Classify Afghan Youtuber(s)

[Myanthropologies]

I know i included some Pakistani Pashtuns, but they're still ethnically Afghan.

#1: Afghan Pashtun

https://youtu.be/S50Qg7I5Mrc

#2: Afghan Pashtun

https://youtu.be/Mto5JEHGMJk

#3: Afghan Pashtun/Tajik

https://youtu.be/fg9EuXzWZaA

#4: Afghan Hazara:

https://youtu.be/b6Ak-5SNsoA

#5: Pakistani Pashtun or "Pathan":

https://youtu.be/QZjUmDDe308

#6: Pakistani Pashtun or "Pathan":

https://youtu.be/eGy7IFChKgo

#7: Afghan Pashtun:

https://youtu.be/e-X-UFtNOGQ

#8: Afghan Pashtun:

https://youtu.be/XUdfS2XFzvQ

[Myanthropologies]

#9 Afghan Pashtun or Tajik (he's either one of the two, but Idk which one):

https://youtu.be/YTUgZeSh39s



****Interesting half Afghan half Philippino family!*****

https://youtu.be/MA5XQ025flg

[Enflamme]

Where are Indo-European face? :p

[Myanthropologies]

Where are Indo-European face? :p

Lol. Not here.

[Enflamme]

Lol. Not here.

On Wikipedia France it is written that "The Pashtuns (Pashto: پښتون; Persian: پختون; Urdu: پشتون) or Pathan, (Urdu: پٹھان, Hindi: पठान paṭhān), are an Indo-European people divided into several large families . ""

[Myanthropologies]

On Wikipedia France it is written that "The Pashtuns (Pashto: پښتون; Persian: پختون; Urdu: پشتون) or Pathan, (Urdu: پٹھان, Hindi: पठान paṭhān), are an Indo-European people divided into several large families . ""

linguistically, we belong to the broad European family, but ancestry wise, it's a different story haha.

[leone]

Indid
Indid minor Turanid
Indid-Mongolid
Turanid
Indid
Woman: Indid/Turanid man looks Turkish
pseudo European
dont know

[Shah-Jehan]

A variety of types.

Btw, Afghan definitely is an ethnic term in Persian to refer to Pashtuns, and both are synonymous, just like how Pathan is a Hindustani term for Pashtuns.

for e.g., it is even used in the Pakistan acronym, where the A actually stands for Afghania, but recently, the term "Afghan" is being corrupted to mean all nationals of Afghanistan.

[Myanthropologies]

A variety of types.

Btw, Afghan definitely is an ethnic term, in Persian to refer to Pashtuns, and both are synonymous, just like how Pathan is a Hindustani term for Pashtuns.

for e.g., it is even used in the Pakistan acronym, where the A actually stands for Afghnia, but recently, the term "Afghan" is being corrupted to mean all nationals of Afghanistan.

"Afghani" is actually a money currency dude :p.

Afghans mean many things. Afghan can refer to a type of blanket, a type of marijuana (not joking lol), but it generally refers to all the ethnicities of Afghanistan now. At one point, it was synonymous with Pashtuns, but not anymore. I consider Pathans Afghans though, but I don't know what they consider themselves. On Iran, most of the Afghan refugees are Hazara, but they still call them Afghans. The Afghan identity is similar to that of the Greek one. Greeks from the mainland to the Cyprus and Anatolia will call themselves "Greek." Many Afghans of all ethnicities simply say they're just "Afghan."

[Enflamme]

linguistically, we belong to the broad European family, but ancestry wise, it's a different story haha.

So why Wikipedia France say "Indo-European people"?

[Myanthropologies]

So why Wikipedia France say "Indo-European people"?

Because we technically are Indo-Europeans. In tools such as qpAdm and Treemix, Afghan Pashtuns and Pamiri Tajiks generally get 50-60% steepe ancestry, but these indo-European people are long dead, and they aren't like modern afghans.

[The Destroyer]

Afghanid.

