The political stance of the Iranian Azerbaijani people; Iranian nationalism or Pan-Turkism?

[Shah-Jehan]

Azerbaijan is believed to be named after Atropates, a Persian satrap (governor) who ruled in Atropatene (modern Iranian Azerbaijan). The name Atropates means "protected by fire". An alternative theory is that Azerbaijan is the combination of two Persian words, "Āzar" meaning "(holy) fire" and "pāygān" meaning "the place of".
Ancient residents of the area spoke the Ancient Azari language, which belonged to the Iranian branch of the Indo-European languages. In the 11th century A.D. with Seljukid conquests, Oghuz Turkic tribes started moving across the Iranian plateau into the Caucasus and Anatolia. The influx of the Oghuz and other Turkmen tribes was further accentuated by the Mongol invasion.[61] Here, the Oghuz tribes divided into various smaller groups, some of whom – mostly Sunni – moved to Anatolia (i.e., the Ottomans) and became settled, while others remained in the Caucasus region and later – due to the influence of the Safaviyya – eventually converted to the Shia branch of Islam. The latter were to keep the name "Turkmen" or "Turcoman" for a long time: from the 13th century onwards they gradually Turkified the Iranian-speaking populations of Azerbaijan, thus creating a new identity based on Shia and the use of Oghuz Turkic. Today, this Turkic-speaking population is known as Azerbaijani.

In many references, Azerbaijanis are designated as a Turkic people, due to their Turkic language.[78] However, modern-day Azerbaijanis are believed to be primarily the descendants of the Caucasian Albanian and Iranian peoples who lived in the areas of the Caucasus and northern Iran, respectively, prior to Turkification. Historian Vladimir Minorsky writes that largely Iranian and Caucasian populations became Turkish-speaking:
In the beginning of the 5th/11th century the Ghuzz hordes, first in smaller parties, and then in considerable numbers, under the Seljuqids occupied Azerbaijan. In consequence, the Iranian population of Azerbaijan and the adjacent parts of Transcaucasia became Turkophone while the characteristic features of Ādharbāyjānī Turkish, such as Persian intonations and disregard of the vocalic harmony, reflect the non-Turkish origin of the Turkicised population.
Thus, centuries of Turkic migration and turkification of the region helped to formulate the contemporary Azerbaijani ethnic identity.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azerbaijani_people


There are many Turks who claim that not only Azeris from the republic, but, also Iranian Azeris are more inclined to their supposed "Turkic roots" than they are to Iran. I generally accept that notion for republican Azeribaijanis but, that idea going for the Iranian Azeris are simply delusional considering the current Ayatollah of Iran (the supreme leader) is of Azeri background. Turks(actually Azeri) like Yalquzfaq claim that Iranian Azeris want an independent republic from that of Iran. He says that there are simply no differences between the Azeris and continental Turks.

What is the general idea regarding Iranian Azeris then?

[YeshAtid]

My general impression is that the Azeris living in Azerbajian are only Turkicised linguistically and so are genetically identical to those living in Iran. If the Azeris want complete independence then they're welcome to it, but that doesn''t really seem to the case. Would you say that only pan Turkicists are the only ones pushing for independence?

[Shah-Jehan]

My general impression is that the Azeris living in Azerbajian are only Turkicised linguistically and so are genetically identical to those living in Iran. If the Azeris want complete independence then they're welcome to it, but that doesn''t really seem to the case. Would you say that only pan Turkicists are the only ones pushing for independence?
As I generally know, any sort of idea of independence is totally absent from the mindset of Iranian Azerbaijanis. In fact, they seem to be more nationalistic oriented than even their Persian counterparts and are looked upon more positively than are Sunni Kurds and Baloch. AND yes, Pan-Turkicists seem to be the major people announcing independence for Iranian Azeris, and they almost all reside in Turkey and the republic of Azerbaijan...

[Wild North]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB6evG272Qc

[YeshAtid]

As I generally know, any sort of idea of independence is totally absent from the mindset of Iranian Azerbaijanis. In fact, they seem to be more nationalistic oriented than even their Persian counterparts and are looked upon more positively than are Sunni Kurds and Baloch. AND yes, Pan-Turkicists seem to be the major people announcing independence for Iranian Azeris, and they almost all reside in Turkey and the republic of Azerbaijan...
That does seem to be an universal trend among long established minorities, they will tend to be so in order to assimilate at a faster rate into their host culture. Expanding upon this point it'd be very interesting to see the intermarriage figures for Azeris, because it appears a significant number of prominent ones anyway tend to be mixed,correct me if I'm wrong by all means. The current Ayatollah is only partially Azeri according to some sources, with his mother allegedly being an ethnic Iranian. Moreover, Lofti Zadeh,an Azeri American scientist has a Russian Jewish mother, but still identities as an Azeri, so it may be hard to ascertain whether or not they would still be considered ethnic Azeris . Pan Turkicists are in a state of delusion methinks, and I wouldn't really view them as having any potential in attaining their neo-Ottomanist wishes.

[YeshAtid]

As I generally know, any sort of idea of independence is totally absent from the mindset of Iranian Azerbaijanis. In fact, they seem to be more nationalistic oriented than even their Persian counterparts and are looked upon more positively than are Sunni Kurds and Baloch. AND yes, Pan-Turkicists seem to be the major people announcing independence for Iranian Azeris, and they almost all reside in Turkey and the republic of Azerbaijan...
That does seem to be an universal trend among long established minorities, they will tend to be so in order to assimilate at a faster rate into their host culture. Expanding upon this point it'd be very interesting to see the intermarriage figures for Azeris, because it appears a significant number of prominent ones anyway tend to be mixed,correct me if I'm wrong by all means. The current Ayatollah is only partially Azeri according to some sources, with his mother allegedly being an ethnic Iranian. Moreover, Lofti Zadeh,an Azeri American scientist has a Russian Jewish mother, but still identities as an Azeri, so it may be hard to ascertain whether or not they would still be considered ethnic Azeris . Pan Turkicists are in a state of delusion methinks, and I wouldn't really view them as having any potential in attaining their neo-Ottomanist wishes. Iranian Jews, Christians and Zoastrians aren't really viewed as being ethnic Iranians, based on several sources I've read, but this doesn't seem to be the case with Azeris, why is this do you think??

[Hayalet]

Pan-Turkism means the unification of different Turkic groups. If there is an Azerbaijani separatism in Iran, it would be for unification with Azerbaijan, where the same ethnic group as them live. Stop overusing "pan-Turkism" please.

[Shah-Jehan]

Pan-Turkism means the unification of different Turkic groups. If there is an Azerbaijani separatism in Iran, it would be for unification with Azerbaijan, where the same ethnic group as them live. Stop overusing "pan-Turkism" please.

