Turkic speaking countries might create free trade zone

[Feyen]

Who says it is Persian style? Those style of painting didn't exist before Turkic rule. Same way, Persians call Turkic Seljuk and Safavid architecture Persian architecture. This can't be since before Turks arrived there was no such culture, painting, food and architecture. Even if it was influenced somewhat by Persians. It is not Persian but Azeri. Saying otherwise is revisionism which tries to cover up Turkic rule.

So did those paintings exist in Turkic land before you guys migrated to the Middle East? I didn't think so. Turks have never been famous for their cultural richness, as you guys have always lived in primitive tents with horse transportation. The only time you guys came across a more developed culture was when you pseudo-mongolid Turks conquered ancient cultures like the Persian culture and Babylonian culture. You want to see real Turkic architecture? Here you go:

Compare that to Persians who have a 3000 year old rich architectural history and urbanized cities. Its only laughable when the descdenants of primitive steppe-culture are claiming Persian cultural history, only because their own pre-Middle Easten history is insignificant and primitive.

And Turks don't exist. Look alone at the physical and facial difference between Turks from Turkey and Turks in Kazakhstan. Turks (Turkey) are just a mixture of ancient Greek, Armenian and Kurdish people and Turks who migrated to the West because their original homeland wasn't interesting anymore. You guys are Arab by religion, Persian by culture and Turkic by language. You can't name me one original Turkic cultural fest or element you guys still have preserved. Arab Ramadan, Christian New Year and Persian Nowruz are your biggest festivals, which are all non-Turkic in origins. Heck, even your most visited city (Istanbul) hasn't been build by Turks.

Go try to fool somebody else, with you misplaced and historical incorrect nationalism.

 

[gr8vision]

Those are Persian paintings, simply because they originated in Iran, were created by Persian artists and have their origins in Persian culture. It doesn't matter who rule the country. There is nothing Turkic about these paintings.

You are not reading attentively - none of the paintings (miniatures) presented here are "Persian", none of them were made by ethnic Persians, and there was no country by the name of Iran or Persia at the time. So it's impossible to call it "Persian". All these paintings (miniatures) were done in Tabriz, capital of Azerbaijan, and often the seat (capital) of the Azerbaijani Turkic empires that ruled everything from Central Asia to Caucasus to Anatolia to Iraq and Syria (and beyond), and the entire Iranian Plateau, Afghanistan, and Northern India.

For some reason, the truly ethnically Persian areas, such as Fars, are not as well known for miniatures. The miniatures presented above are clearly of the Tabriz masters, who were Azerbaijani Turks. There is actually nothing "Persian" in those miniatures, they are depicting Turkic people in Turkic and Muslim dresses. And yes, it does matter who was ruling the entire area at the time - note that I don't say "country" because Iran or Persia was not a country, but was part of the larger empires that I cited above. At the same time, Azerbaijani Turkic rulers were not some "foreign overlords", they were living on their lands - certainly mixing with other Turkic people (of Kipchak origin), as well as Iranic and Semitic and Caucasian people (just like Persians did when they invaded the Iranian Plateau around the end of the 7th century BC and Persianized the local population of Elam, Urartu, and Manna, who were all of Caucasian origin, Caucasian-speaking (and yes, Persians do not have 3,000 years of history in what is today Iran - at most 2,700 years. Only mention this because you cited 3,000 years myth elsewhere in this thread).

You mean real scholars, in contrast to 16-year old Grey Wolf nationalistic Turks on the internet who try to claim almost every Iranian historical/cultural element, simply because their own culture doesn't reach further than yurt tents and nomadic barbarity.

Sure, "real scholars" who have been disproven many times over and are incapable of explaining some basic logical fallacies of their "scholarship". Everyone has 16-year old nationalists - Turks might have Grey Wolves, and Persians and other pan-Iranists like yourself have their "lions" and "tigers" imagining they are in Shahname (which, by the way, was commissioned and paid for by a Turkic ruler, a Ghaznevid, who asked a Tajik writer Firdowsi to write it - and who basically ripped it off from two other Persian writers).

First of all, most artist, in which period in Iran whatsoever, were Persian. Iran, whether ruled by Arabs of Turks, have always remained its indigenous Iranian culture. These paintings weren't made by Turks.

First of all, you don't make sense at all. Secondly, not everything in "Iran" is/was "Persian". Thirdly, only a Persian or pan-Iranist would claim that something done 1) in a Turkic-populated region, 2) with a Turkic ruler, 3) with Turkic language being officially used in the court and army, 4) and writing using an Arabic alphabet, and 5) in a language heavily infused with both Arabic and Turkic words, or in case of miniatures, depicting Turkic people in Turkic or Muslim costumes and customs - to be "Persian". Funny how that cultural misappropriation works.

Safavids originated in Persian Kurdistan, and weren't Turks, although there was a linguistic and militaristic Turkic influence in the empire.

No, Safavids didn't originate in "Persian Kurdistan", whatever that even means. That's a theory of one favorite pan-Iranist professor in the West, whose scholarship is gladly sponsored by Iranians. He can't prove that, and neither can you. Why would then Ismail Safavi - who, ironically according to you, was not even Persian then, but Kurdish - speak and write 99% of his poetry (his Divan) in Turki? Why would most of his troops be Azerbaijani Turks? Why would their name be a Turkic word, Qizilbash? Why would Ismail first crown himself as Shah of Azerbaijan in 1501, and only the next year, in 1502, as Shah of Dowlat-e-Safavi (which you and other pan-Iranists simply call "Persia" and/or "Iran", even though that's not the official name of the Empire)?

