Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedWhy not Pan-Turkism?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Feramez View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 16-Jan-2005
Location: Uzbekistan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 521
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Why not Pan-Turkism?
    Posted: 26-Apr-2006 at 22:14
Why isn't discussion about Pan-Turkism allowed in the steppe?  Everytime I see someone make a post about it it's always closed.  So don't close this topic, I just want to know why it's not allowed.
For Turks, the homeland isn't Turkey, nor yet Turkistan. Their country is a vast, eternal land: Turan!
-Ziya Gokalp-
TRK DNYASI Forum, join today.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Apr-2006 at 04:30
Why not Pan-Kurdism? Pan-Iranism, Pan-anything?  Because they all turn ugly.
Back to Top
Suren View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Chieftain

Joined: 10-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1673
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Apr-2006 at 04:51
becuase we already know what  it  leads to. every body is turk. actually all pans are crap.
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Apr-2006 at 09:36

I'll share a few reasons as to why I have been closing nationalistic threads.

The Steppe forum covers historical empires, cultures and peoples. It is not a format to spread pan nationalism of any sort. When a political discussion thread is created regarding the unification of specific ethnicities based on common language or culture then it may may opened in the current events/international relations forum. Though I advise against it since such pipe dreams turn into an ethnic battleground on AE. Political and economical unifications are viable in todays multicultural structure and alliances. Ethnic ultranationalism isn't.



Edited by Seko
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Apr-2006 at 09:40
well said.
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Apr-2006 at 13:53
Originally posted by Seko

I'll share a few reasons as to why I have been closing nationalistic threads.

The Steppe forum covers historical empires, cultures and peoples. It is not a format to spread pan nationalism of any sort. When a political discussion thread is created regarding the unification of specific ethnicities based on common language or culture then it may may opened in the current events/international relations forum. Though I advise against it since such pipe dreams turn into an ethnic battleground on AE. Political and economical unifications are viable in todays multicultural structure and alliances. Ethnic ultranationalism isn't.

my thoughts as well.

Back to Top
Mortaza View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jul-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3711
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Apr-2006 at 14:10

Well that topic is boring, Some want turan and another dont want. That is all.

what can you discuss?

Back to Top
Altay View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-May-2006 at 04:14

 First of all if you say 'if you aren't agree with me your idea is ugly' this forum can't be a free discussion forum and you can't learn the truth.

 Today's world is capitalist and governed by big companies. First of all pan Turkist are against these. They don't want to be be puppets of big companies.  They want to be powerful and free.

 Second : They want to unite (economicly or geographicly) with the other Turkic populations. They don't want to invade any other country or want any colonies.

 Pan Turkism isn't like the other nationalist movements. They want what is theirs. Not anyting much or less.

 What's bad ? Why a man(especially a Turk) doesn't want turan? I don't understand.

Back to Top
azimuth View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
SlaYer'S SlaYer

Joined: 12-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2979
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-May-2006 at 04:18

first of all the stepp forum is about history, pan tukism or turan will not fit there , such topics are to be in the intellectual discussion forums.

 

Back to Top
Altay View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-May-2006 at 04:27

 I don't agree with you .Panturkism or Turan is very related to history. It is what our history teached us. We can't stand against it.

 And It isn't related racism or fascism. I think It is like turning back and find the truth.

Back to Top
azimuth View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
SlaYer'S SlaYer

Joined: 12-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2979
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-May-2006 at 04:31

then it depends on what you are talking about,

if you are talking about possible future union between turkish countries then this belong to intellectual discussion forum

if you are talking about past union between turkish countries or an attempt to forum a union in the past then it belong to Stepps forum.

hope that is clear enough for you.

 

Back to Top
Altaylardan View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-May-2006 at 04:43

 Then can't we discuss what the history tell us about the future? Don't you think future and history are two related topics?

 (I changed my nickname, I think there is a member named Altay)

Back to Top
azimuth View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
SlaYer'S SlaYer

Joined: 12-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2979
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-May-2006 at 04:53

as long as the MAIN stream of the topic is about history then it fits in the stepp section

if its about future plans and future achievements and a littel about history then it belong to the intellectual discussion

by the way intellectual discussion is just below its not in another link.

i dont see whats the big deal here really.