Yes, except people like Yalquzfaq say that all Azeris are infact Turks, so, in a way espousing a form of turkism

[Hayalet]

Yes, except people like Yalquzfaq say that all Azeris are infact Turks, so, in a way espousing a form of turkism
Of course all "Azeris" are Turks, but they are not really "Azeri"s. "Azeri", as an ethnonym, is a 20th century invention for the Oghuz Turks of Azerbaijan. It is better to say Azerbaijanis. They are somewhat analogous to the modern "Macedonian"s, who are actually Slavs of Macedonia.

[Shah-Jehan]

Of course all "Azeris" are Turks, but they are not really "Azeri"s. "Azeri", as an ethnonym, is a 20th century invention for the Oghuz Turks of Azerbaijan. It is better to say Azerbaijanis. They are somewhat analogous to the modern "Macedonian"s, who are actually Slavs of Macedonia.

well, much of their ethnogenesis occurred when local Iranic(Azari) people along with Caucasian Albanians were Turkified. They are different from Anatolian Turks as they are not Anatolian genetically or culturally, plus Shia Islam serves as a barrier, besides, those in Iran are not separatists at all...


anyway...
http://iranpoliticsclub.net/political-orgs/images/United%20Iranian%20Party%20UIP.jpg

[Hayalet]

well, much of their ethnogenesis occurred when local Iranic(Azari) people along with Caucasian Albanians were Turkified.
If Azerbaijanis were Turkified, then Persians were Iranified in the previous millenium.


They are different from Anatolian Turks as they are not Anatolian genetically or culturally, plus Shia Islam serves as a barrier, besides, those in Iran are not separatists at all...
Do you have comprehension problems? If there is any Azerbaijani separatism in Iran, it will imply unification with the Republic of Azerbaijan, not with Turkey.

[Shah-Jehan]

If Azerbaijanis were Turkified, then Persians were Iranified in the previous millenium.
Except that Persians have lived in those regions since the time of the Achaemenids, Turkic people were newcomers, and by your logic majority of Azeris are a non-native population but, this isn't the case as they are almost identical to their neighbours genetically...


Do you have comprehension problems? If there is any Azerbaijani separatism in Iran, it will imply unification with the Republic of Azerbaijan, not with Turkey.
You said they were Turks, so...

[Hayalet]

Except that Persians have lived in those regions since the time of the Achaemenids, Turkic people were newcomers, and by your logic majority of Azeris are a non-native population but, this isn't the case as they are almost identical to their neighbours genetically...
Iranians didn't originate in Iran. If Azerbaijanis were Turkified, Persians were Iranified. What is rocket science?


You said they were Turks, so...
That doesn't mean they are the same as the Turks of Turkey. Both Turks of Turkey and Turks of Azerbaijan (aka Azerbaijanis) are subgroups of Oghuz Turks, who in turn are a subgroup of Turks in general:

http://turkic-languages.scienceontheweb.net/turkic_languages_dendrogram_6.gif

[Shah-Jehan]

Iranians didn't originate in Iran. If Azerbaijanis were Turkified, Persians were Iranified. What is rocket science?
Iranians didn't originate in Iran? Both persians and Azerbaijanis are native to the country, things like IE expansion are controversial and there isn't really an exact location for their uremheit...


That doesn't mean they are the same as the Turks of Turkey. Both Turks of Turkey and Turks of Azerbaijan (aka Azerbaijanis) are subgroups of Oghuz Turks, who in turn are a subgroup of Turks in general:

http://turkic-languages.scienceontheweb.net/turkic_languages_dendrogram_6.gif
that's what I wanted to hear. Yes, they are Turkic linguistically but, Yalquzfaq and others says there isn't much difference between Turks of Anatolia and Azerbaijanis...

[Hayalet]

Iranians didn't originate in Iran?
No.


things like IE expansion are controversial and there isn't really an exact location for their uremheit...
Iran isn't among the options for the possible locations.

[Shah-Jehan]

Iran isn't among the options for the possible locations.

Central Asia is, which was populated by mostly Iranic peoples before Turkic expansion...

[Hayalet]

Central Asia is
No, it isn't.


which was populated by mostly Iranic peoples before Turkic expansion...
Central Asia is where Turks had expanded from in the first place.

[Shah-Jehan]

No, it isn't.
Yes, most scholars say that IE homeland is in the Eurasian steppes, that is Southern Russia and Central Asia, it's atleast where they say IE went to India from...


Central Asia is where Turks had expanded from in the first place.
Yes, that is why a lot of Central Asians are more heavily Mongoloid the more north you go, while more Southern peoples, such as in the Turkmens who are 85% Caucasoid which have less Turkic genetic influence...Their migration to Anatolia and the Iranian plateau further dilated those genes...

[Yalquzaq]

Troll thread by a 15 years old child. Besides, who told you that Iranocentrist personal opinions and theories are actual facts? For one, they are arguing against a factual reality, secondly there alot of arguments to support this factual reality, so in short your first post makes no sense whatsoever. Besides, they are filled with alot of mistakes. To begin with, Azerbaijani Turkish has vowel harmony unlike what your quote claims. This is one of the key features of Azerbaijani Turkish as a Turkic language. Characteristics of Azerbaijani is also the closest to the language of Dede Korkut book which was written down in 14th century. So tell me, what is the credibility of these quotes?

[Shah-Jehan]

Troll thread by a 15 years old child. Besides, who told you that Iranocentrist personal opinions and theories are actual facts? For one, they are arguing against a factual reality, secondly there alot of arguments to support this factual reality, so in short your first post makes no sense whatsoever. Besides, they are filled with alot of mistakes. To begin with, Azerbaijani Turkish has vowel harmony unlike what your quote claims. This is one of the key features of Azerbaijani Turkish as a Turkic language. Characteristics of Azerbaijani is also the closest to the language of Dede Korkut book which was written down in 14th century. So tell me, what is the credibility of these quotes?
I am not Irano-centrist at all, Turkic people in the middle-east are descendants of the pre-Turkic people, alteast the majority of them...besides, this is about the political stance regarding the Azerbaijani mindset...

[Yalquzaq]

I will repeat what Hayalet said, do you have comprhension problems? Read what I wrote. You post personal opinions of some Iranicentrist views and except people to comment on it? I pointed one of the inaccurate claim in your quote, for starters. Besides, your quote also has nothing to do with mindset or anything. And the fact stands that your 15 years old, basically you are talking about things above your age.

[Petros Houhoulis]

Troll thread by a 15 years old child. Besides, who told you that Iranocentrist personal opinions and theories are actual facts? For one, they are arguing against a factual reality, secondly there alot of arguments to support this factual reality, so in short your first post makes no sense whatsoever. Besides, they are filled with alot of mistakes. To begin with, Azerbaijani Turkish has vowel harmony unlike what your quote claims. This is one of the key features of Azerbaijani Turkish as a Turkic language. Characteristics of Azerbaijani is also the closest to the language of Dede Korkut book which was written down in 14th century. So tell me, what is the credibility of these quotes?

Beyond the arguments between 15 years old kids who write whatever they dream as "facts", the reality is one:

The revolutionary movement of Iranian Azeris who want to secede from Iran and join Azerbaijan is as much visible as the revolutionary movement of Azerbaijani Azeris who want to join Iran...