Oh, and before I forget - shah Ismail Khatayi Safavi was a legitimate successor to his Aq-Qoyunlu grandfather, Uzun Hasan. Shah Ismail used his grandfather's connection to bolster his own legitimacy.

And finally - Safavids, like many other Turkic, Persian, Afghan, and Kurdish rulers, have falsified their own biographies, to make them direct descendants of prophet Muhammad (pbuh), who, strictly speaking, was ethnically Arab. So I guess we should believe that Safavids were ... Arabs!

And you seem to forget that the Safavids didn't promote Turkic culture in Iran, but even resurrected Persian culture, which they proudly identified with. So the claim that these paintings must be Turkic only because the rulers were Turks is not only laughable, but also incorrect.

Safavid's didn't promote Turkic culture in "Iran" (you mean in their eponymous empire, Safavid Empire)? Really? Aside from Uzun Hasan, ruler of Aq Qoyunly, being the grandfather of Shah Ismail, is that why they wrote their poetry in Azerbaijani Turki (also known as Turki-yi Acemi)? Is that why even Shah Abbas (greatgrandson of Shah Ismail) was chronicled by his contemporary, an ARMENIAN chronicler, Arakel of Tabriz, to speak Azerbaijani Turkish in court and in private, including to an Armenian that Arakel writes about in his book? So, please stop these laughable insinuations - just because you repeat that white is black won't make it so.

Please take a look at this - this is the first page of the Diwan of Shah Ismail (known by his pen-name Khatayi). http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Diwan_of_Shah_Ismail_Khatai.jpg
It was written by him - supposedly a Persianized Kurdish ruler who "resurrected" "Persian culture" with which he "proudly identified with" as you claim. Since you believe that, please show me anyhing "Persian" in this text? Is the alphabet Persian? No, it's Arabic. Is the text of the poem (Diwan) in Persian? Nope, not even that, it's in Turki.

Let me quote these verses from Khatayi, and then you can maybe try to explain to me why he identifies as a Turk, and not a "Iranian" or "Persian".

"Getdükcə tükənür ərəbün kuyi məskəni,
Bağdad içində hər necə kim, türkman qopar."

TRANSLATION: Slowly fades away the home of Arab,
As Turkmans roam inside Baghdad.

In the same poem he also uses the word "Ajam" to refer to a foreign element, so he definitely did not see himself as an Iranian/Persian.

Here's the rest of the poem, please translate it for us, from "Persian" )))

Bu sürahi dilbəri-rəna kimidir qaməti,
Ruh tək hər kim ki, rahin içər, artar rahəti.

Vəsfinin şərhin deməkdə nitqi yoxdur kimsənin,
Həq humayun eyləmiş bəzm içrə sahib dövləti.

Ləlü cövhərdən mürəssə qılmış ani həq təmam,
Bu səadətdən müdami kimsənin yox minnəti.

Gecələr məclis içində oturub ol sərfəraz,
Eylə mehmandır anın hər yerdə vardır izzəti.

Ey Xətayi, deməgil anın şərabın sən həram,
Sinəsinə nurtək dolmuş ilahin rəhməti.

There is nothing Turkic about these paintings. The same count for every other cultural element in the Safavid, Afsharid, Seljuq or Qajar empires.

Really? There is "nothing Turkic" in the paintings (miniatures) done by Turkic artists from Tabriz, depicting Turkic people (rulers), doing it for Turkic rulers, who spoke Azerbaijani Turki at home, in court and with their army? Hmmm. OK, if you say so.

BTW, here's something to read about Azerbaijani Turki in the Safavid times: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

And here's from Prof. Minorsky: http://s019.radikal.ru/i609/1302/6a/bfb6f8b2c482.png


"The Formation of the Safawid Empire
Safawid rule over Persia is conventionally dated from Shah Isma'ils capture of Tabriz in the aftermath of his victory over the Aq-Qoyunlu ruler Alwand at Sharur in 907/1501. But there was still a very long way to go before Isma'il could be regarded as anything more than a potential successor to the Aq-Qoyunlu in Azarbayjan. Nor, for some years, was the geographical shape of the new state by any means clear. It may be that Isma'il's expectation was that he would be able to set up an essentially Turkmen empire after the Aq-Qoyunlu pattern, consisting of eastern Anatolia, Azarbayjan, westem Persia and Iraq. After all, the military following on which he depended was Turkmen in composition, he had fixed his capital at Tabriz, the now traditional Turkmen centre on the periphery of Persia proper, and he may have seen himself as in some sense the legitimate successor to his Aq-Qoyunlu grandfather, Uzun Hasan. The direction of Isma'ill's early campaigns certainly suggested that it was the Turkmen heritage he was primarily interested in."
Source: David Morgan. "Shah Isma'il and the Establishment of Shi'ism", Ch. 12 of his Medieval Persia: 1040-1797, Longman, New York, 1988, pp. 112-123.