[Enflamme]

Because we technically are Indo-Europeans. In tools such as qpAdm and Treemix, Afghan Pashtuns and Pamiri Tajiks generally get 50-60% steepe ancestry, but these indo-European people are long dead, and they aren't like modern afghans.

So no Indo-Europeans preserved people exist?

[Myanthropologies]

So no Indo-Europeans preserved people exist?

Lol absolutely not. Not even in Europe.

[Nilab]

I know i included some Pakistani Pashtuns, but they're still ethnically Afghan.

So then why do you use Afghan to refer to Tajiks, Nuristanis etc.? You do realize if this definition is used, then around 60% of Afghanistan, the majority of it, is made up of non-Afghans. Also that would mean that the majority of the world's 'Afghans' (70% of them) live in Pakistan and not Afghanistan.

In the 21st century, Afghan refers to Hazara, Tajik, Uzbek and Nuristanis as well. Moreover, Afghan was never a term Pashtuns used to identify themselves but foreigners (Persians and Arabs mainly) used it for them. Pashtuns only used Pakhtun/Pashtun (depending on dialect) for themselves. In light of this, your definition here makes no sense at all.

[Myanthropologies]

So then why do you use Afghan to refer to Tajiks, Nuristanis etc.? You do realize if this definition is used, then around 60% of Afghanistan, the majority of it, is made up of non-Afghans. Also that would mean that the majority of the world's 'Afghans' (70% of them) live in Pakistan and not Afghanistan.

In the 21st century, Afghan refers to Hazara, Tajik, Uzbek and Nuristanis as well. Moreover, Afghan was never a term Pashtuns used to identify themselves but foreigners (Persians and Arabs mainly) used it for them. Pashtuns only used Pakhtun/Pashtun (depending on dialect) for themselves. In light of this, your definition here makes no sense at all.

That's not true. Afghan Pashtuns call themselves Afghan. Virtually my entire family that's from Afghanistan calls themselves Afghan. I don't understand why Pakistanis and Indians are so obsessed with separating different Afghans from each other. Afghan Tajiks and Pashtuns are extremely similar anyways, and so are Nuristani. Hazara and Uzbeks are more of minorities, but they are still Afghans too.

[Mingle]

So then why do you use Afghan to refer to Tajiks, Nuristanis etc.? You do realize if this definition is used, then around 60% of Afghanistan, the majority of it, is made up of non-Afghans. Also that would mean that the majority of the world's 'Afghans' (70% of them) live in Pakistan and not Afghanistan.

In the 21st century, Afghan refers to Hazara, Tajik, Uzbek and Nuristanis as well. Moreover, Afghan was never a term Pashtuns used to identify themselves but foreigners (Persians and Arabs mainly) used it for them. Pashtuns only used Pakhtun/Pashtun (depending on dialect) for themselves. In light of this, your definition here makes no sense at all.

That is not really true. The earliest recorded works in Pashto poetry use the word Afghan rather than Pashtun, in fact the majority of Pashto poetry does. Afghan is a very old word used by Pashtuns to identify themselves by. Terms like "Pathan" are entirely foreign to Pashtuns but the term Afghan is not.

[Shah-Jehan]

That's not true. Afghan Pashtuns call themselves Afghan. Virtually my entire family that's from Afghanistan calls themselves Afghan. I don't understand why Pakistanis and Indians are so obsessed with separating different Afghans from each other. Afghan Tajiks and Pashtuns are extremely similar anyways, and so are Nuristani. Hazara and Uzbeks are more of minorities, but they are still Afghans too.

It's true though, if the Pashtun regions of Pakistan were part of today's Afghanistan, then 90%+ of the country would be Pashtun, hence Afghanistan land of the Afghans = land of the Pashtuns. But, due to demographic consequences, the term Afghan has been twisted.

What he means is you can't use it both to say

1)Pakistani Pashtuns are ethnically Afghans - which is 100% correct historically but not currently in terms of politics/nationality

2)Tajiks/Hazaras/Uzbeks/Turkmens/etc are Afghans - which is not correct historically but has been politicized to include them, so that they don't feel excluded. For e.g., the Afghan Tajik politician Abdul Latif Pedram had proposed to name the country khorasan to be more inclusive and historically correct.

