azerbaijani natinalism, or Persian nationalism, are different things. There is Persian nationalism in Iran, and there is Azeri, or Kurd etc nationalism. I think Persian nationalism is much stronger and much more aggressive. Just look at the comments, or websites, and the use of race as argument!
5) I agree with the final point, immigrants to Tehran are form all over Iran. Nevertheless areas near Iran's frontier have received much less investments and they are usually non-Persian areas.
Pan-Turk...
by Turk from Turkey (not verified) on Tue May 06, 2008 03:22 AM PDTWe don't have talk of pan-turkism in turkie. I never herd anybody say they are pan-turk! Some Iranian people call Azeri people pan-turks because they want to preserve their turkish culture. If Iranians can be nationalists, fars etc, then Azeris can be nationalists too, or others. Even kurds in turkie have right to their own culture etc, but it is a very difficult process, but Turkie is making moves toward it. We are becoming more democratic and if we want democracy we will respect every citizen's rights, turk, kurd etc. Iran shuld follow, but not with this fundamentalist state.