...Which in both cases is ZERO, NADA, ZILTCH, NOTHING!!!

As I have also said in another thread, I've heard of Kurdish rebellions in Iran, but no Azeri rebellions whatsoever, and the Azeris of Persia are much more numerous than the Kurds of Persia.

The rest is bullshit...

[Proto-Shaman]

Iran isn't among the options for the possible locations.
But Paleolithic Africa, 50.000 years ago.

[Proto-Shaman]

I am not Irano-centrist at all, Turkic people in the middle-east are descendants of the pre-Turkic people, alteast the majority of them...besides, this is about the political stance regarding the Azerbaijani mindset...
Would't you admit that the ethnographic history of the Azeris is characterized by an multiethnic origin? However, it is also quite clear that the Medes, another ancient Iranian people, played an important role in the formation of the Azeri people. Azerbaijani scholars confirm this as well, though they also try to indicate to a partial ancient Turkic substrate in Medes, in regard to various warlike nomadic peoples such as the Lullubis, Turukkaeans, Subartu (Subars), Aratta etc..

[Shah-Jehan]

But Paleolithic Africa, 50.000 years ago.

Yes, IE languages and their distinct groups are too different to have split in the time period what Eurocentrists claim...

[Shah-Jehan]

Would't you admit that the ethnographic history of the Azeris is characterized by an multiethnic origin? However, it is also quite clear that the Medes, another ancient Iranian people, played an important role in the formation of the Azeri people. Azerbaijani scholars confirm this as well, though they also try to indicate to a partial ancient Turkic substrate in Medes, in regard to various warlike nomadic peoples such as the Lullubis, Turukkaeans, Subartu (Subars), Aratta etc..
Yes, I accept that Azerbaijanis are all Turkified peoples of the regions they are living in, with the ones in Iran being predominantly of Iranic origins with Turkmen minority and the ones in the republic especially more north to be of Caucasian Albanian as well as Iranic with Turkmen elite.

[Proto-Shaman]

Yes, IE languages and their distinct groups are too different to have split in the time period what Eurocentrists claim...
Well, eurocentric claims are totally disproved by genetics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7zqx0YUVBo

It is a fact that all Iranian tribes are genetically related to the people who lived in south-west of Iran since 10.000 years. Effect of Arabian invasion? Not at all :) The Arabian invasion has effected south-west of Iran and Bushehr, but in very very few amounts. So the Paleolithic Continuity Paradigm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_Continuity_Theory) is clearly confirmed by the genetic data. However, this theory, in contrary, reassigns the Kurgan culture (traditionally considered early Indo-European) to a people of predominantly mixed Uralic and Turkic stock.

[Yalquzaq]

Would't you admit that the ethnographic history of the Azeris is characterized by an multiethnic origin? However, it is also quite clear that the Medes, another ancient Iranian people, played an important role in the formation of the Azeri people. Azerbaijani scholars confirm this as well, though they also try to indicate to a partial ancient Turkic substrate in Medes, in regard to various warlike nomadic peoples such as the Lullubis, Turukkaeans, Subartu (Subars), Aratta etc..

How is it "quite clear"? Based on what exactly? Scholars say all kind of weird things, but I haven't seen any Azerbaijani scholar claim any non-Turkic origin. They claim Caucasian Albania and Media, but as Turkic. It is no different than claiming Sumerians as Turks.

[Shah-Jehan]

How is it "quite clear"? Based on what exactly? Scholars say all kind of weird things, but I haven't seen any Azerbaijani scholar claim any non-Turkic origin. They claim Caucasian Albania and Media, but as Turkic. It is no different than claiming Sumerians as Turks.

and you find that logical?

[Yalquzaq]

Beyond the arguments between 15 years old kids who write whatever they dream as "facts", the reality is one:

The revolutionary movement of Iranian Azeris who want to secede from Iran and join Azerbaijan is as much visible as the revolutionary movement of Azerbaijani Azeris who want to join Iran...

...Which in both cases is ZERO, NADA, ZILTCH, NOTHING!!!

As I have also said in another thread, I've heard of Kurdish rebellions in Iran, but no Azeri rebellions whatsoever, and the Azeris of Persia are much more numerous than the Kurds of Persia.

The rest is bullshit...

You are such a retard.

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

Especially retarded that you compare Kurds to Azerbaijani Turks, and ask why they don't have a armed rebellion. You don't need to go far to point out the obvious differences in the mentality, culture etc...of the said peoples.

[Yalquzaq]

and you find that logical?

Did I say such a thing? All these things are BS, including the Pan-Iranian BS about Azerbaijani Turks. It is no different than our scholars claiming Caucasian Albans, Meds, Sumerians as Turks.

[Shah-Jehan]

Did I say such a thing? All these things are BS, including the Pan-Iranian BS about Azerbaijani Turks. It is no different than our scholars claiming Caucasian Albans, Meds, Sumerians as Turks.

Ok, so, what exactly do you claim?
That these Azerbaijani "Turks" are all distinct from Iranian peoples such as the Kurds and Persians and other IE peoples such as the Armenians and more similar to Turkmens and Anatolian Turks?
Then how are they exactly native to the region? Turkic peoples showed up in Central Asia in 8th century AD which was also largely Iranian speaking until assimilation by Turkic peoples (further accelerated by Mongol invasion later), however, Turkic peoples there largely outnumbered Iranian speaking populations there which was not the case when some of these Turkic tribes migrated through Khorasan into Azerbaijan and Arran finally into Anatolia but, this was imposition of Turkic languages by a minority Turkic elite to the majority native inhabitants, which was not the case largely in Central Asia.

I believe they are largely a Turkified peoples and therefore native. I am not Irano-centrist claiming everyone is an Iranian descendant people (I never claim Anatolian Turks as such) and I also see peoples such as the Hazara in Afghanistan who although speak an Iranic language as an Iranicised Mongolic people...

[Yalquzaq]

Ok, so, what exactly do you claim?
That these Azerbaijani "Turks" are all distinct from Iranian peoples such as the Kurds and Persians and other IE peoples such as the Armenians and more similar to Turkmens and Anatolian?
Then how are they exactly native to the region? Turkic peoples showed up in Central Asia in 8th century AD which was also largely Iranian speaking until assimilation by Turkic peoples (further accelerated by Mongol invasion later), however, Turkic peoples there largely outnumbered Iranian speaking populations there which was not the case when some of these Turkic tribes migrated through Khorasan into Azerbaijan and Arran finally into Anatolia but, this was imposition of Turkic languages by a minority Turkic elite to the majority native inhabitants, which was not the case largely in Central Asia.

I believe they are largely a Turkified peoples and therefore native. I am not Irano-centrist claiming everyone is an Iranian descendant people (I never claim Anatolian Turks as such) and I also see peoples such as the Hazara in Afghanistan who although speak an Iranic language as an Iranicised Mongolic people...