 

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-May-2006 at 08:56

Originally posted by Feramez

Why isn't discussion about Pan-Turkism allowed in the steppe?  Everytime I see someone make a post about it it's always closed.  So don't close this topic, I just want to know why it's not allowed.

Feramez I am not really aware about Pan-Turkism.I have a suggestion for you.If you really want to discuss Pan-Turkism request the moderators very politely to have a Greater Turkey section in the Topics by region or time period part of this forum.There is already a

Greater Iran   section so I am sure they won't object.

Back to Top
mamikon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 16-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2200
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-May-2006 at 09:23
The section "Greater Iran" is a geographical  description not a political one.  And people dont post Iranian articles there pan-Iranism there...and Iran has been a place where many ancient Iranian Empires have risen and  fallen. If you have a Greater Turkey section, who have have been in Anatolia  for only 800 years, then you ignore all other nations who have created states there 2000 years before the arrival of the Turks. And lastly...do I sense jealousy? 
Back to Top
Iranian41ife View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 24-Dec-2005
Location: Tajikista
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1832
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-May-2006 at 18:27

greater iran is a geographical term and allows us not only to talk about the near east but central asia as well as other regions. unlike greater turkey (whatever that is LOL) or turkistan, it has not nationalistic pan meaning.

also, i would like to tell feramez and other pan turks here that there are literrally thousands of pan turk websites on the internet. if they want to talk about their crazy ideas they can do it on one of those instead of spreading their bs here.

question for pan turks:

why do you guys use the term turan? turan is an iranic word, isnt that ironic? LOL

"If they attack Iran, of course I will fight. But I will be fighting to defend Iran... my land. I will not be fighting for the government and the nuclear cause." ~ Hamid, veteran of the Iran Iraq War
Back to Top
Behi View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 27-Apr-2005
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2268
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-May-2006 at 19:07

Originally posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Iran

Greater Iran (in Persian: ایران بزرگ pron: Iran-e Bozorg, also ایران‌زم 40;ن pron: Iran-zameen) is a term for the entire region where Iranian languages were once or are today spoken, as well as areas that were part of Persia and/or the Persian Empire. The Encyclopedia Iranica uses the term Iranian Cultural Continent [1], and other names such as Greater Persia or Persian cultural continent have also been used, especially in Afghanistan and Tajikistan.

Traditionally, and until recent times, ethnicity has never been a defining separating criteria in these regions. In the words of Richard Nelson Frye:

"Many times I have emphasized that the present peoples of central Asia, whether Iranian or Turkic speaking, have one culture, one religion, one set of social values and traditions with only language separating them."

Only in modern times did western colonial intervention and ethnicity tend to become a dividing force between the provinces of Greater Iran. But "Greater Iran" was more of a cultural super-state, rather than a political one to begin with.

Obviously, "Greater Iran" has had no fixed boundaries, nor even a fixed definition. While some sources specifically define Greater Iran to include the current republics of Iran, Afghanistan, Republic of Azerbaijan, and Central Asian Republics [2], other sources such as Richard Nelson Frye give a more broader definition and define it to have included "much of the Caucasus, Afghanistan, and Central Asia, with cultural influences extending to China, India, and the semitic speaking world." According to Frye, "Iran means all lands and peoples where Iranian languages were and are spoken, and where in the past, multi-faceted Iranian cultures existed." (p.xi, Gretaer Iran).

In the work Nuzhat al-Qolub (نزهه القلوب, the medieval geographer Hamdollah Mostowfi writes:

چند شهر است اندر ایران مرتفع تر از همه
Some cities of Iran are better than the rest,
بهتر و سازنده تر از خوشی آب و هوا
these have pleasant and compromising weather,
گنجه پر گنج در اران صفاهان در عراق
The wealthy Ganjeh of Arran, and Isfahan as well,
در خراسان مرو و طوس در روم باشد اقسرا
Merv and Tus in Khorasan, and Konya (Aqsara) too.

Provinces of Greater Iran (Persia)

Central Asia

"Khwarazm is one of the regions of Iran-zameen, and is the home of the ancient Iranians, Airyanem Vaejah, according to the ancient book of the Avesta." (Homayoun, p.111)


Tajikistan

The national anthem in Tajikistan, "Surudi Milli", attests to the Perso-Tajik identity, which has seen a large revival, after the breakup of the USSR. Their language is almost identical to that spoken in Afghanistan and Iran, and their cities have Persian names, e.g. Dushanbe, Isfara (Esfarayen), and Kolyab ([4]).