[Nilab]

That is not really true. The earliest recorded works in Pashto poetry use the word Afghan rather than Pashtun, in fact the majority of Pashto poetry does. Afghan is a very old word used by Pashtuns to identify themselves by. Terms like "Pathan" are entirely foreign to Pashtuns but the term Afghan is not.

That still isn't proof of Afghan being a native Pashtun word that was used by them to identify themselves. Also, the letter 'f' is foreign to Pashto and many rural Pashtuns pronounce it as 'Awghan'.

Anyway, from Wikipedia:

Afghan (Pashto also Persian: افغان; see etymology) refers to something from Afghanistan, particularly a citizen of that country.[1][2] Prior to this definition, it was used by Persian speakers and those influenced by the Persian language to denote the Pashtun people. In modern times, "Afghan" is rarely used as an ethnic term for the Pashtuns but is rather used as the national demonym for all citizens of Afghanistan[3][4] — Pashtuns, Tajiks, and also a large number of Hazaras, Uzbeks, Aimaqs, Turkmens, Balochs, Nuristanis, Pashayis, Pamiris, Arabs, and others.[5] According to the Encyclopædia Iranica, the word Afghan (afḡān) in current political usage means any citizen of Afghanistan, regardless of their tribal or religious affiliation.[6] According to the 1964 Constitution of Afghanistan, all Afghans are equal in rights and obligations before the law.[7] The fourth article of the current Constitution of Afghanistan states that citizens of Afghanistan consist of Pashtuns, Tajiks, Hazara, Uzbek, Turkmen, Aymaq, Arab, Baluch, Pashayi, Nuristani, Qezelbash, Gujjars, Brahui, and members of other tribes.[8]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan

[Mingle]

That still isn't proof of Afghan being a native Pashtun word that was used by them to identify themselves. Also, the letter 'f' is foreign to Pashto and many rural Pashtuns pronounce it as 'Awghan'.

Anyway, from Wikipedia:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan

Its likely not native but still used by Pashtuns to refer to themselves for several centuries, so not completely foreign either.

[Nilab]

That's not true. Afghan Pashtuns call themselves Afghan. Virtually my entire family that's from Afghanistan calls themselves Afghan. I don't understand why Pakistanis and Indians are so obsessed with separating different Afghans from each other. Afghan Tajiks and Pashtuns are extremely similar anyways, and so are Nuristani. Hazara and Uzbeks are more of minorities, but they are still Afghans too.

What does this have to do with obsession? I'd prefer you not make ad hominems. And we are not talking about perceived similarities here, but what Afghan has historically meant and what it does currently.

[Nilab]

Its likely not native but still used by Pashtuns to refer to themselves for several centuries, so not completely foreign either.

By the 18th and 19th centuries only the Persian influenced Ghilzai/Durrani tribes of Afghanistan mostly used Afghan for themselves and most of the Pakistani Pashtuns only used Pashtun for themselves, or only identified by their tribes. Also, British writings mostly mentioned Pakistani Pashtuns as 'Pathans' and not Afghans.


Sir Olaf was greatly impressed by Pashtun culture during his tenure with the British government in British India.But he was especially intrigued by Karlani tribes.These were the tribes that were not subjected to rule by foreigners, these are the ones that refer to themselves by tribe rather then by race. For example "Mu Bangash, Mung Afridi, Mizh Wazir, Mizh Mahsud (We Bangash, We Afridi, We Wazir/Mahsud) etc. Instead of " Mung Pukhtana' (We Pathans).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karlani

[Mingle]

By the 18th and 19th centuries only the Persian influenced Ghilzai/Durrani tribes of Afghanistan mostly used Afghan for themselves and most of the Pakistani Pashtuns only used Pashtun for themselves, or only identified by their tribes. Also, British writings mostly mentioned Pakistani Pashtuns as 'Pathans' and not Afghans.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karlani

The term "Pashtun" was mostly used by Pashtuns regardless of where they lived, but Afghan was also used to a lesser extent. Khushal Khan Khattak and other famous Pashtun poets use Afghan in their poetry.