What is the slightest similarity between Azerbaijani Turks and these peoples? Of course, Azerbaijani Turks are similar to their respective Oghuz relatives.

I never talked about being "native". About the myth, I have explained before:


Azerbaijanis speak an Oghuz tongue, while the Oghuz were never the ruling elite in Azerbaijan either during Seljuq or later the Ilkhanid period (the ruling family of Azerbaijan under Seljuqs was Eldiguzids, of Kypchak origin). And by Ilkhanid period Azerbaijan was already largely made up of Turkic tribes. Moreover, the nomadic tradition of Azerbaijanis that are extensively mentioned by Russian authors sets it apart from the settled non-Turkic populations in the region.


Turkic tribes did outnember the same as in Central Asia, otherwise you cannot explain why adjacent regions does not speak a Turkic tongue. The capitals of Seljuqs were namely in present-day Persian speaking areas of Iran, so the "elite concentration" was in Iran, not Azerbaijan. This is attested by absence of Seljuq era monuments in Azerbaijan, and abundance of them in Ray, Kirman, Isfahan and so on. The Seljuq capitals were in those cities.

Before proceeding with your BSs, care to answer those points. If you cannot, then shut the hell up and stop repeating the same boring myths.

The case of Hazaras is all different, they were a minority among the majority. That actually supports what I say, so you fail if you try to use it as some kind of argument. If the Turkic tribes were a minority, they would have instead been melted into the host region's culture and language, just like in Khorasan, Kirman and other places.

[Shah-Jehan]

What is the slightest similarity between Azerbaijani Turks and these peoples? Of course, Azerbaijani Turks are similar to their respective Oghuz relatives.

I never talked about being "native". About the myth, I have explained before:
Ok, so, if they aren't native populations, then what the hell are they invading lands of others, of course unless their ancestors weren't always there.
Ok then, let's compare the phenotypes of these nations through their football/soccer teams
Azerbaijan national football team
http://football-uniform.up.n.seesaa.net/football-uniform/image/Azerbaijan-10-11-UMBRO-home-kit-blue-white-blue-line-up.JPG?d=a1
Iranian national football team (made up largely of PERSIAN players)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Iran_National_Football_Team.JPG
Turkish national football team
http://www.turkish-football.com/admin/mainnewsimg/milli.jpg
Ayatollah Khamenei (Iranian Azerbaijani)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/Seyyed_ali_khamenei.jpg/399px-Seyyed_ali_khamenei.jpg
President Rouhani (Persian)
http://www.biography.com/imported/images/Biography/Images/Profiles/R/Hassan-Rouhani-21313175-1-402.jpg
Turkmen president
http://blouinnews.com/sites/default/files/styles/640x432/public/images/story/2012_10_20/turkmenistan-president-kurbanguly-berdymukhamedov.jpg


Seriously, they look closer to your "Oghuz brothers" or to Iranians?:lol:
Ok sure, then explain why do the Turkic peoples of central Asia look largely Mongolic or a Mongolid/Caucasoid intermediate in appearance when virtually all Azerbaijanis look Caucasoid?

Turkic tribes did outnember the same as in Central Asia, otherwise you cannot explain why other larger regions does not speak a Turkic tongue. The capitals of Seljuqs were namely in present-day Persian areas of Iran, so the "elite concentration" was in Iran, not Azerbaijan. This is attested by absent of Seljuq era monuments in Azerbaijan, and abundance of them in Ray, Kirman, Isfahan and so on.
Except that, Seljuks had used Khorasan, Azerbaijan and Arran as their prime point in migrating into the Near East and Caucasus and both Azerbaijan (Iran) and Arran (republic of Azerbaijan) are majority Turkic and Khorasan has a significant Turkic minority as well which Southerly regions of Iran do not.

Before proceeding with your BSs, care to answer those points. If you cannot, then shut the hell up and stop repeating the same boring myths.

The case of Hazaras is all different, they were a minority among the majority, thats why it happened. That actually supports what I say, so you fail if you try to use it as some kind of argument.
How does that support what you say? It rather points to my stance because Hazaras being ruled by a Tajik-Farsis elite came to be speaking Dari Farsi which was the lingua franca of Afghanistan.

[Yalquzaq]

You talk as if it happend yesterday, no this was a process a millenium ago. "Invading lands" sounds hence very silly.

Not only a retarded comparision, in what way is there such a close similarity between Azerbaijani Turks and Iranians based on that? And while you talk about the supposed absence of "Mongoloid" features among Azerbaijani Turks, the number 10 in that photo has prominent "Mongoloid" features (http://i.imgur.com/m1BzY6a.jpg), just saying. But you also need to remember that Azerbaijan was settled by Mongolic groups too during Ilkhanid era, Oghuz were simply not "Mongoloid". although they surely would have such a influence but nowhere near Kazakhs or Kyrgyz examples, prominent Western Oghuz weren't as such, from Uzun Hasan to Nadir Shah Afshar to Muhammad Khan Qajar.

Khamenei is not a ethnic Turk, his mother is Persian from Yazd, his father is of Seyid origin.

Who told you that Oghuz were Mongoloid? At least the Western Oghuz. Were Uzun Hasan, or Nadir Shah Afshar Mongoloid?

Have you never seen a portrait of Nadir Shah Afshar, from the Oghuz Afshar tribe? Does he look like "Mongoloid" to you?

http://i.imgur.com/csrMzF4.jpg

Seljuqs was a dynastic family, not a group of people or tribes. That Azerbaijan was the main point of Turkic migrations is what I'm saying too, this was a migration of whole tribes, and the reason for why why Azerbaijan came to be really innhabited by Turkic groups. The absence of tribes in current Persian speaking areas of Iran explains why these areas are not Turkic speaking, because they were not settled by them, there was however a concentration of elite in those areas, but contraty, they melted into Persian culture and language. What is there to not understand?

Hazaras were a majority in Afghanistan? Thats a news to me. It supports what I say, because they were a minority among the majority, and melted over time into the host regions culture and language.

[Shah-Jehan]

I will reply tomorrow, and the Hazara thing was a mistake, I edited it...

[Yalquzaq]

Or you can spare me more BS from a 15 years old kid, if you have nothing intelligent to say, as you never do.

[d3cimat3d]

Azeris are Caucasus mountain folk who got raped by a band of Seljuks from Turkmenistan. From the DNA results Azeri's could be at most 1/3 actual Oguz the rest 2/3 native people of the S-E Caucasus. Anatolian Turks are even less Oguz, something like 1/7 on average, but in the Aegean coast can be as high as 1/3 and in the hilly east as low as 1/12.

That said, pure Oguz weren't pure Türks, they were watered down Türks and we can do the same thing for Central Asia. Turkmens being 1/5 actual Turk, Uzbeks being 1/2, Kyrgyz being 2/3, Tuvans being 100%.

We are talking about blood here, not culture, language and other BS.