"In 1501 Ismail, the leader of a Shiite religious group the Safavids, became Shah of Persia. Ismail was ethnically Turkish, as therefore was the Safavid dynasty that he now founded. His accession to power and the establishment of his family on the throne reignited the border wars between the rulers of Iran and those of the Middle East."
Source: Christopher Catherwood. A Brief History of the Middle East: From Abraham to Arafat. ISBN-10: 1841198706


"The Safavid threat to the Ottomans was rendered at once more acute and more intimate by the Turkish origin of the Safavid family and their extensive support in Turkish Anatolia. It is ironic that in the increasingly angry correspondence between the two monarchs that preceded the outbreak of hostilities, the sultan wrote to the shah in Persian, the language of urban, cultivated gentlemen, while the Shah wrote to the Sultan in Turkish - the language of his rural and tribal origins."
Source: Bernard Lewis. The Middle East. ISBN: 0684832801


"The Azeri Turks are Shiites and were founders of the Safavid dynasty."
Source: Richard N. Frye, Tamara Sonn. A Brief History of Islam, Blackwell Publishing, 2004, p. 83.

 

[gr8vision]

So did those paintings exist in Turkic land before you guys migrated to the Middle East? I didn't think so. Turks have never been famous for their cultural richness, as you guys have always lived in primitive tents with horse transportation. The only time you guys came across a more developed culture was when you pseudo-mongolid Turks conquered ancient cultures like the Persian culture and Babylonian culture. You want to see real Turkic architecture? Here you go:

Compare that to Persians who have a 3000 year old rich architectural history and urbanized cities. Its only laughable when the descdenants of primitive steppe-culture are claiming Persian cultural history, only because their own pre-Middle Easten history is insignificant and primitive.

And Turks don't exist. Look alone at the physical and facial difference between Turks from Turkey and Turks in Kazakhstan. Turks (Turkey) are just a mixture of ancient Greek, Armenian and Kurdish people and Turks who migrated to the West because their original homeland wasn't interesting anymore. You guys are Arab by religion, Persian by culture and Turkic by language. You can't name me one original Turkic cultural fest or element you guys still have preserved. Arab Ramadan, Christian New Year and Persian Nowruz are your biggest festivals, which are all non-Turkic in origins. Heck, even your most visited city (Istanbul) hasn't been build by Turks.

Go try to fool somebody else, with you misplaced and historical incorrect nationalism.

Look who's talking. "Persians" use Arab alphabet and Arab religion. Persian language is at least 40% Arabic. Look at Persians - you will see a huge variation, from really dark and short people to tall and lighter-skinned. Some have more slanted eyes, others have more round eyes. Genetic variation is off the charts - just like for anyone else unless they lived on islands or in inaccessible mountains. Persians don't have 3,000 year old "rich architectural history and urbanized cities" - please prove it if you claim such nonsense. Persians, who are Iranian-speaking, came to the Iranian plateau later, and basically assimilated (or stole, using your terminology), the rich culture of autochtonous and indigenous Caucasian-speaking people - such as people of Manna, Urartu and especially Elam (whose language is generally regarded as an isolated language, but definitely not Persian, not Iranic). The first "Persian" kingdom was founded in 550 BC - that's 2,500 years ago - by a half-Median, half-Persian Cyrus the Great. It existed for just 2 centuries, and was crushed by Alexander the Macedonian. Then Persian Sassanids established an empire, which lasted for just 4 centuries. Then there was a weak Buyid state a few centuries later - so that's a total of less than 700 years of "Persian" (actually, ethnically mixed) rule over Iranian plateau. Because from the 11th century the rule of Turks begins, and continues at least until 1925, but in reality longer considering that both Pahlavi shah's, despite being Turcophobes, actually had Azerbaijani Turkish mothers, and the current Supreme Leader of IRI is an Azerbaijani Turk.

Nowruz is a Persian word, but the tradition of Spring celebration is as Turkic as it gets - and celebrated by all Turkic people (even Turkic Christians, such as Gagauz), even far-away Yakuts, who don't know who Persians are, were never in contact with them, and whose territory is several times larger than Fars region or all of Iran. Meanwhile, why is it that not all Iranic people celebrate Novruz?

 

[gr8vision]

One more thing - here are Iranian (Bakhtiari, Lori, etc.) nomads today:

Bakhtiari Nomads, Khuzestan, Iran | Anthropology.net

People Documentary Bakhtiari Nomads: Photo Images by Sadegh Miri Photography - photo.net

So I guess "highly-cultured" haven't gone that far from "uncultured" Turks, ehh?

Meanwhile, here's a modern Turkic yurt in Kazakhstan - a much better structure than whatever modern Iranian architecture has to offer: Pictures: World's Biggest Tent Rises in Kazakhstan

Here's a Lori (Iranian) dance at a rural wedding: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuEnfOPGaYM

Here's a highly cultured Persian dance instructor teaching modernized typically Persian dance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhLFD3OaXps

 

[Feyen]

You are not reading attentively - none of the paintings (miniatures) presented here are "Persian", none of them were made by ethnic Persians, and there was no country by the name of Iran or Persia at the time. So it's impossible to call it "Persian". All these paintings (miniatures) were done in Tabriz, capital of Azerbaijan, and often the seat (capital) of the Azerbaijani Turkic empires that ruled everything from Central Asia to Caucasus to Anatolia to Iraq and Syria (and beyond), and the entire Iranian Plateau, Afghanistan, and Northern India.