British writings used Pathan because most of the British Raj was Indic and that was the term used by them.

[Nilab]

The term "Pashtun" was mostly used by Pashtuns regardless of where they lived, but Afghan was also used to a lesser extent. Khushal Khan Khattak and other famous Pashtun poets use Afghan in their poetry.

British writings used Pathan because most of the British Raj was Indic and that was the term used by them.

Yes, but I was talking about the 19th century not 16th. Also, as you can see most of them identified by their tribes rather than 'Afghan'.

Anyway, even if we take this to be true then it simply means that the majority of Afghans are Pakistanis and the majority of the people of Afghanistan are not Afghans.

[Myanthropologies]

Yes, but I was talking about the 19th century not 16th. Also, as you can see most of them identified by their tribes rather than 'Afghan'.

Anyway, even if we take this to be true then it simply means that the majority of Afghans are Pakistanis and the majority of the people of Afghanistan are not Afghans.

Why does that mean that they're Pakistanis? Pakistani is also nationality with many ethnicities. Which one is supposed to be "Pakistani" because using your logic, Pakistani Punjabis are just Indians and not Pakistanis.

[Mingle]

Yes, but I was talking about the 19th century not 16th. Also, as you can see most of them identified by their tribes rather than 'Afghan'.

Anyway, even if we take this to be true then it simply means that the majority of Afghans are Pakistanis and the majority of the people of Afghanistan are not Afghans.

Tribal identity is stronger in certain areas. So what? That doesn't mean they lacked an awareness of their ethnicity. You aren't making any point but just rambling.

If more ethnic Afghans live in Pakistan than Afghanistan, what difference does that make to either of them? More Sothos live in South Africa than Lesotho.

[Myanthropologies]

Tribal identity is stronger in certain areas. So what? That doesn't mean they lacked an awareness of their ethnicity. You aren't making any point but just rambling.

If more ethnic Afghans live in Pakistan than Afghanistan, what difference does that make to either of them? More Sothos live in South Africa than Lesotho.

More Lebanese in Latin America than in Lebanon. I guess Lebanese are Latinos lol. Besides, nobody even takes the Duranid Line seriously. Pakistani and Afghan Pashtuns ignore it, and it is still considered Afghan land by the people who inhabit it.

[Nilab]

Why does that mean that they're Pakistanis? Pakistani is also nationality with many ethnicities. Which one is supposed to be "Pakistani" because using your logic, Pakistani Punjabis are just Indians and not Pakistanis.

*By your definition of Afghan, not mine. Also, if you didn't realize this, India is comprised of many different ethnicities as well. Also, Punjabis only form 2% of India.

Pakistan does not mean any single ethnicity either, and posting Afghan Pashtun singers as 'Pakistani' just because the overwhelming majority of Pashtuns in the world are Pakistanis would be a fallacy as well (like you did with Pak Pashtuns and Afghans here). You can't have it both ways and your definition is just self contradictory.

[Nilab]

Tribal identity is stronger in certain areas. So what? That doesn't mean they lacked an awareness of their ethnicity. You aren't making any point but just rambling.

If more ethnic Afghans live in Pakistan than Afghanistan, what difference does that make to either of them? More Sothos live in South Africa than Lesotho.

Again, we are not talking about 'what difference it makes to them' or whatever but simply what Afghan has historically meant and what it currently does. OP's defintion is self contradictory, that's all I'm saying.

[Myanthropologies]

*By your definition of Afghan, not mine. Also, if you didn't realize this, India is comprised of many different ethnicities as well. Also, Punjabis only form 2% of India.

India is huge and a lot bigger than Pakistan. Pretty sure Punjabis make up more than 2% of North India.


