On the "Iranian Race"
Oslonor:
Look at the chart. It is a very strange chart. The Iranian genetic chart cluster with Turks and Lebanon. Assyrians are closer to Kurds and Caspian than the Persians and Iranians.
cocacola:
1) Pashtuns and Hazara are both similar. They are either both caucasoid or both mongoloid. 2) Armenians and North Caucasians(wth are those?? chechens i guess) are both alike. 3) Iranians are all either turanids or turkified slavs.
Oslonor:
I agree. what does Iranian mean? There is no such race. Iranians next to Turkish and Lebanon. Iranian far away from Iraqi, Kurdish and Caspian. This is exactly what I mean. By Iranian they mean Azeri Turks. They do not mean Persians. Strange chart.
Seizure:
They don't mean Azeri turks. They mean all Iranians. It's supposed to be based in genetics. It's by no means saying Iranians are homogenous. That's your wrong assumption.
Oslonor:
All Iranians does not mean anything. It is like saying all Americans, white and black genetically cluster with Mexico. Actually they separate Iranian from Kurds and Iraqis and Caspian. They should cluster together genetically if they mean Persian by Iranian.
Seizure:
It means what it means. It's an average. Iran clusters with Europe. That means that the intra-group differences in Iran are smaller than the differences between itself and Europe. Iran is not comparable to America, which has much greater genetic difference.
Oslonor:
Iranian means an average of what? What is an average of chinese and indian? This is not science. It is some kind of forgery. If that what they mean then why they have separated Kurds, Caspians from Iranians? Caspians are northern Iranians or a related Persian people. Genetically Iran is more diverse than US if you consider the original population of US in 1800.
Seizure:
You're making arbitrary divisions based on culture. Testing a respresentative sample of people in Iran gives you some information. It's simple logic: if a representative genetic sample of the country of Iran shows them to be as a whole genetically close to Europeans, 20-30% of that sample (Azeris) would have to be fairly close too.
Seizure:
He's right. Anatolian Turks for example are essentially that--originally I-E-speakers/Aryans who adopted an altaic language. Do you really think if Azeris, whose blood makes up a huge portion of Iran, were not fairly close to their neighbor's genetically, that Iran would place genetically in the middle of Europe? You can't have it both ways.Aryan is nothing but a linguistic term when used in a general context, much like Semitic, Turkish, etc.Linguistics change like clothing. I-E peoples don't necesserily have a common I-E ancestor.
Oslonor:
On Azeri blood: You are right if Iran looked like New York and there was a real Iranian race. But there is no Iranian race and ethnic groups live in separate provinces. Persians one province, Azeris another province. Persians cluster with Danish and British. Azeris cluster with Anatolian Turks.
Seizure:
What I'm trying to say is... If Iran places as a whole genetically close to Europeans... Your statement of non-Persian Iranians being very different from Persians doesn't make too much sense if all of Iran places with Europeans, especially if Persians are a minority.
ThisisAllIdo:
I guess we are going in circles. There are genetic reports that show that Turks of Turkey are very similar in genetics to Turks of 2000 years ago. The thing is, I don't believe a minority can impose their culture and language to other people. That only did happen in colonial times, not in the old world. For example, old Bulgars were a Turkic race, however since they were small in numbers they were assimilated in Slavic populations. Today Bulgars are Slavs speaking a Slavic language. The only relation they have with the old Bulgars is the name, nothing more. By the same token, Wales, so close to England still has its cultural identity. Greeks, Assyrians, etc. they still preserve their identity. It is not as easy to assimilate peole as you made it out to be. If it was there wouldn't be 20+ countries on the lands that were once Ottoman Empire. It would be crazy to deny some admixture (and of course that works both ways), however Turks became the majority in Anatolia by immigration as early as 11th century and that is why Turkey exists today.
Oslonor:
I agree with you. I confirm it with Persia. Why the same process as it claimed did not work in Persia. The seljuk turks ruled Persia too. Why they did not substitute the Turkish language for the Iranian people. The only ones who speak Turkish Azeris are the real Turkish Azeris in Iran. Same people are trying to prove Persians are not the original Aryans but they just learned and indo-european language from the Aryan elite which was few and disappeared later. Same people who have done those genetic studies on Turkey have produced this chart. Turkey is next to Iran according to the neighbor principle. Turkey is supposed to be next to greece if they believe what they say
Seizure:
Simply because it didn't happen in one population doesn't mean it's impossible. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Sicily and all of Italy outside of Rome, Iberia, France, Wales, Ireland, and Scotland had their tongues replaced with long-time occupiers with limited invader DNA being infused into the native population. Especially in the case of France and Iberia. This situation isn't improbable. Tongue can change easy. I almost forgot the Phoenicians. There's no doubt they didn't start out speaking a Semitic language, but they eventually did switch to one, and then Phoenicia was Arabicised. Most Basques speak (Castilian) Spanish and they're known for being the most genetically isolated, least mixed group in Europe.