These paintings are Persians, and have been made by ethnical Persians and have their origins in Persian history. It has nothing to do with Turks.

The ancient Persian religion of Manichaeism made considerable use of images; not only was the founding prophet Mani (c.216–276) a professional artist, at least according to later Islamic tradition, but one of the sacred books of the religion, the Arzhang, was illustrated by the prophet himself, whose illustrations (probably essentially cosmological diagrams rather than images with figures) were regarded as part of the sacred material and always copied with the text. Unfortunately, the Islamic suppression of the religion was so thorough that only tiny fragments of Manichean art survive. These no doubt influenced the continuing Persian tradition, but little can be said about how. It is also known that Sassanid palaces had wall-paintings, but only fragments of these have survived. There are narrative scenes in pottery, though it is hard to judge how these relate to lost contemporary book painting. Recent scholarship has noted that, although surviving early examples are now uncommon, human figurative art was also a continuous tradition in Islamic lands in secular contexts (such as literature, science, and history); as early as the 9th century, such art flourished during the Abbasid Caliphate (c. 749-1258, across Spain, North Africa, Egypt, Syria, Turkey, Mesopotamia, and Persia).

For some reason, the truly ethnically Persian areas, such as Fars, are not as well known for miniatures. The miniatures presented above are clearly of the Tabriz masters, who were Azerbaijani Turks. There is actually nothing "Persian" in those miniatures, they are depicting Turkic people in Turkic and Muslim dresses. And yes, it does matter who was ruling the entire area at the time - note that I don't say "country" because Iran or Persia was not a country, but was part of the larger empires that I cited above. At the same time, Azerbaijani Turkic rulers were not some "foreign overlords", they were living on their lands - certainly mixing with other Turkic people (of Kipchak origin), as well as Iranic and Semitic and Caucasian people (just like Persians did when they invaded the Iranian Plateau around the end of the 7th century BC and Persianized the local population of Elam, Urartu, and Manna, who were all of Caucasian origin, Caucasian-speaking (and yes, Persians do not have 3,000 years of history in what is today Iran - at most 2,700 years. Only mention this because you cited 3,000 years myth elsewhere in this thread).

Iranian-speaking tribes migrated to the Iranian plateau approximately 1200 BC, so 3000 years of history is historically correct. And the Iranian plateau at that time wasn't widely inhabited, besides some local populations, like the Elamites, who were Persianized, but didn't have a cultural effect on Persians. And the Elamites weren't Caucasian in origins. You seem to forget that Caucasia has been traditionally inhabited by Iranian or Indo-European speaking people anyway.

Sure, "real scholars" who have been disproven many times over and are incapable of explaining some basic logical fallacies of their "scholarship". Everyone has 16-year old nationalists - Turks might have Grey Wolves, and Persians and other pan-Iranists like yourself have their "lions" and "tigers" imagining they are in Shahname (which, by the way, was commissioned and paid for by a Turkic ruler, a Ghaznevid, who asked a Tajik writer Firdowsi to write it - and who basically ripped it off from two other Persian writers).

Ferdowsi has been born in modern-day Iran and was no Tajik. He was Persian, revived Persian history and was indeed paid by an Ghaznavid ruler, who identified himself with Persian culture, like all Turkic rulers in Iran did.

First of all, you don't make sense at all. Secondly, not everything in "Iran" is/was "Persian". Thirdly, only a Persian or pan-Iranist would claim that something done 1) in a Turkic-populated region, 2) with a Turkic ruler, 3) with Turkic language being officially used in the court and army, 4) and writing using an Arabic alphabet, and 5) in a language heavily infused with both Arabic and Turkic words, or in case of miniatures, depicting Turkic people in Turkic or Muslim costumes and customs - to be "Persian". Funny how that cultural misappropriation works.

Azeris are no Turks. Modern day genetic tests shows that Iranian Azeris cluster more with Persians than with Turks, which confirms the theory of Ahmad Kasravi, who was Azeri himself, that Azeris are Iranians who adopted Turkic language.

No, Safavids didn't originate in "Persian Kurdistan", whatever that even means. That's a theory of one favorite pan-Iranist professor in the West, whose scholarship is gladly sponsored by Iranians. He can't prove that, and neither can you. Why would then Ismail Safavi - who, ironically according to you, was not even Persian then, but Kurdish - speak and write 99% of his poetry (his Divan) in Turki? Why would most of his troops be Azerbaijani Turks? Why would their name be a Turkic word, Qizilbash? Why would Ismail first crown himself as Shah of Azerbaijan in 1501, and only the next year, in 1502, as Shah of Dowlat-e-Safavi (which you and other pan-Iranists simply call "Persia" and/or "Iran", even though that's not the official name of the Empire)?

99% of his poetry in Turkish? Do you have a source for that? And yes, they did originate in Persian Kurdistan. Most modern historians agree with this theory, as opposed to the Turkic theory. Anyway, the ethnicity of the rulers is insignificant if those same rulers patronized Iranian culture.

Safavid's didn't promote Turkic culture in "Iran" (you mean in their eponymous empire, Safavid Empire)? Really? Aside from Uzun Hasan, ruler of Aq Qoyunly, being the grandfather of Shah Ismail, is that why they wrote their poetry in Azerbaijani Turki (also known as Turki-yi Acemi)? Is that why even Shah Abbas (greatgrandson of Shah Ismail) was chronicled by his contemporary, an ARMENIAN chronicler, Arakel of Tabriz, to speak Azerbaijani Turkish in court and in private, including to an Armenian that Arakel writes about in his book? So, please stop these laughable insinuations - just because you repeat that white is black won't make it so.