Pakistan does not mean any single ethnicity either, and posting Afghan Pashtun singers as 'Pakistani' just because the overwhelming majority of Pashtuns in the world are Pakistanis would be a fallacy as well (like you did with Pak Pashtuns and Afghans here).

No it wouldnt, because Pakistani Pashtuns were still orginally an Afghan people. They're not supposed to belong to Pakistan, and dont you worry. One day, Afghanistan will take its land back.

[Myanthropologies]

Again, we are not talking about 'what difference it makes to them' or whatever but simply what Afghan has historically meant and what it currently does. OP's defintion is self contradictory, that's all I'm saying.

It's not contradictory at all because Pakistani Pashtuns didn't voluntary become part of Pakistan. This is just another attempt to Indid wash Iranic people. A lot of Pakistani Pashtuns are refugees from Afghanistan too.

[Shah-Jehan]

More Lebanese in Latin America than in Lebanon. I guess Lebanese are Latinos lol. Besides, nobody even takes the Duranid Line seriously. Pakistani and Afghan Pashtuns ignore it, and it is still considered Afghan land by the people who inhabit it.

lol, why do you keep saying duranid? It's the Durrand line, named after Sir Mortimer Durrand.

The lebanon logic doesn't work, since Brazil is not the native homeland of Lebanese while Pakhtunkhwa certainly is.

Man, no offence, but the Government of Afghanistan, as well as a lot of Afghans like you have to accept the reality of the border. It's usually Pashtuns from that side who claim it, while its not even in the minds of the minorities since they know if that part was part of Afghanistan, then they would be even more of a minority than now.

I get you, though why you feel that, from an ethnic Bengali perspective, around a 1/3 of our land, and more than 100+ million Bengalis are in India. They are indeed Bengalis, and will always remain so, but they are not Bangladeshis, but Indians. It's sad but it is the reality of the situation.

[Milo]

They're all Robust Durranids

[Myanthropologies]

lol, why do you keep saying duranid? It's the Durrand line, named after Sir Mortimer Durrand.

The lebanon logic doesn't work, since Brazil is not the native homeland of Lebanese while Pakhtunkhwa certainly is.

Neither does this scenario. These people didn't voluntarily become "Pakistani," they were forced to.


Man, no offence, but the Government of Afghanistan, as well as a lot of Afghans like you have to accept the reality of the border.
Why should we accept imperialism and ethnic cleansing? Are you out of your mind?


I get you, though why you feel that, from an ethnic Bengali perspective, around a 1/3 of our land, and more than 100+ million Bengalis are in India. They are indeed Bengalis, and will always remain so, but they are not Bangladeshis, but Indians. It's sad but it is the reality of the situation.

No, they are Bangladeshis. That should not be reality.

[Nilab]

India is huge and a lot bigger than Pakistan. Pretty sure Punjabis make up more than 2% of North India.

You were talking about India as a whole. And people's definition of North India varies.



No it wouldnt, because Pakistani Pashtuns were still orginally an Afghan people. They're not supposed to belong to Pakistan, and dont you worry. One day, Afghanistan will take its land back.

Using the same logic Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras, Nuristanis i.e the majority of people of Afghanistan aren't Afghans and therefore should be made independent? Heck, they even have countries named after them like Tajikistan, Uzbekistan etc. Should Tajikistanis take back Tajik lands and Uzbekistanis take back Uzbek land? Can the Mongolians take back Hazaras?

Also, a good deal of KPK is made up of Hindkowans, infact Peshawar used to be Hindkowan majority till the last 20 years.

[Mingle]

There are two definitions of Afghan, the nationality and ethnonym. The ethnonym is not used much in everyday conversation but still is a valid definition. The term "lar aw bar yao Afghan" is still used.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_(ethnonym)

[Mingle]

You were talking about India as a whole. And people's definition of North India varies.




Using the same logic Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras, Nuristanis i.e the majority of people of Afghanistan aren't Afghans and therefore should be made independent? Heck, they even have countries named after them like Tajikistan, Uzbekistan etc. Should Tajikistanis take back Tajik lands and Uzbekistanis take back Uzbek land? Can the Mongolians take back Hazaras?