Oslonor:
The explanation might sound to you strange and difficult to understand. But the way Europe was run at the time was very primitive and they used force on people. Ottoman Empire and the Persian empire was far more advanced in its organization and was more democratic. You can even see that today. The afghan tribal society was far more democratic than the system imposed by Taliban with the support of ISI of Pakistan on Afghanistan.
Mike Jedi:
Persians and Azeris are of the same basic racial stock (Irano-Afghan). Persians just happen to speak an Indo-European language and Azeris speak an Altaic one. Other than that, they're two peas in a pod. It's not like a bunch of Turkic-speaking Central Asians came in and wiped out the native population of present day Azerbaijan. I've failed to see you supply any evidence that Azeris and Persians are of a different phenotype. You just keep saying that's the way it is. The burden of proof rests on you, because you are the only one who believes this nonsense.
Oslonor:
I read your response. It looks like that you are an honest guy and try to be scientific. That is very good. I just want to explain that there is no Irano-Afghan race. Just putting together people from different racial backgrounds into a theoretical model does not create a new race. The components of this race are very different people. It is similar to create a race of Afro-whites. That is african and whites in US create Afro-whites in a new theoretical race. Here is an exchange between an Iranian Azeri and an Anatolian Turk on the subject of race.
Iranian Azeri
Remember Turkic peoples are non-turks who speak or adopted Turkish language and are not ethnically Turks.
Turk from Turkey:
You drive me crazy with such nonsens!!
Böyle piçleri hala ne konusturuyon burda seko??!!
Let me say something to you, you will never ever gonna be an ayran or aryan because "AZERI's ARENT ARYANS"
Look at the chart. It is a very strange chart. The Iranian genetic chart cluster with Turks and Lebanon. Assyrians are closer to Kurds and Caspian than the Persians and Iranians.
cocacola:
1) Pashtuns and Hazara are both similar. They are either both caucasoid or both mongoloid. 2) Armenians and North Caucasians(wth are those?? chechens i guess) are both alike. 3) Iranians are all either turanids or turkified slavs.
Oslonor:
I agree. what does Iranian mean? There is no such race. Iranians next to Turkish and Lebanon. Iranian far away from Iraqi, Kurdish and Caspian. This is exactly what I mean. By Iranian they mean Azeri Turks. They do not mean Persians. Strange chart.
Seizure:
They don't mean Azeri turks. They mean all Iranians. It's supposed to be based in genetics. It's by no means saying Iranians are homogenous. That's your wrong assumption.
Oslonor:
All Iranians does not mean anything. It is like saying all Americans, white and black genetically cluster with Mexico. Actually they separate Iranian from Kurds and Iraqis and Caspian. They should cluster together genetically if they mean Persian by Iranian.
Seizure:
It means what it means. It's an average. Iran clusters with Europe. That means that the intra-group differences in Iran are smaller than the differences between itself and Europe. Iran is not comparable to America, which has much greater genetic difference.
Oslonor:
Iranian means an average of what? What is an average of chinese and indian? This is not science. It is some kind of forgery. If that what they mean then why they have separated Kurds, Caspians from Iranians? Caspians are northern Iranians or a related Persian people. Genetically Iran is more diverse than US if you consider the original population of US in 1800.
Seizure:
You're making arbitrary divisions based on culture. Testing a respresentative sample of people in Iran gives you some information. It's simple logic: if a representative genetic sample of the country of Iran shows them to be as a whole genetically close to Europeans, 20-30% of that sample (Azeris) would have to be fairly close too.
Seizure:
He's right. Anatolian Turks for example are essentially that--originally I-E-speakers/Aryans who adopted an altaic language. Do you really think if Azeris, whose blood makes up a huge portion of Iran, were not fairly close to their neighbor's genetically, that Iran would place genetically in the middle of Europe? You can't have it both ways.Aryan is nothing but a linguistic term when used in a general context, much like Semitic, Turkish, etc.Linguistics change like clothing. I-E peoples don't necesserily have a common I-E ancestor.