[Siberian Cold Breeze]

During the rise of Golden horde there were Karahitays ,Kharzemsahs ,Gazneli Dynasty ,Karahanlı Dynasty ,Selcuk Dynasty in region ,all warring to eachother .Golden Horde came and swept most of dynasties and for example southern Oğuz tribes under Arslan Han submitted to Chinngis, but western Oğuz involved themselves into a traumatic dispute resulted with death of Tokuchar and Mütügen during conquest of Nisabur and Bamyan, invoked Great khans anger .(Tokuchar was Chinggis 's son in law , Mütügen was his grandson)..So western Oğuz tribes didn't become a part of Chinggis empire .After this climax most of them either killed or ranaway from Chinggis .These were the ones formed Iran ,Iraq ,Anatolia and Syria Türkmen population ,never joined Chinggis Empire.

But southeastern Oguz tribes, Karluk ,Yağma Ciğil tribes were Oğuz .They were first ones converted to Islam later allied with Chinggis during II. Arslan Han , formed their own group of dialect. Cagatay Turkish
Karluk group : consist of both Kıpçak and Oğuz tribes,that's why Uzbeks - Uygurs look more mongoloid than western Oğuz .

Karluks changed the fate of Central asia ,first they allied with Arabs against Chinese and stopped Chinese conquest (Talas war 751) ,second ,they allied with Mongols and strenghtened Mongol empire .

[d3cimat3d]

Azeris are Caucasus mountain folk who got raped by a band of Seljuks from Turkmenistan. From the DNA results Azeri's could be at most 1/3 actual Oguz the rest 2/3 native people of the S-E Caucasus. Anatolian Turks are even less Oguz, something like 1/7 on average, but in the Aegean coast can be as high as 1/3 and in the hilly east as low as 1/12.

That said, pure Oguz weren't pure Türks, they were watered down Türks and we can do the same thing for Central Asia. Turkmens being 1/5 actual Turk, Uzbeks being 1/2, Kyrgyz being 2/3, Tuvans being 100%.

We are talking about blood here, not culture, language and other BS.

Sources:

http://i42.tinypic.com/2h4av5h.jpg

http://i43.tinypic.com/ve5biv.jpg


http://i46.tinypic.com/2nsqvbt.png


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-rcdkNaYFICM/Tz1p4IcLlZI/AAAAAAAAEhs/En5H2fWIh68/s1600/ADMIXTURE+Turkish_Aydin_Ho_3.png
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-j0NtK9KR6EM/Tz1ptIUKZqI/AAAAAAAAEhc/_yfGoWABFhs/s1600/ADMIXTURE+Turkish_Istanbul_Ho_3.png
http://i39.tinypic.com/16aqskx.jpg

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/02/first-look-at-turkish-and-kyrgyz-data.html

[Siberian Cold Breeze]

Bogatyr ,I am giving historical info ..if you know something about this era please share ,instead thumbing down my post ..
Most Türkmen tribes migrated after these events esp his beloved grandson Mütügen and son in law Tokuchar was killed Chinggis khan chased them .

[Shah-Jehan]

Bogatyr ,I am giving historical info ..if you know something about this era please share ,instead thumbing down my post ..
Most Türkmen tribes migrated after these events esp his beloved grandson Mütügen and son in law Tokuchar was killed ..because Chinggis khan chased them .

and he's giving scientific genetic information and Turkmens seem to cluster away from Anatolian Turks and Azerbaijanis:rolleyes:

[Siberian Cold Breeze]

These genetic info's are not changing the events in history .
..It had been nearly thousand years ago , everyone knows Turkmen migrations happened after Chinggis Khan became powerful and killing his favorites was not very wise ..thus we had to runaway .

[Shah-Jehan]

These genetic info's are not changing the events in history ..It had been nearly thousand years ago , everyone knows Turkmen migrations happened after Chinggis Khan became powerful and killing his favorites was not very wise ..thus we had to runaway .

ok tell me, the first Turkic people were the Xiongnu in Northern China/Mongolian steppes who were a complete mongoloid people and now look at some Turks.
Tell me how this guy can be an "original Turk" and not an assimiliated Anatolian/balkanite?
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQV1s5SlIh3OsfHlUQ3LUI_E8xlTaeQM OEGaZDYmjzqh5PuKt8d
How can someone be ethnically related to someone like this?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Kyzyl_Shaman.jpg/315px-Kyzyl_Shaman.jpg
He is an ethnic Tuvan...

[Siberian Cold Breeze]

ok tell me, the first Turkic people were the Xiongnu in Northern China/Mongolian steppes who were a complete mongoloid people and now look at some Turks.
Tell me how this guy can be an "original Turk" and not an assimiliated Anatolian/balkanite?
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQV1s5SlIh3OsfHlUQ3LUI_E8xlTaeQM OEGaZDYmjzqh5PuKt8d
How can someone be ethnically related to someone like this?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Kyzyl_Shaman.jpg/315px-Kyzyl_Shaman.jpg


He is an ethnic Tuvan...

Prove me they were complete mongoloid ,most were eurasians with changing percantages ..There is no %100 mongoloid Turk except in your theories.
Even Mongols are not complete Mongloid ..These are just a presumptions ,
You are just derealing my historical info and starting a repeated conversation almost 100 times debated ,I am already fed up talking about nonsense..
go on and talk about Nisabur conquest and migrations of Turkmen tribes after this event .

[d3cimat3d]

Bogatyr ,I am giving historical info ..if you know something about this era please share ,instead thumbing down my post ..
Most Türkmen tribes migrated after these events esp his beloved grandson Mütügen and son in law Tokuchar was killed Chinggis khan chased them .

Don't play victim now, you thumbed my post down first. :rolleyes: Hypocrite.

[Shah-Jehan]

Prove me they were complete mongoloid ,most were eurasians with changing percantages ..There is no %100 mongoloid Turk except in your theories.
Even Mongols are not complete Mongloid ..These are just a presumptions ,
You are just derealing my historical info into a repeated conversation almost 100 times debated ,go on and talk about Nisabur conquest and migrations of Turkmen tribes after this event .
Ok, how about we say predominantly Mongoloid then?
"Turkic people" weren't native to Central Asia, Anatolia and Iran but, people from those territories always seem to show native admixture instead of being "pure Turk" as Yalquzaq is claiming. The Turkmens, Uzbeks etc for e.g. are mixed with Iranic Bactrians, Sogdians and Khwarezmians and this is where they obtain their Caucasoid admixture from. Although, they are predominantly Caucasoid genetically (uzbeks and Turkmens), Mongoloid features are still prominantly visible among the MAJORITY of Central Asian Turkic people while only a MINORITY of Anatolian and Azerbaijani Turkic people have Mongoloid features, why is it that?

Besides, I am sure, Semih Kaya is no Eurasian but, genetically either a European (most likely) or West Asian.