Like I said, besides some linguistic influences you can't name me one other cultural influences the Turks brought in Iran, simply because there isn't any. They did not bring their primitive nomadic culture in Iran, as the culture they came in contact with, was vastly superior to their own.

 

[Feyen]

Look who's talking. "Persians" use Arab alphabet and Arab religion. Persian language is at least 40% Arabic.

Yes, but this Arab religion hasn't displaced Iranian cultural elements, unlike with the Turks. You seem to forget that you Turks have used the same alphabet, which was only removed recently due to Ataturk or communist occupation.

Look at Persians - you will see a huge variation, from really dark and short people to tall and lighter-skinned. Some have more slanted eyes, others have more round eyes. Genetic variation is off the charts - just like for anyone else unless they lived on islands or in inaccessible mountains. Persians don't have 3,000 year old "rich architectural history and urbanized cities" - please prove it if you claim such nonsense.

Yes, they do have a 3000 year old history of architecture. Look at cities Medes or Persians built, or the cities in pre-Median empire. You also seem to forget that cities and architecture have been found in places were Iranians originated. The physical differences between Persians is much lower than the physical differences between Turks in Anatolia and Central-Asia. Even Azerbaijanis look more Persian than Turkic.

Persians, who are Iranian-speaking, came to the Iranian plateau later, and basically assimilated (or stole, using your terminology), the rich culture of autochtonous and indigenous Caucasian-speaking people - such as people of Manna, Urartu and especially Elam (whose language is generally regarded as an isolated language, but definitely not Persian, not Iranic).

They did not steal anything of these cultures. Persian architecture, festivals, food, clothing was indigenous and had nothing to do with Elamites or other people. It was the other way around. Elamites became Persians.

The first "Persian" kingdom was founded in 550 BC - that's 2,500 years ago - by a half-Median, half-Persian Cyrus the Great. It existed for just 2 centuries, and was crushed by Alexander the Macedonian. Then Persian Sassanids established an empire, which lasted for just 4 centuries. Then there was a weak Buyid state a few centuries later - so that's a total of less than 700 years of "Persian" (actually, ethnically mixed) rule over Iranian plateau. Because from the 11th century the rule of Turks begins, and continues at least until 1925, but in reality longer considering that both Pahlavi shah's, despite being Turcophobes, actually had Azerbaijani Turkish mothers, and the current Supreme Leader of IRI is an Azerbaijani Turk.

Medians, Persians, Parthians, Sassanids, Samanids. All Iranian empires who ruled the region longer than any other people. There is no such thing as Azerbaijani Turks, as Azerbaijanis in Iran are Turkified Iranians. The Pahlavis did not have Azeri mother. And Khamenei is only half Azeri.

Nowruz is a Persian word, but the tradition of Spring celebration is as Turkic as it gets - and celebrated by all Turkic people (even Turkic Christians, such as Gagauz), even far-away Yakuts, who don't know who Persians are, were never in contact with them, and whose territory is several times larger than Fars region or all of Iran. Meanwhile, why is it that not all Iranic people celebrate Novruz?

There is no tradition of Spring celebration in Turkish history. The only reason why it is celebrated by Turkic people is because most of these people have been Persianized in culture. That is why Nowruz is celebrated in originally Iranian lands (Central-Asia, Caucasus) or lands who fall under Greater Iran. Most Iranics do celebrate Nowruz, like the Persians, Kurds, Tajiks, etc. The festivity originated in Zoroastrianism, which is an Iranian religion, and predates Turkish presence in Central-Asia or even Anatolia. Its only laughable that Turks who have no significant history are claiming Iranian culture, because their own culture is insufficient.

 

[gr8vision]

These paintings are Persians, and have been made by ethnical Persians and have their origins in Persian history. It has nothing to do with Turks.





Iranian-speaking tribes migrated to the Iranian plateau approximately 1200 BC, so 3000 years of history is historically correct. And the Iranian plateau at that time wasn't widely inhabited, besides some local populations, like the Elamites, who were Persianized, but didn't have a cultural effect on Persians. And the Elamites weren't Caucasian in origins. You seem to forget that Caucasia has been traditionally inhabited by Iranian or Indo-European speaking people anyway.



Ferdowsi has been born in modern-day Iran and was no Tajik. He was Persian, revived Persian history and was indeed paid by an Ghaznavid ruler, who identified himself with Persian culture, like all Turkic rulers in Iran did.



Azeris are no Turks. Modern day genetic tests shows that Iranian Azeris cluster more with Persians than with Turks, which confirms the theory of Ahmad Kasravi, who was Azeri himself, that Azeris are Iranians who adopted Turkic language.



99% of his poetry in Turkish? Do you have a source for that? And yes, they did originate in Persian Kurdistan. Most modern historians agree with this theory, as opposed to the Turkic theory. Anyway, the ethnicity of the rulers is insignificant if those same rulers patronized Iranian culture.



Like I said, besides some linguistic influences you can't name me one other cultural influences the Turks brought in Iran, simply because there isn't any. They did not bring their primitive nomadic culture in Iran, as the culture they came in contact with, was vastly superior to their own.