Some experts even argue that Tajiks are culturally closer to the Persian original root, as the Iranians to the west have mingled and mixed with the Arabs over the years.


Afghanistan

Afghans take pride in being close descendants of the Aryans, or to be more precise: Ariana - the Greek pronunciation of the ancient Avestan Airyanem Vaejah or the Sanskrit "Aryavarta", Land of the Aryans. Today this Old-Persian, and Avestan expression is preserved in the name of the Afghan national airline, Ariana Airlines. The term 'Ariana Afghanistan' is still popular amongst many people in the country.

Afghanistan was part of Greater Khorasan, and hence was recognized with the name Khorasan (along with regions centered around Merv and Neishabur), which in Pahlavi means "The Eastern Land" (خاور زمین in Persian). (Dehkhoda dictionary, p8457)

Afghanistan is where Balkh is located, home of Rumi, Khajeh Abdollah Ansari, and where many other notables in Persian literature came from. The Dari language of Afghanistan, is a closely related dialect of the Persian language. It is widely spoken in Afghanistan.

At the latest, Nasereddin Shah lost control of Herat to the British in 1857.

ززابل به کابل رسید آن زمان
From Zabul he arrived to Kabul
گرازان و خندان و دل شادمان
Strutting, happy, and mirthful
---Ferdowsi in Shahnama


Turkmenistan

Home of the Parthian Empire (Nysa). Merv is also where the half-Persian caliph al-Mamun moved his capital to, inorder to move the center of the caliphate away from Arab speaking lands. The city of Eshgh Abad is yet another Persian word meaning "city of love", and like Iran, Afghanistan, and Uzbekistan, it was once part of Airyanem Vaejah.


Uzbekistan

The famous cities of Afrasiab, Bukhara, Samarkand, are located here. Many experts point to these cities as the birthplace of modern Persian language. The Samanids, who claimed inheritance to the Sassanids, had their capital built here.

ای بخارا شاد باش و دیر زی
Oh Bukhara! Joy to you and live long!
شاه زی تو میهمان آید همی
Your King comes to you in ceremony.
---Rudaki


Western China

The Xinjiang regions of China harbored a Persian population and culture. (See p443 of E.I. for Persian settlements in southwestern China) and also see Iran-China relations for more links on the historical ties.


Kurdish regions

The Kurdish regions in Iraq and Turkey are entwined with the culture and history of that of the rest of Greater Iran. The Kurds and Lurs of Iran are spread out through many provinces, and are thought to also be closely descended from the Aryan tribes of antiquity. Ardashir I of Persia was born from a Kurdish mother of the Shabankareh tribe of Fars Province.


Northwest Pakistan

Many remains of Persian architecture still remain in these areas ((e.g.)), and up to 1 million "Eastern Farsi" speakers still exist.[5]

The scholar Muhammad Iqbal of Lahore is considered a heavyweight of contemporary Persian literature.

These regions however are more considered as Persianate lands, rather than directly being associated with Greater Iran.


Parts of the Caucasus region

Sassanid remains can be seen up far north as "Darband", now in southern Russia (the words Daghestan and darband are both Persian). These parts were mostly annexed by Imperial Russia over the course of the 18th and 19th centuries. yet even today, most of these regions continue to retain their Greater Persian identity, as can be seen in their traditions and customs (e.g. Norouz). For a discussion see Encyclopedia Iranica's "Caucasus Iran" article, p.84-96.


Azerbaijan

Separated from Iran in the mid-1800s, by virtue of the Gulistan Treaty and Turkmanchai treaty. The city of Baku (Bād-kubeh) is another city with an originally Persian name. The word Azerbaijan itself is from the Persian "Azar-Padegan" (Atropatan).

Despite the annexation of this area by Imperial Russia, the main part of Azerbaijan remians inside the modern day Iran.

گزیده هر چه در ایران بزرگان
زآذربایگ&a mp;# 1575;ن و ری و گرگان

All the nobles and greats of Iran,
Choose from Azarbaijan, Ray, and Gorgan.
--Vis o Ramin


Armenia

Armenia was a province of Greater Persia since the times of the Achaemenid empire. See p.417-483 of Encyclopedia Iranica for a lengthy discussion on this topic. (see also here). Iran continues to have a sizeable Armenian minority.