[Siberian Cold Breeze]

Ok, how about we say predominantly Mongoloid then?
"Turkic people" weren't native to Central Asia, Anatolia and Iran but, people from those territories always seem to show native admixture instead of being "pure Turk" as Yalquzaq is claiming. The Turkmens, Uzbeks etc for e.g. are mixed with Iranic Bactrians, Sogdians and Khwarezmians and this is where they obtain their Caucasoid admixture from. Although, they are predominantly Caucasoid, Mongoloid features are still prominantly visible among the MAJORITY of Central Asian Turkic people while only a MINORITY of Anatolian and Azerbaijani Turkic people have Mongoloid features, why is it that?

Besides, I am sure, Semih Kaya is no Eurasian but, genetically either a European (most likely) or West Asian.

:bored:

I am not interested in these and barely care
I asked something about Nisabur conquest and following migrations ..if you have info pls do tell us..I won't make same debate over and over
..check old posts ! thx



Don't play victim now, you thumbed my post down first. Hypocrite.
I don't play victim.I thumb down when I disagre..it is not a kind of revenge ..grow up

[Shah-Jehan]

someone repeat him :bored:
I am not interested in these and barely care..
I asked something about Nisabur conquest and following migrations ..if you have info pls do tell us..I won't make same debate ..check old posts ! thx

Sure, there was a migration to Azerbaijan and Anatolia (not denying that) but, how many people did actually migrate? Besides, these Turkmens who migrated were already mixed with Central Asian Iranic people and intermarriage with West Asians would further dilute their "Turkic genes"

[Siberian Cold Breeze]

Sure, there was a migration to Azerbaijan and Anatolia (not denying that) but, how many people did actually migrate? Besides, these Turkmens who migrated were already mixed with Central Asian Iranic people and intermarriage with West Asians would further dilute their "Turkic genes"

Oh yes ..This must be bad bad Mongols changed all Central Asia " story ..
This is law of nature .these people were like thunderstorm and heavy rain ,they spread everyone on their way and changed them.
It is just a shift of body..who cares they are less or more mongoloid .They didn't care ,nor do I

[Kiyant]

Sure, there was a migration to Azerbaijan and Anatolia (not denying that) but, how many people did actually migrate? Besides, these Turkmens who migrated were already mixed with Central Asian Iranic people and intermarriage with West Asians would further dilute their "Turkic genes"

I think modern Azeris and Turks dont care that they are racially similar to Persians or Greeks......

[Shah-Jehan]

I think modern Azeris and Turks dont care that they are racially similar to Persians or Greeks......

But, Yalquzaq doesn't accept this fact that he's racially more similar to Persians than he is to Turkmens...I wasn't saying you can't be considered "Turkic" but, it is a fact that the majority of Azerbaijanis and Anatolian Turks are descendants of the native populations...

[Kiyant]

Maybe they are racially not like their oghuz Turkic forefathers but they still are Turkics and identify as one and nothing will ever change this fact

[Kiyant]

But, Yalquzaq doesn't accept this fact that he's racially more similar to Persians than he is to Turkmens...I wasn't saying you can't be considered "Turkic" but, it is a fact that the majority of Azerbaijanis and Anatolian Turks are descendants of the native populations...

I wouldnt say descendant but more like mixed so much that the "original" Turkic type went a little bit to a minority (Also we dont know what dna the original Oghuz Turks had)

[d3cimat3d]

I don't play victim.I thumb down when I disagre..it is not a kind of revenge ..grow up

Who says I didn't disagree with yours either? ;) You were rambling about Kara-Kitai and other off-topic stuff not relating to Azers.

You say you disagree, but you can't really disagree with genetics, everything I said is a fact except how the original Turks looked like is my opinion (I think Tuvans, but you Aryanist try to make them more white). Point is, I seen your pictures, you look Asian, congratulations, but the rest of your countrymen don't - Kiyant for example, he looks Georgian.


and he's giving scientific genetic information and Turkmens seem to cluster away from Anatolian Turks and Azerbaijanis:rolleyes:

Yes, it can be frustrating dealing with Trolls like SCB and Kiyant. I try to tell the reality, have nothing against Turks yet they don't like what doesn't fit their fantasies that 100% of Turkish people are descendants of pony riders from central Asia.


A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.

-Einstein

[Kiyant]

Who says I didn't disagree with yours either? ;) You were rambling about Kara-Kitai and other off-topic stuff not relating to Azers.

You say you disagree, but you can't really disagree with genetics, everything I said is a fact except how the original Turks looked like is my guess (I think Tuvans, but you Aryanist try to make them more white). Point is, I seen your pictures, you look Asian, congratulations, but the rest of your countrymen don't - Kiyant for example, he looks Georgian.

I dont look georgian lol

[Yalquzaq]

It is clear how many people migrated according to the old tribal structure of Azerbaijanis, the tribe names indicates their origin. The nomadic and semi-nomadic lifestyle of majority of Azerbaijani Turks well into 19th century is another indication. I don't know if it gives you any clue, but neither Caucasians-Armenians, nor Tat-Persians were not nomadic. Tat itself was a term used by Azerbaijani tribes to denotate the settled people.

[Siberian Cold Breeze]

Who says I didn't disagree with yours either? ;) You were rambling about Kara-Kitai and other off-topic stuff not relating to Azers.

It is very related .Read once more .It is about how Turkmen tribes ended up in Iran and Anatolia.It was the climax ,traumatic event in history .Something new we have never talked before .


You say you disagree, but you can't really disagree with genetics, everything I said is a fact except how the original Turks looked like is my opinion (I think Tuvans, but you Aryanist try to make them more white). Point is, I seen your pictures, you look Asian, congratulations, but the rest of your countrymen don't - Kiyant for example, he looks Georgian
]Yes, it can be frustrating dealing with Trolls like SCB and Kiyant. I try to tell the reality, have nothing against Turks yet they don't like what doesn't fit their fantasies that 100% of Turkish people are descendants of pony riders from central Asia.


Me aryanist ..:1127::bowlol:

..there is no such criteria in real life
Because of you guys, we can talk nothing else than same things over and over ..This annoyed me
No Turks care how they look ..We don't even talk about these ,this is forum talk that's all .

[Yalquzaq]

There is this too. The epic legend of Oghuz Turks.

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

This was written down for the first time in Azerbaijan, in Azerbaijani dialect of Oghuz, not Central Asia. In short, Dede Qorqud is rather a heritage of Western Oghuz (Anatolia and Azerbaijan).

(original text from 15th century):


Ulaş oğlı, Tülü quşun yavrısı, bizə miskin umudı, Amit soyının aslanı, Qaracuğın qaplanı, qonur atın yiyəsi, xan Uruzın ağası, Bayındır xanın göygüsi, Qalın Oğuzın dövləti, qalmış yigit arxası, Salur Qazan yerindən turmuşdı. Toqsan başlu ban evlərin qara yerin üzərinə tikdirmişdi. Toqsan yerdə ala-qalı ipək döşəmişdi. Səksən yerdə badyələr qurulmışdı. Altun ayaq sürahilər düzülmüşdi. Toquz qara gözlü, xub yüzlü, saçı ardına urulu, köksi qızıl dügməli, əlləri biləgindən qınalı, barmaqları nigarlı məhbub kafər qızları Qalın Oğuz bəglərinə sağraq sürüb içərlərdi.