I gave you facts, quotes from authoritative historians, and straight-forward logical explanations, and you just 1) continue to simply repeat yourself, as well as 2) leave all of my facts without an answer. You can't explain your own inconsistencies - so were Safavids Kurdish or Persian? Or as some pan-Iranists claim Tati? Choose one, man. Secondly, what about Shah Ismail's grandfather, who gave him tremendous legitimacy - Turkic emperor Uzun Hasan? Third, why did Shah Ismail write all of his poetry in Azerbaijani Turki - his major poem, his Diwan, is in Azerbaijani Turki, which you can't read and can't understand being Iranian. Fourth, why were majority of Shah Ismail's followers and his Qizilbash army Azerbaijani Turks? Fifth, why was his capital Tabriz - and not, for example, Tehran, Qom, or some other Persian city? Sixth, why did he crown himself as SHAH OF AZERBAIJAN first, in 1501, before proceeding to declare himself Shah of "Iran" - that is Dowlat-e Safavi in 1502? You have no answers to any of these, but keep repeating the tired old line about Ismail and his Safavid family being "Persian", Iranian, and now even, ironically, without wanting to, Kurdish. Make up your mind!

Ahmad Kasravi changed his views towards his latter years. In his earlier years he was indeed a hardcore pan-Iranists - many pan-Iranists are actually of Azerbaijani Turkic ethnicity, and indeed, Iran/IRI, as well as Pahlavi empire, and all previous Turkic empires that Iran claims, all owe primarily to Azerbaijanis with safeguarding, nourishing and protecting the "Iranian culture" you talk about here. He openly wrote that he claims all these pan-Iranist things about Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis because "it is good for Iran". So he was an extreme nationalist, and thus his view have to be considered carefully. Also, he was not a scholar - his "book" on Azerbaijani language was actually a booklet which I have.

Caucasus was NEVER "traditionally inhabited" by Iranic and Iranian-speaking people. Never! Please present just one credible source claiming such nonsense - please don't provide sources from Iran. It shows that you are an extreme nationalist yourself and have been brainwashed by Iranian propaganda, that you now even claim Caucasus as Iranian-inhabited. I have to disappoint you - Caucasus has been inhabited by 100% Caucasian-speaking tribes in antiquity, until the Iranic and Turkic people started to move there. The only Iranic people were the Alans - out of nearly a 100 Caucasian tribes that have lived in Caucasus. That's all.

Once again, there is no 3,000 years to "Persian culture" in Iran or Iranian Plateau (and much less so in Caucasus, Anatolia and Middle East), as neither have Persians lived there for so long, nor have they been static - current Persian language is VERY different from the ancient Persian.

So Persians, and all "Iranians", owe everything to Caucasian-speaking people of Manna and Urartu, as well as non-Iranian people of Elam, who were all assimilated, forcefully, by incoming uneducated nomadic invaders - Persians. The Persians, who had no architecture and no culture to speak of, simply absorbed the high civilization and culture of Elam, and presto - now it's "Persian culture", and now its offspring are trying to insult Turks and Turkic people.

That's the difference between Turkic nations, such as Turkey and Azerbaijan, and Iranic nation such as Iran - in Turkic nations, they readily admit, show and are proud of all their ancient heritage, preserving it and never trying to present it as Turkic. Be it Lydian, Hittite, or other Anatolian heritage in Turkey, or be is Manna, Urartu and Media in Azerbaijan - people are respectful of their past and don't try to Turkify it (except a few hard-core nationalists). But among Iranians, especially diaspora in the West, but also Iranians in Iran, everything that is on the "Iranian Plateau" was Iranic and/or Persian - even as we "found out" from you, Elam!

 

[gr8vision]

Yes, but this Arab religion hasn't displaced Iranian cultural elements, unlike with the Turks. You seem to forget that you Turks have used the same alphabet, which was only removed recently due to Ataturk or communist occupation.



Yes, they do have a 3000 year old history of architecture. Look at cities Medes or Persians built, or the cities in pre-Median empire. You also seem to forget that cities and architecture have been found in places were Iranians originated. The physical differences between Persians is much lower than the physical differences between Turks in Anatolia and Central-Asia. Even Azerbaijanis look more Persian than Turkic.



They did not steal anything of these cultures. Persian architecture, festivals, food, clothing was indigenous and had nothing to do with Elamites or other people. It was the other way around. Elamites became Persians.



Medians, Persians, Parthians, Sassanids, Samanids. All Iranian empires who ruled the region longer than any other people. There is no such thing as Azerbaijani Turks, as Azerbaijanis in Iran are Turkified Iranians. The Pahlavis did not have Azeri mother. And Khamenei is only half Azeri.



There is no tradition of Spring celebration in Turkish history. The only reason why it is celebrated by Turkic people is because most of these people have been Persianized in culture. That is why Nowruz is celebrated in originally Iranian lands (Central-Asia, Caucasus) or lands who fall under Greater Iran. Most Iranics do celebrate Nowruz, like the Persians, Kurds, Tajiks, etc. The festivity originated in Zoroastrianism, which is an Iranian religion, and predates Turkish presence in Central-Asia or even Anatolia. Its only laughable that Turks who have no significant history are claiming Iranian culture, because their own culture is insufficient.