Also, a good deal of KPK is made up of Hindkowans, infact Peshawar used to be Hindkowan majority till the last 20 years.

Eastern Pakistan is part of Akhand Bharat so Pakistani Punjabis are a subgroup of Indians ethnically speaking. So you are basically Northwest Indians. That's why Pakistani Punjabis claim Porus as one of them (Greeks called Porus an Indian).

Less than 10% of KPK is Hindki. They only live in the eastern part of the Hazara subregion of KPK, nowhere else. The Hindkis aren't the real natives of Peshawar. During the Afghan-Sikh wars, Peshawar was referred to as an ethnic Afghan majority city.

[Milo]

No, they are Bangladeshis. That should not be reality.WTF?? Why should Indian Bengalis be Bangladeshi? chutiya

[Shah-Jehan]

@Myanthro


Do you consider Indo-Aryans like Pashayis or Gujjars Afghans or no?

[Nilab]

Neither does this scenario. These people didn't voluntarily become "Pakistani," they were forced to.


Why should we accept imperialism and ethnic cleansing? Are you out of your mind?



No, they are Bangladeshis. That should not be reality.

Honestly, your Afghan nationalist dribble makes little sense. Try to be factual and mature here. You seem very out of touch of the ground realities regarding this. There is no active seperatist millitant Pashtun movement in Pakistan. Moreover, do you think that the majority of Afghanistan, made up of non-Pashtuns would accept 'Loy Afghanistan' and adding Pashtun areas to Afghanistan so that they become a minority in the country and are subjected to Pashtun imperialism? Ofcourse not. Use your head. Also, you seem to have little knowledge of history regarding this. The Pashtun areas (NWFP) ascended to Pakistan after a vote in the NWFP assembly, in favour of Pakistan.
When it suits your agenda, you call Pakistani Pashtuns as Pashtunized Indics or 'Pathans' and Afghans otherwise. You cant have it both ways here either.

[Myanthropologies]

@Myanthro


Do you consider Indo-Aryans like Pashayis or Gujjars Afghans or no?

No. Why would I?

[Nilab]

Eastern Pakistan is part of Akhand Bharat so Pakistani Punjabis are a subgroup of Indians ethnically speaking. So you are basically Northwest Indians. That's why Pakistani Punjabis claim Porus as one of them (Greeks called Porus an Indian).

Less than 10% of KPK is Hindki. They only live in the eastern part of the Hazara subregion of KPK, nowhere else. The Hindkis aren't the real natives of Peshawar. During the Afghan-Sikh wars, Peshawar was referred to as an ethnic Afghan majority city.

Akhant Bharat advocates also include Afghanistan in their maps, basically all areas of the Maurya Empire. As for Porus and the Greeks, they used Indoi for North-Western South Asians only.


The ancient Greeks referred to the Indians (people of present-day northwest India and Pakistan) as "Indói" (Ἰνδοί), literally meaning "the people of the Indus".[2][
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_River

Definition of India changed regarding different source, and there have been different conceptions of it throughout history. Most of KPK was also Gandharan Indic land, and ruled by the Shahis who were Indics. There are many sources that mention the now KPK areas as part of India as well.

Also, Pakistani isn't supposed to correspond of one linguistic group or ethnicity. It is an amalagamation of all Pakistani ethnicities.

P unjab
A fghania
K ashmir
S indh
balochi STAN

[Myanthropologies]

Okay fine, you got me. Afghan Pashtuns are Pakistanis, but Pakistanis, Indians, and Gujjars are Afghans while Afghans Tajiks, Afghan Uzbeks, and Hazara are not LOL.

You guys are ridiculous.

[Shah-Jehan]

No. Why would I?

Because they live in Afghanistan. I think Pashayis are like 500,000? Gujjars are a small populations but still worth a mention. They consider themselves proud citizens of Afghanistan I'm certain, but they are ethno-linguistically Indo-Aryans.