Nakhichevan

Early in antiquity, Narseh of Persia is known to have had fortifications built here. In later times, some of Persia's literary and intellectual figures from the Qajar period have hailed from this region. Also separated from Greater-Iran/Persia in the mid-1800s, by virtue of the Gulistan Treaty and Turkmanchai treaty.

که تا جایگه یافتی نخچوان
Oh Nakhchivan, respect youve attained,
بدین شاه شد بخت پیرت جوان
With this King in luck youll remain.
---Nizami


Georgia and Ossetia

Georgia, or "Gorjestan" was a Persian Province during Sassanid times (particularly starting with Hormozd IV). During the Safavid era, Georgia became so culturally intertwined with Iran that they almost repalced the Qezelbash in the Safavid courts. Persian language was even the official administrative language of Georgia in the time of Shah Tahmasb, and Allah-verdi Khan, whom the famous landmark of 33 pol in Isfahan is named after, was among the Georgian elite that were involved in the Safavid government. Georgia was again a direct province of Persia from 1629 until 1762 when the Russian influence arrived.

The aforementioned is especially true of "Eastern Georgia". Eastern Georgia historically was attached to the south for support, as opposed to Western Georgia, which looked for help to the North. The city of "Teflis" (now Tbilisi) was Persianized for quite some time. The Qajarid Abbas Mirza spent much time there.

In the end, Persia was unable to challenge Russia in Georgia, and officially gave up claim to Georgia according to the text of the Gulistan Treaty and Turkmanchai treaty. Today, Georgia continues to be Europeanized.

For a lengthy discussion, see Encyclopedia Iranica's reference on Gorjestan: [6]


Modern-Day Iraq

This is what used to be the western part of Greater Iran. At times, it also included what is today eastern Iraq, as it is where the Sassanid capital was located (Ctesiphon). There are still cities in contemporary Iraq where the Persian names of the city are still retained. e.g. al-Anbar. Even after Iraq was Arabized, the Persian presence was still quite recognizeable and dominant at times, as many of Shia's saints are buried in Najaf and Karbala. At the latest, the Safavids lost control of these areas to the Ottoman Empire



Edited by Land of Aryan
Back to Top
Behi View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 27-Apr-2005
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2268
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-May-2006 at 19:26

Originally posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turan


Turan is the ancient Iranian name for the northern nomads. In modern discourse, it is primarily an ideological term designating Turkic, Mongolic and Finno-Ugric languages and people more or less indiscriminately, implying a common ancestry and common culture of the various ethnicities in question.


Turan in Iranian literature


Avesta

In the hymns of the Avesta, the adjective Tūrya is attached to various enemies of Zoroastrism like Fraŋrasyan (Shahnameh: Afrāsīāb). The word occurs only once in the Gathas, but 20 times in the later parts of the Avesta. Apparently there is no ethnic difference between the Tūrya and the Ārya in the Avesta, both having Iranian names and being related genealogically.

Linguists normally derive the word from the Indo-Iranian root *tūra- "strong, quick". The similarity between the words Tūrya and Trk is considered accidental by most scholars, and it is doubtful whether Tūrya was applied regularly to Turkic people before the late Sassanid period. However, this is contested by the adherents of the controversial Turanian theory.


Shahnameh

In the Middle Persian epic Shahnameh, the term Tūrān ("land of the Tūrya" like Ērān, Īrān = "land of the Ārya") refers to the inhabitants of Central Asia in general, pointing to a time when those areas where inhabited by mostly Iranian nomadic tribes such as Scythians.

According to the foundation myth given in the Shahnameh, King Farēdōn (= Avestan Θraētaona) had three sons, Salm, Tūr and Ēraj, among whom he divided the world: Asia Minor was given to Salm, Central Asia to Tūr and Iran to Ēraj. The older brothers killed the younger brother, but he was revenged by his grand-son, and the Iranians became the rulers of the world. However, the war continued for generations.


Turan in modern literature


Geography

The word Turan was borrowed by the western languages as a the general word for Central Asia. Accordingly, the phrase Turan Plain or Turan Depression is a geographical term referring to a part of Central Asia.