"Qonur atın yiyəsi"

For instance, "Yiyə" is only a word that exists in Azerbaijani dialect of Oghuz, which means "owner". "Qonur atın yiyəsi" namely means : Owner of the brown horse.

You see, this is our heritage. No room for other blablabla.

[Siberian Cold Breeze]

Beautiful dialect .I can't find enough of them .A lot better than reading modern forms .

yiye : becomes iye here :)

[Yalquzaq]

http://tr.wiktionary.org/wiki/iye

"Kendisinin olan bir şeyi, yasaya uygun olarak dilediği gibi kullanabilen kimse, sahip"

You are correct. This exists in dialects I presume? Or in standard language as well?

[Siberian Cold Breeze]

Both ..In standart language for example we use it as in " linguistic term "iyelik eki ": suffix for possessive adjectives
Also lives in literature too.

Aslında ben konur at sözcüğüne takılmıştım.
Bir ara şu at renklerini konuşalım mı.Kula ,demirkır , baklakır ,yağız gibi bir sürü at rengi var ama edebiyatta okudum gerçek hayatta tam olarak ne olduklarını bilmiyorum.
Bir de çoban köpeklerimiz ,büyük olasılıkla aynı köpekler onlar ..

[Yalquzaq]

I can't seem to remember the source, but the user "Pecheneg" had shared a interesting data from Ottomans here. In 16 or 17th century, there were hundreds of thousands of households of nomadic Turkic tribes. Of course, you have to keep in mind that by this time alot of Turks would have been settled in cities too, this is namely after the conquest of Istanbul and so on. Anyway, the number of nomadic Turkic tribes during that time accounted for half of Anatolia, roughly more or less. One has to also keep in mind the Turkic tribes Ottomans settled in Balkans, most of which returned to Anatolia during the population exchange. I think the situation becomes quite clear.

[Yalquzaq]

Both ..In standart language for example we use it as in " linguistic term "iyelik eki ": suffix for possessive adjectives
Also lives in literature too.

Aslında ben konur at sözcüğüne takılmıştım.
Bir ara şu at renklerini konuşalım mı.Kula ,demirkır , baklakır ,yağız gibi bir sürü at rengi var ama edebiyatta okudum gerçek hayatta tam olarak ne olduklarını bilmiyorum.Bir de çoban köpeklerimiz ,büyük olasılıkla aynı köpekler onlar ..

I wrote "it exists only in Azerbaijani dialect" because I had not heard of this term in other Turkic languages, including Anatolian Oghuz. Apparently I was wrong. :rolleyes:

But also from what I see, the more "oturaklı" and correct use of it is apparently made in dialects.

"Konur" genel olarak kahverengi demek (Anadoluda da böyle yanılmıyorsam), atlara spesifik bir reng adı değil. Belki yanlış anlamış olabilirim ama yazdığını, daha da açabilirsin.

[Siberian Cold Breeze]

Sadece at için kullanılan özel renkler var ..Demin dediğim renkler ve bir kaç tanesi daha.Onlar sizin o tarafta da var mı diye merak ettim
diğer renkler aynı zaten al kızıl kara gök yeşil vs
Bizde kentlerde kahverengi, Anadoluda boz ya da yağız diyorlar .Konur varsa da hiç duymadım ama sorarım.

[Yalquzaq]

Bizde "Qonur" bildiğin kahverengli demek.

Örnek, kahverengi doğan: http://az.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qonur_q%C4%B1z%C4%B1lqu%C5%9F

"Qonur göz" tabiride yaygındır.

[Kiyant]

I think Ahiska dialect sounds similar to Azerbaijan Turkish http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AEaX1_3NV8

[Yalquzaq]

İndeed.

"Azərbaycan dilində oxudiyirdim, bizim örgətmənlər bizi Türk dilində oxudanlar yox idi."

Amca birincisi zaten Türk dilinde okumuşsun, ikincisi konuştuğun ana dil Azerbaycan da konuşulan dil aşağı yukarı. :D

[Yalquzaq]

A lot better than reading modern forms .

One more. :D


Xan qızı, yerimdən turayınmı?
Yaqanla boğazından tutayınmı?
Qaba öncəm altına salayınmı?
Qara polat uz qılıcım əlümə alayınmı?
Öz gödəndən başunı kəsəyinmi?
Can tatlusın sana bildirəyinmi?
Alca qanun yer yüzinə tökəyinmi?
Xan qızı, səbəb nədir, degil mana!
Qatı qəzəb edərəm indi sana!


Degil mana - De/Söyle bana

Şu "Gil" eki, Codex Cumanicus da Kuman Türkçesinde de kullanılıyor, Azerbaycan Türkçesine bugün Ginen-Gilen olarak yaşıyor. Yazı dilinde kullanılmasa da, bütün ağızlarda vardır.

Örnek vermek gerekirse: Bax-ginen/gilen, Apar-ginen/gilen, Al-ginen/gilen, Söyle-ginen/gilen, De-ginen/gilen, Yat-ginen/gilen, Qalx-ginen/gilen.

Birde yeri gelmişken, Azerbaycan Türkçesinin konuşma ağızlarında ikinci ve üçüncü şahıs zamirleri farklıdır. Mesela konuşma dilinde "Atavın"dır, "Atanın" deyil, "Özüvün"dür, "Özünün" (kendinin) değil.

Bu ayrı anlamı en iyi şekilde ifade etmek gerekirse: Qardaşıva baxginen vs Onun qardaşına baxginen.

Bunu Kazak Türkçesinde de gördüm, mesela "Ağayın", yani "Ağanın". Azerbaycan Türkçesi ağızlarında "Ağavın" olur. Şu V-Y değişkenliği ise olağan bir şey, mesela Türkiye Türkçesinde "Dövüş" Azerbaycan Türkçesinde "Döyüş"dür, Tavuk "Toyuq"dur, Övünmek "Öyünmek"dir vesayire. Yani sonuç olarak Azerbaycan Türkçesinde bulunan bu farklı zamir Kıpçak ağızlarında aynı şekildedir.

[Shah-Jehan]

.
Since we're going really nowhere with this argument about Azerbaijani Turkicness, let's talk about politics regarding the country now. I'll ask a few questions and please try your best to answer them.

1) What do you think of the Azerbaijanis in Iran? Do you have any intentions for Azerbaijan to annex the region from Iran?
2) Do you see Shi'i Iran as a closer ally or do you see your Sunni Oghuz brothers as your allies? What's your position on Iran supporting Armenia indirectly on the Karabagh issue?
3) Are you Pan-Turkic in your political mindset? Do you wish to unite with other Turkic peoples especially with Anatolian Turks? Are you also racist regarding "Turkicness"?
4) What do you say about the really close relationships between Azerbaijan republic and Israel, more than any other Muslim nation?
5) What do you think about Iranian culture; both pre-Islamic and Islamic?