What do you mean Arab religion, Arab language and Arab jurisprudence, as well as Arab poetry before Firdowsi, haven't "displaced Iranian cultural elements"? What "cultural elements"? Please present a detailed list of those "cultural elements".

Persian today is 40% Arabic - why didn't you address that?

Persians stole everything from Elam and all other highly-civilized nations that were ever situation where Iran is today.

Medians might have been Iranic, but they were not "Persian". Please don't switch when its convenient to you. Aghaemenids were half-Median, half-Persian. Parthians were not Persian. So just Sassanids (4 centuries) and Samanids/Buyids - that's another century. That's just 500 years of "Persian" rule.

If you want to add Media, Aghaemenid and Parthian rule over the territory in order to "extend" Iranic rule, by adding Iranic to Persian rule, then please consider adding Elam, Urartu, Assyria, Mannae, Seleucid/Macedonian/Hellenic rule in the other column as well as a counter-balance

Then consider Ghaznevids, Great Seljuks, Azerbaijani Atabeks, Safavids, Afshars, and Qajars - that's about 900 years of mostly Turkic and some Mongol rule.

"there is no such thing as Azerbaijani Turks, as Azerbaijanis in Iran are Turkified Iranians." Tell that in Tabriz and see what happens to you. It's easy to write nonsense behind the safety of a computer.

"The Pahlavis did not have Azeri mother. And Khamenei is only half Azeri." Really? I guess the whole world is confused. Let's see:

1) Nushaferin Ayrumlu was the mother of first Reza Shah (the one who did the coup d'etat in 1925 and took the power away from Azerbaijani Turkic Qajars)

2) The mother of second Reza Shah (Mohammed Reza Shah) was Nimtadj Ayrumlu (same Azerbaijani Turkic family of Ayrumlu).

3) The mother of the third Reza Shah, who lives in U.S., is empress Farah Diba, also Azerbaijani - you can even find her speaking Azerbaijani on YouTube.

So all 3 mothers of all 3 Pahlavi "shah's" (I put it in parenthesis because they were all illegitimate rulers) were Azerbaijani. And of course the first Reza Shah was of Georgian and Mazandarani origin on his father's side, thus not a single drop of Persian blood in him.

Thus, once again, you are wrong. If you thought that your falsifications won't be noticed or won't be called out, you guessed wrong. You can't get away with the same old pan-Iranist falsifications nowdays.

As of Khamenei - everyone says he is Azerbaijani Turk. Please present evidence that he is only 50% Azerbaijani (and the other 50% what - Persian? Kurdish? Lur?)

 

[gr8vision]

More on Kasravi from prominent Iranologists: Ahmad Kasravi on Iran and Azerbaijan

"But the problem, it seems to me, is not entirely with commentators on Kasravi's works as with the complexity and contradictory character of Kasravi's thought over the decades. A man who sought to resolve Iran's dilemmas, he himself was capable of holding conflicting views on various matters."

"Kasravi's belief in the need for the Persianization of Iran's ethnic minorities is well-known."

Here are two quotes written by Kasravi himself:

"With the Turks, the Iranian people obtained a powerful element and their weakness and backwardness was diminished somewhat."

"Turkish is superior to Persian in its verbs. This is one of the things which alerted me to the Persian language's inadequacy and its illness."

Here's another article on Kasravi's writings in al-Irfan journal: http://iran.qlineorientalist.com/Articles/KasraviIrfan/KasraviIrfan.html

"Kasravi blamed both sides for being unscientific, and demonstrated to his satisfaction that indeed the people south or the Aras were, if not pure Turks, then of generally Turkish stock. After all, he argued, if the Arabs couldn’t make the Persians forget their language, how could the Turks?

"In the next section, he argues that Turkish is much richer grammatically than Persian.

"In the final section, he discusses the revitalization of Azeri Turkish. “Turkish in Iran is a spoken and not” a literary language.” He adds, “n recent times, it has been despised and reviled as the language used by foreigners, and this contempt and dislike of it persisted even until the days of the kings who arose from those who spoke it, the Safavids and the Qajars.”

 

[Enemy]

Not a problem - like I've written, it's obviously not the fault of yours or anyone else's on this forum, but the ridiculous position of Western historians who are deeply Turcophobic and pro-Iranian/pro-Persian, calling anything out of today's Iran as "Persian" despite that land being ruled by Turkic people for 1,000 years, and having a significant Turkic population, which many times produced those artifacts (miniatures, carpets, etc).

Also, let's not call people with Asiatic features (slanted eyes) as "Mongoloid". That 20th century racist terminology then creates an unreal expectation that everyone with slanted eyes are therefore "Mongols". Mongols, before Chingiz Khan, were not even that prominent, and not the dominant steppe people. And they ceased being dominant steppe people about 150 years after Chingiz Khan, too.

As I wrote before, most Turkic people indeed had and still have slanted eyes (Asiatic features). But not all, of course - that's a complex issue of ethnogenesis. Just like a "European" can have blue eyes and green eyes and brown eyes, or blond, black or brown or red hair, so can people from Eurasian steppes have slanted eyes and more rounded ("European") eyes - it's normal that both such eyes can exist within one supra-nation of Turks.

Actually you know I used to think like that. Now I feel and regret how stupid I was.

Caucasoid/Mongoloid looking --- nothing but the expression of a particular phenotype.