Oslonor:
On Azeri blood: You are right if Iran looked like New York and there was a real Iranian race. But there is no Iranian race and ethnic groups live in separate provinces. Persians one province, Azeris another province. Persians cluster with Danish and British. Azeris cluster with Anatolian Turks.
Seizure:
What I'm trying to say is... If Iran places as a whole genetically close to Europeans... Your statement of non-Persian Iranians being very different from Persians doesn't make too much sense if all of Iran places with Europeans, especially if Persians are a minority.
ThisisAllIdo:
I guess we are going in circles. There are genetic reports that show that Turks of Turkey are very similar in genetics to Turks of 2000 years ago. The thing is, I don't believe a minority can impose their culture and language to other people. That only did happen in colonial times, not in the old world. For example, old Bulgars were a Turkic race, however since they were small in numbers they were assimilated in Slavic populations. Today Bulgars are Slavs speaking a Slavic language. The only relation they have with the old Bulgars is the name, nothing more. By the same token, Wales, so close to England still has its cultural identity. Greeks, Assyrians, etc. they still preserve their identity. It is not as easy to assimilate peole as you made it out to be. If it was there wouldn't be 20+ countries on the lands that were once Ottoman Empire. It would be crazy to deny some admixture (and of course that works both ways), however Turks became the majority in Anatolia by immigration as early as 11th century and that is why Turkey exists today.
Oslonor:
I agree with you. I confirm it with Persia. Why the same process as it claimed did not work in Persia. The seljuk turks ruled Persia too. Why they did not substitute the Turkish language for the Iranian people. The only ones who speak Turkish Azeris are the real Turkish Azeris in Iran. Same people are trying to prove Persians are not the original Aryans but they just learned and indo-european language from the Aryan elite which was few and disappeared later. Same people who have done those genetic studies on Turkey have produced this chart. Turkey is next to Iran according to the neighbor principle. Turkey is supposed to be next to greece if they believe what they say
Seizure:
Simply because it didn't happen in one population doesn't mean it's impossible. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Sicily and all of Italy outside of Rome, Iberia, France, Wales, Ireland, and Scotland had their tongues replaced with long-time occupiers with limited invader DNA being infused into the native population. Especially in the case of France and Iberia. This situation isn't improbable. Tongue can change easy. I almost forgot the Phoenicians. There's no doubt they didn't start out speaking a Semitic language, but they eventually did switch to one, and then Phoenicia was Arabicised. Most Basques speak (Castilian) Spanish and they're known for being the most genetically isolated, least mixed group in Europe.
Oslonor:
The explanation might sound to you strange and difficult to understand. But the way Europe was run at the time was very primitive and they used force on people. Ottoman Empire and the Persian empire was far more advanced in its organization and was more democratic. You can even see that today. The afghan tribal society was far more democratic than the system imposed by Taliban with the support of ISI of Pakistan on Afghanistan.
Mike Jedi:
Persians and Azeris are of the same basic racial stock (Irano-Afghan). Persians just happen to speak an Indo-European language and Azeris speak an Altaic one. Other than that, they're two peas in a pod. It's not like a bunch of Turkic-speaking Central Asians came in and wiped out the native population of present day Azerbaijan. I've failed to see you supply any evidence that Azeris and Persians are of a different phenotype. You just keep saying that's the way it is. The burden of proof rests on you, because you are the only one who believes this nonsense.
Oslonor:
I read your response. It looks like that you are an honest guy and try to be scientific. That is very good. I just want to explain that there is no Irano-Afghan race. Just putting together people from different racial backgrounds into a theoretical model does not create a new race. The components of this race are very different people. It is similar to create a race of Afro-whites. That is african and whites in US create Afro-whites in a new theoretical race. Here is an exchange between an Iranian Azeri and an Anatolian Turk on the subject of race.
Iranian Azeri
Remember Turkic peoples are non-turks who speak or adopted Turkish language and are not ethnically Turks.
Turk from Turkey:
You drive me crazy with such nonsens!!
Böyle piçleri hala ne konusturuyon burda seko??!!
Let me say something to you, you will never ever gonna be an ayran or aryan because "AZERI's ARENT ARYANS"
posted by Anonymous @ 7:50 AM
2 comments
