Iranian obsession with Nordic features

Originally posted by Yekta I do not see them as enemies, I see them as opportunists who see a unjust and unstable government and want to benefit the most from it. They are the ones keeping the IRI alive.

That is an unnecessary distinction. You said it yourself Yekta: They are the ones keeping the IR alive. That is the same IR which is destroying Iran and that justifies me labelling them as "enemies" of my people.


Edited by Shamshir - 14-Feb-2013 at 18:31

Originally posted by Yekta Cyrus, I like reading your posts and although my health does not permit me to participate more actively I've always learned a lot from you and enjoy reading the topics you pick. Yes, Iranic people are diverse with rich/proud history. Surely we can talk about our past relatives and common cultural/historical heritage. Unfortunately you can not do that without getting the ethnic or self centric view and counter-reaction of the Northern Europeans. You're bound to be marked as a not "wanna be" HOT, as if our world circles around their acceptance. That is what I want to avoid Cyrus and I find it very degenerating and insulting toward Iranians. Strange enough some Africans see middle easterners as some watered-down blacks. What are we to conclude from such color-oriented views? You can also see this mentioned in different post under this very topic. They even see Eastern Europeans as lightly mixed population. They are IT and the rest of the world is a mixture of this and that + some few IT if you get lucky. So, I don't see why you even want to make that connection. I personally find Turks and Germans more related than any Iranians, have you ever been in Turkish neighborhoods in some parts of Germany? My son and my grandfather are related but my son can't even pronounce my grandfather's name.

Originally posted by Yekta  You are talking about a time when Germany and Iran were not formed yet and those people did not call themselves such. Who knows what they did and how they looked or where they came from. In that timeline people had to move a lot so even the world original land would be another absurd concept, where were they before that? Also comparing some modern images of today's people as a reference to an ancient people we know very little about would be another illusion. Turk's movement in the region compared to other ancient nations is very recent and well known/documented, so, there is nothing new that interest me much.

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri You should be able to distinguish between Nationality and Culture, Kurds in Syria, Tats in Dagestan or Wakhis in China, ... don't call themselves Iranian but we know they are culturally Iranian.   As you probably know Ossetians in Russia and Georgia also call themselves Iranian/Ironian, you can assume that by Iranian I mean these people, anyway a name can't change anything!   It is really possible to research on different cultures and compare them to each other, some things are preserved in a culture from generation to generation, for example we read in Avesta, the oldest Iranian text, about the original land of Iranians as a cold land in the north, the reason of migration from this land is said to be a sudden climate change, Avesta talks about three successive winters and we read about the same event in the Germanic culture as Fimbulvetr.

Yes, theoretically we should be able to distinguish between culture and nationality, although we have to see what you mean by culture, religion is a very big part of that so, what was in the past can be very different now or in future.

Practically it is impossible not to mix those two because the people you've mentioned here can be (at least) divided into two different groups. Those who already consider themselves as Iranic/Iranian and those who don't. To get the attention of those who don't, you need strong physical evidence and very hard and solid facts, I'm afraid a few ancient scripts won't do. Also, if the aim is to underline a connection/relation between some people in the past, then, you can not just say, it does not matter what the people of this or that country think. Their reaction matters, their opinion matters and so does their nationality.

Iranians are already linguistically described and defined as Indo-European, more and friendlier relations would be necessary. That is enough for me Cyrus and no offense to any nationality or people here, I like Germans where they are now, you know, making cars, not killing Jews, eating kebob in weekends, traveling to Turkey once or twice a year and I personally, don't want them to be kissing me on the cheek any time soon.

By the way, what do you think about Chechen people?

Originally posted by Yekta Yes, theoretically we should be able to distinguish between culture and nationality, although we have to see what you mean by culture, religion is a very big part of that so, what was in the past can be very different now or in future. Practically it is impossible not to mix those two because the people you've mentioned here can be (at least) divided into two different groups. Those who already consider themselves as Iranic/Iranian and those who don't. To get the attention of those who don't, you need strong physical evidence and very hard and solid facts, I'm afraid a few ancient scripts won't do. Also, if the aim is to underline a connection/relation between some people in the past, then, you can not just say, it does not matter what the people of this or that country think. Their reaction matters, their opinion matters and so does their nationality. Iranians are already linguistically described and defined as Indo-European, more and friendlier relations would be necessary. That is enough for me Cyrus and no offense to any nationality or people here, I like Germans where they are now, you know, making cars, not killing Jews, eating kebob in weekends, traveling to Turkey once or twice a year and I personally, don't want them to be kissing me on the cheek any time soon. By the way, what do you think about Chechen people?

It is meaningless to say a cultural relation doesn't exist because some people don't know, I have talked in several threads about a strong cultural relation between Persians and Afro-Shirazi people in the east Africa (Tanzania, Kenya, Comoros Islands, ...), of course most of Iranians know almost nothing about it but does it mean this relation should be denied?!

Originally posted by Yekta Are you referring to Zanzibar?

I hate repeating my self, who am I to deny anything. You know better than me that Iranic/Iranians have defined themselves as such for who knows how long. They have been around and active, ofcourse there has been interactions with a lot of people but does this mean that Iranians and Zanzibar people had the same origin in some original land somewhere else? You might as well add that those Islands were used (by many nations) for slave trade among other things.

Originally posted by Yekta I hate repeating my self, who am I to deny anything. You know better than me that Iranic/Iranians have defined themselves as such for who knows how long. They have been around and active, ofcourse there has been interactions with a lot of people but does this mean that Iranians and Zanzibar people had the same origin in some original land somewhere else? You might as well add that those Islands were used (by many nations) for slave trade among other things.

Originally posted by Cyrus Shahmiri   It is interesting for me that you never aks me about my reasons and evidences, for example if I say Greeks and the Chinese had the same cultural origin then you will probably say that the Greek or Chinise people don't think so!   Of course there have been always some interactions between some people but I talk about a common cultural origin, for example I say the cultural origin of those Armenians who live in Tehran is Armenia, it is clear that after hundreds years there can be some differnces between their language and the language of the people who live in Armenia, but there are many reasons and evidences which show that they have the same culture with the original Armenians.

I don't ask you for evidence because I find you a reasonable person and it's not your evidence I have problem with, its your conclusion that puzzles me. All human beings are, in one sense or another, related. If you're a theist then we are related to Adam and Eve. If you're a evolutionist then we are connected through apes and genes but, none of that helps, we're still having wars and categorized each other in different colors. Not that I share your conclusion but given you are one hundred percent right, how would you like people to react? Will that make them hug us and not make bad movies about us anymore?

Originally posted by Yekta I don't ask you for evidence because I find you a reasonable person and it's not your evidence I have problem with, its your conclusion that puzzles me. All human beings are, in one sense or another, related. If you're a theist then we are related to Adam and Eve. If you're a evolutionist then we are connected through apes and genes but, none of that helps, we're still having wars and categorized each other in different colors. Not that I share your conclusion but given you are one hundred percent right, how would you like people to react? Will that make them hug us and not make bad movies about us anymore?

Edited by Cyrus Shahmiri - 18-Feb-2013 at 03:05