[Hadouken]

poor myanthropologies ...cant make a classify thread where people just classify and dont argue :lol:

[Myanthropologies]

Because they live in Afghanistan. I think Pashayis are like 500,000? Gujjars are a small populations but still worth a mention. They consider themselves proud citizens of Afghanistan I'm certain, but they are ethno-linguistically Indo-Aryans.

Oh, then of course they're Afghans.

[Milo]

poor myanthropologies ...cant make a classify thread where people just classify and dont argue :lol:hahahaha....

this thread was a bait, he was asking for it

I know i included some Pakistani Pashtuns, but they're still ethnically Afghan.

[Nilab]

poor myanthropologies ...cant make a classify thread where people just classify and dont argue :lol:

Well, using contradictory definitions and lowkey trolling isn't nice. What if someone says that Kurds dont belong to Turkey since they are 'Iranic' or whatnot.

[Myanthropologies]

hahahaha....

this thread was a bait, he was asking for it

What's wrong with that? Some of them even call themselves Afghans.

[Hadouken]

Well, using contradictory definitions and lowkey trolling isn't nice. What if someone says that Kurds dont belong to Turkey since they are 'Iranic' or whatnot.

does myanthro say that pathans are not pashtun ? I havent seen him saying this :confused: . or do you mean something else ?

[Myanthropologies]

Well, using contradictory definitions and lowkey trolling isn't nice. What if someone says that Kurds dont belong to Turkey since they are 'Iranic' or whatnot.

Nobody is using contradictory definitions. You are clearly someone's sock puppet account and this is getting annoying. I know Pakistani Pashtuns in America, and they call themselves Afghans. They see themselves as closer to Afghan Tajiks than to Punjabis, they are not your people. End of story.

[Milo]

does myanthro say that pathans are not pashtun ? I havent seen him saying this :confused: . or do you mean something else ?I don't understand this kurdo-pashtun love...
but yes he's always said this, everytime someone posts a darker pashtun he says they're pathans and not afghan/pashtun.

[Myanthropologies]

I don't understand this kurdo-pashtun love...
but yes he's always said this, everytime someone posts a darker pashtun he says they're pathans and not afghan/pashtun.

When did I ever say that? Lol. Quote me, because I didn't. I just called you out for posting pictures of Indians snd calling them pashtun.

[Shah-Jehan]

does myanthro say that pathans are not pashtun ? I havent seen him saying this :confused: . or do you mean something else ?

He's saying that Pakistani Pashtuns are Afghans, not Pakistani, which doesn't really make sense when his definition of Afghan are nationals of Afghanistan.

[Nilab]

does myanthro say that pathans are not pashtun ? I havent seen him saying this :confused: . or do you mean something else ?

No, he says that they are Afghans and not Pakistanis but his definition makes the majority of Afghanistan as non-Afghans which he isn't willing to accept.

[Hadouken]

I don't understand this kurdo-pashtun love...
but yes he's always said this, everytime someone posts a darker pashtun he says they're pathans and not afghan/pashtun.

nothing to do with "love" or anything . I am neutral

right now he says that they are afghans though . myanthro make up your mind already :heh:

[Myanthropologies]

He's saying that Pakistani Pashtuns are Afghans, not Pakistani, which doesn't really make sense when his definition of Afghan are nationals of Afghanistan.

If Pakistani Pashtuns are really Pakistani, then how come Pakistanis treat them like crap and are currently carrying out the largest mass deportation in history against them? They are not Pakistanis.

[Hadouken]

No, he says that they are Afghans and not Pakistanis but his definition makes the majority of Afghanistan as non-Afghans which he isn't willing to accept.

I think Pathans should decide how they want to identify . Myanthro should have called the thread "classify pashtun youtubers" instead . would have been better

[Myanthropologies]

nothing to do with "love" or anything . I am neutral

right now he says that they are afghans though . myanthro make up your mind already :heh:

I have always called them afghans lol. I honestly just wanted this to be a normal thread but then politics got involved *sigh*

[Hadouken]

I have always called them afghans lol. I honestly just wanted this to be a normal thread but then politics got involved *sigh*

you should call the thread "classify pashtun youtubers" to make it more fair towards the pathans

[Nilab]

Nobody is using contradictory definitions. You are clearly someone's sock puppet account and this is getting annoying. I know Pakistani Pashtuns in America, and they call themselves Afghans. They see themselves as closer to Afghan Tajiks than to Punjabis, they are not your people. End of story.