[Yalquzaq]

1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_Azerbaijan
2: I don't care about religion, nevermind the Shia-Sunni split. Most don't in Azerbaijan.
3: Pan-Turkism is an integral part of Azerbaijani identity (even marked on Azerbaijani flag). No, I don't have any "superiority-inferiority" complex.
4: Enemy of my enemy is my friend.
5: I respect Iranian culture, like any other culture.

[Shah-Jehan]

1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_Azerbaijan
Well, most Azerbaijnis in Iran happen to be quite nationalistic (Iranian) and more religious compared to their Persian counterparts, I doubt they would like to become part of an atheistically inclined state like the republic of Azerbaijan. Don't you think this is quite an obstacle considering majority of Azerbaijanis live in Iran and not in the republic?

2: I don't care about religion, nevermind the Shia-Sunni split. Most don't in Azerbaijan.
So, you're atheist. But, do you regard the Safavids and other Muslim dynasties (whatever ethnically) that ruled Azerbaijan as an integral part of your history?

3: Pan-Turkism is an integral part of Azerbaijani identity (even marked on Azerbaijani flag). No, I don't have any "superiority-inferiority" complex.
What do you think of Pan-Iranism? Do you think this is an integral part of Iranian identity?
AND why does the emblem of Azerbaijan show Zoroastrian flames coinciding with the ancient Iranian name of the region Azaripayegan (Guardian of the holy fire roughly)?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6b/Emblem_of_Azerbaijan.svg/275px-Emblem_of_Azerbaijan.svg.png

4: Enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Israel is not an enemy of Armenia, it has friendlier relations to Armenia currently than it has to Turkey.

5: I respect Iranian culture, like any other culture.
No, particular preference for it? I mean the most external culture that influenced Turkics came from Iranic peoples, everywhere in the world, almost all Turkic languages especially spoken by predominantly Muslim Turkic people have Iranic words.

[Yalquzaq]

So you like to think, the reality is not like that.

I'm not an atheist, but I don't believe every stuff from Islam. I believe in "Tanrı", God, however.

Pan-Iranism is ridiculous, I would not compare it to Pan-Turkism. Pan-Turkism is not based on targeting other peoples, their lands, language, heritage etc...We keep it to ourselves, unlike the ridiculous Pan-Iranists.

How are they "Zoroastrian flames" and not just flames? The flame is a reference to the natural gas that sprungs out of earth on a mountain site callled "Yanardağ" (and also Azerbaijan is a land of oil and natural gas). Moreover, the star in the middle has the following meaning: The star itself stands for the eight branches of the Turkic peoples".

The blue color on Azerbaijan's flag represents the Turkic heritage.

Duh, I meant Iran, obviously.

Right, because only "Iranic" culture influenced the Turks, not the other way around. :rolleyes:

[Shah-Jehan]

So you like to think, the reality is not like that.

I'm not an atheist, but I don't believe every stuff from Islam. I believe in "Tanrı", God, however.

Pan-Iranian is ridiculous, I would not compare it to Pan-Turkism. Pan-Turkism is not based on insulting, attacking other peoples, their heritage, language etc...We keep it to ourselves, unlike the ridiculous Pan-Iranists.

How are they "Zoroastrian flames" and not just flames? The flame is a reference to the natural gas that sprungs out of earth on a mountain site callled "Yanardağ". Moreover, the star in the flag has the following meaning: The star itself stands for the eight branches of the Turkic peoples".

The blue color on Azerbaijan's flag represents the Turkic heritage.

Duh, I meant Iran, obviously.

Right, because only "Iranic" culture influenced the Turks, not the other way around. :rolleyes:
what is the reality then? Tell me in detail...

[Yalquzaq]

Read this.

http://old.cacianalyst.org/?q=node/5432

[Shah-Jehan]

Read this.

http://old.cacianalyst.org/?q=node/5432
we shall see what happens and what succeeds, newly-found Azerbaijani Pan-Turkic irredentism or the preservation of the old nation that is now Iran. Time will tell...

[Rojava]

Pan-Turkism is not based on targeting other peoples, their lands, language, heritage etc...We keep it to ourselves, unlike the ridiculous Pan-Iranists.

That is a lie!

[StonyArabia]

The Iranian Azeris are quite pro-Iranian and religious more so than their counterparts in the North. The ones in the North or the republic have more Turkic orientation and they are barely religious. There is some who want to secede from Iran, but the groups that I have seen that totally want to be independent from Iran are the following the Shia Ahwazi Arabs who want independence nor they are pro-Iranian, and are in fact converting to Sunnism as form of protests, the Sunni Arab islanders who want to go back the UAE, and the Baloch who want independence for religious and cultural reasons.

[random]

Fuck Iranian nationalism.

[Siberian Cold Breeze]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKDZSxUjal8

Go tell them about your genetic tırıvırı, I am sure they care a lot :bored:

[Babak]

You talk as if it happend yesterday, no this was a process a millenium ago. "Invading lands" sounds hence very silly.

Not only a retarded comparision, in what way is there such a close similarity between Azerbaijani Turks and Iranians based on that? And while you talk about the supposed absence of "Mongoloid" features among Azerbaijani Turks, the number 10 in that photo has prominent "Mongoloid" features (http://i.imgur.com/m1BzY6a.jpg), just saying. But you also need to remember that Azerbaijan was settled by Mongolic groups too during Ilkhanid era, Oghuz were simply not "Mongoloid". although they surely would have such a influence but nowhere near Kazakhs or Kyrgyz examples, prominent Western Oghuz weren't as such, from Uzun Hasan to Nadir Shah Afshar to Muhammad Khan Qajar.

Khamenei is not a ethnic Turk, his mother is Persian from Yazd, his father is of Seyid origin.

Who told you that Oghuz were Mongoloid? At least the Western Oghuz. Were Uzun Hasan, or Nadir Shah Afshar Mongoloid?

Have you never seen a portrait of Nadir Shah Afshar, from the Oghuz Afshar tribe? Does he look like "Mongoloid" to you?

http://i.imgur.com/csrMzF4.jpg

Seljuqs was a dynastic family, not a group of people or tribes. That Azerbaijan was the main point of Turkic migrations is what I'm saying too, this was a migration of whole tribes, and the reason for why why Azerbaijan came to be really innhabited by Turkic groups. The absence of tribes in current Persian speaking areas of Iran explains why these areas are not Turkic speaking, because they were not settled by them, there was however a concentration of elite in those areas, but contraty, they melted into Persian culture and language. What is there to not understand?

Hazaras were a majority in Afghanistan? Thats a news to me. It supports what I say, because they were a minority among the majority, and melted over time into the host regions culture and language.

https://scontent.fsnc1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/10570269_529165970518135_1563364945973744756_n.jpg ?oh=23c710605db3a15e7aee0269146f9aad&oe=59498D46