Would any Japanese, if not aware of his identity, accept this guy a Japanese? But in reality he is a Japanese if we go by his paternal ancestry.

Would the Chinese call this girl a Chinese? But she indeed is.

Also would any Korean call this guy a Korean? But he is.

So we have a Caucasoid Japanese, a Caucasoid Chinese and a Caucasoid Korean.

These are all celebrities and you can google and very my claim.

What does this signify?

It says that the Caucasoid mtDNA phenotype is more prominent than Mongoloid Y DNA phenotype. But Mongoloid mtDNA phenotype tends to become more prominent than Caucasoid Y DNA phenotype. They would have looked more Mongoloid if their mothers had been Mongoloid and fathers had been Caucasoid. Apart from few exceptions, this is what I generally observed.

Now, who were the Turks?

The Turks painted themselves this way. See my previous post.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/world-...ght-create-free-trade-zone-9.html#post4630170

But why don't they look Mongoloids now? Valid question. Why? Everybody should ask why.

I watched a documentary months ago. The title was 'How to Grow a Planet: The Challenger'

The documentary shows how grass, yes grass who we consider the weakest of all the flora world, not only defeated their counterparts, the big trees and other plants, but also used humans not only to survive but spread across the globe. And in the end, the question is who is using who?

If we say, in human world, we have races, so is true in the flora world. Grass don't belong to the race of big trees. Yes, flora also colonize the planet and tend to spread out.

Grass, in the form of crops, not only secured its ever growing existence but also defeated its opponents, the big trees. How? They used humans in their building of civilizations and expansion across the globe. They made us cultivate the lands, plant them and nurture them, at the expense of big trees. We value a wheat plant more than we value a big tree. Crops are part of our lives now and we can't exist without them. I suggest you to watch the documentary if possible.

The victorious wins at the end of the journey. Grass is the winner, not the strong gigantic big trees. We kill big trees to sow the seeds to wheat, millet or rice and they survive because we have to survive.

The Turkish rulers were East Asian Mongoloid conquerors who established an empire but were actually used the by conquered Caucasoid women. If you read, how much white female slaves of eastern Europe were used by the Mongoloid Turkish rulers in their harems, it will become evident to you.

The Asian male Ottomans tried to confine the European white female slaves in their harems, but in the end, the white European mtDNA finally assimilated them into Europe because it transformed the Turkish Mongoloid identity into a white Caucasoid identity. That was a silent revenge!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Harem

There are so many academic materials available on internet about the trade of white female slaves and how they ended up in Ottoman harems. But they didn't end up there, they changed the Ottoman racial identity before being formally liberated in the 20th century, thanks to Kemal Ataturk in 1931, if I am not wrong.

But long before their liberation, they prepared the ground by changing the appearance of the Turkish rulers. White Europoid women were valued for their unmatched beauty and that beauty created the modern Turkish identity.

We need to understand that it was not the world as we see it today. It was a period when Mongoloids from Central Asia ruled entire Eurasia. It was a period of brute force not the technology of precision guided weapons. Mongoloid Turks were known for that brute force. They were ruthless men. But they were after all men who had to fall in love with women.

I ask you to read the book The Imperial Harem: Women and Sovereignty in the Ottoman Empire by Leslie P Pierce

I don't know why Turkish members tend to be confused. They should be proud of their maternal as well as paternal ancestries.

I would finally say, while Asia is Turks' father, Europa is Turks' mother.

 

[atatwolf]

gr8vision, thanks for your ownage man. I think that guy is a Kurd under Persian flag. I can smell their delusional stench from a mile away. Always the same delusional concepts they have in their pretty small brains. By the way, you seem to know a lot about history. Any books you can recommend?

 

[gr8vision]

gr8vision, thanks for your ownage man. I think that guy is a Kurd under Persian flag. I can smell their delusional stench from a mile away. Always the same delusional concepts they have in their pretty small brains. By the way, you seem to know a lot about history. Any books you can recommend?

Thanks Atatwolf - he can be anyone, his ethnic belonging is not important. There are many very good people from Iran, of Persian, Kurdish, Lur, etc., ethnicities. Likewise, there are some bad one's - some of them of Turkic ethnic background, including Azerbaijanis and Turkmens. What matters is that he simply doesn't know what he talks about, makes nonsense statements, and repeats 1:1 the tired old Iranian propaganda thesis, which impresses non-specialists.

I wish there were many books in English or Turkish, but there aren't. You have to read so many different books and articles, but most importantly, to read and analyze them critically, as many of them have valuable info, but illogical interpretations due to pan-Iranian dominance in Western and world scholarship.

 

[Wholegrain]

Look at how the Sudanese became Arab. Sudan used to be inhabited by Nubian Kingdoms. Arab tribes then migrated into the Sudan and mixed with the Nubian blacks, so that the Sudanese have a large amount of Arab Y Chromosome Haplogroup J, however they still look black instead of caucasoid like Arabs from the Arabian peninsla. The Shuwa Arabs in Chad, Niger, and Nigeria look black too. The Sudanese speak Arabic as their first language and not Nubian. Nubian languages are dying out.

 

[StarCraft_ZT]

 

[Ahiska]

Turkic people were never racists so we are/were heavely mixed an another thing Turkic people were ALWAYS Eurasian people it means a mix of caucasoid AND Mongoloid the early Kyptchaks were descriped as blond and red haired.....