Linguistics

The term Turanian was formerly used by European (especially German, Hungarian and Slovak) ethnologists, linguists and Romantics to designate populations speaking Uralic or Altaic languages (and the languages themselves).

Even though the linguistic usage of the word Turanian is hardly accepted in the scholarly community anymore, it is still rather vivid outside of the academia, especially in the internet. Thus, there is a wide-spread popular theory, which one may call the Turanian theory, that ascribes a common origin to the Turkic, Mongolic, Ugric and Sumerian languages and people, normally including the extinct Scythian, Sarmatian and Median languages as well (which are classed with the Iranian language group). The proponents of the Turanian theory are rather sceptical of the methodology of traditional comparative linguistics, which they describe as "Indo-European-centric".


Ideology

In European discourse, the words Turan and Turanian designate a certain mentality, i.e. the nomadic contrast of the urbanized agricultural civilizations. This usage is probably in accordance with the Zoroastrian concept of the Tūrya, which is not primarily a linguistic or ethnic designation, but rather a name of the infidels that oppose civilization based on the preaching of Zoroaster.

Combined with physical anthropology, the concept of the Turanian mentality has a clear racist potential. Thus, the scholar J.W. Clackson described the Turanid or Turanian race in the following words ("The Iran and Turan", Anthropological Review 6:22 (1868), p. 286):

"The Turanian is the impersonation of material power. he is the merely muscular man at his maximum of collective development. He is not inherently a savage, but he is radically a barbarian. He does not live from hand to mouth, like a beast, but neither has he in full measure the moral and intellectual endowments of the true man. He can labour and he can accumulate, but he cannot think and aspire like a Caucasian. Of the two grand elements of superior human life, he is more deficient in the sentiments than in the faculties. And of the latter, he is better provided with those which conduce to the acquisition of knowledge than the origination of ideas."

Politics

In the declining days of the Ottoman Empire, the word Turanian was adopted by some Turkish nationalists to express a pan-Turkic ideology, also called Turanism. Presently, Turanism forms an important aspect of the ideology of the Turkish Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), whose members are also known as Grey Wolves.

In recent times, the word Turanian is sometimes used to express a pan-Altaic nationalism (theoretically including Manchurians and Mongols in addition to Turks - and potentially Japanese and Koreans), though no political organization seems to have adopted such an ambitious platform.


Fiction

The name "Turan" also appears in the fictional geography of the Conan the Barbarian novels.




Edited by Land of Aryan
Back to Top
DayI View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2408
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-May-2006 at 19:38
So is "greater Iran" same/similar project as Turan? From what i know is Turan union is the unifycation of Turkic people living in Turkic country's, not occupying other country's parts or occupying parts of country's that where "once" of Turks. From what i see of "greater Iran" posted above me by Land of Aryan is, the unify or clearly "reoccupation" of some parts taht "belonged" to the Persians some "ages" ago. 

It has (actually many) similarities with "megali idea" of Greece during WWI, they also wanted some parts back that "belonged to them" but couldnt.

Everyday i learn something new about nationalism.
Back to Top
Iranian41ife View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 24-Dec-2005
Location: Tajikista
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1832
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-May-2006 at 19:41

Originally posted by DayI

So is "greater Iran" same/similar project as Turan? From what i know is Turan union is the unifycation of Turkic people living in Turkic country's, not occupying other country's parts or occupying parts of country's that where "once" of Turks. From what i see of "greater Iran" posted above me by Land of Aryan is, the unify or clearly "reoccupation" of some parts taht "belonged" to the Persians some "ages" ago. 

It has (actually many) similarities with "megali idea" of Greece during WWI, they also wanted some parts back that "belonged to them" but couldnt.

Everyday i learn something new about nationalism.

 LOL you didnt even read the article. the article is about a georgraphical term, it doesnt even mention unification.

and as that article pionts out, many westerners also use that term to represent this geographical area.

so no, greater iran is not like turan.

and why do pan turks use the term turan? thats iranic. why dont you guys use turkistan....

oh the irony.

DayI, is this going to be another one of those discussion where you dont even read what others post and you continue to talk without posting information or sources of any kind?

i think it is, and im ready for it.



Edited by Iranian41ife
"If they attack Iran, of course I will fight. But I will be fighting to defend Iran... my land. I will not be fighting for the government and the nuclear cause." ~ Hamid, veteran of the Iran Iraq War
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.