Firstly, stop taking this personally and making accusations like this, I have got nothing against you but your position isn't logically sound.
Secondly, your personal anecdotes mean little and the majority of Pak Pashtuns live in Pakistan not America, not all will have the same opinion.
Thirdly Pakistani Pashtuns genetically cluster with Pakistani Punjabis, this imaginary divide is only in your head.

[Shah-Jehan]

If Pakistani Pashtuns are really Pakistani, then how come Pakistanis treat them like crap and are currently carrying out the largest mass deportation in history against them? They are not Pakistanis.

Lol, how do they treat them like crap? They are in every field ranging from sports, military, financial, political, media etc.

[Myanthropologies]

you should call the thread "classify pashtun youtubers" to make it more fair towards the pathans

I only called them ethnically afghan anyways (I clearly stated that), so I don't see what all this fuss is about. There are ethnic Germans and national Germans. Pathans are ethnically afghan. What am I supposed to call them? Ethnically Pakistani? Lol.

[Myanthropologies]

Lol, how do they treat them like crap? They are in every field ranging from sports, military, financial, political, media etc.

That's like me saying that black people in America aren't a marginalized minority because our president is Obama.

[Nilab]

I only called them ethnically afghan anyways (I clearly stated that), so I don't see what all this fuss is about. There are ethnic Germans and national Germans. Pathans are ethnically afghan. What am I supposed to call them? Ethnically Pakistani? Lol.

So why do you insist on calling Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras, Nuristanis etc. as Afghans? Do you agree that the majority of Afghanistan is not made up of ethnic Afghans? How do you expect people to support your position when you yourself dont fully support it?

[Nilab]

That's like me saying that black people in America aren't a marginalized minority because our president is Obama.

Much could be said about ethnic marginalization in Afghanistan, you aren't in a position to point fingers at others.

[Myanthropologies]

Thirdly Pakistani Pashtuns genetically cluster with Pakistani Punjabis, this imaginary divide is only in your head.

Now your agenda is very clear. The last time I checked, Pakistani Pashtuns cluster with Kalash and Balochi people, who don't cluster with Punjabis, and depsite being more indian shifted, are still closer to Afghans. Besides, not all Pakistani Pashtuns are the same. Some Pakistani Pashtuns are less indian shifted than some Afghan ones are.

[Shah-Jehan]

That's like me saying that black people in America aren't a marginalized minority because our president is Obama.

Lol, Mingle is one of the rarer Pakistani Pashtuns who's more separatist leaning, but he also admits that most aren't because Pashtuns are integrated into mainstream Pakistani society


Interesting, I thought you were Afghan, regarding your secessionist views and all. How popular is the idea in Pakistan? I know Abdul Ghaffar khan was a Pashtun nationalist, but then again, he was a staunch Indian nationalist before that.

Maybe like 3% are somewhat separatist-leaning, so not popular at all. But sometimes I do bring up separatism in casual conversation to try to persuade people and a few are indifferent but the vast majority are very pro-Pakistan. The reason is probably cause the Pashtun elite are assimilated in Pakistan. So anyways, separatism is pretty much dead among Pashtuns and is actually much more common among Balochs and Sindhis (although still a very much minority opinion among them too). The ANP and PMAP have a lot of sympathy towards Afghanistan and sometimes their supporters do get a bit separatist leaning. During the border skirmish between the Pak and Afghan armies, the ANP's Facebook feed had a couple people who were against the building of an official border between Af-Pak IIRC even though Pak soldiers got killed in the skirmish.

Bacha Khan wasn't a "staunch Indian nationalist". He was just against the partition because it would cause a large scale population displacement. Then once it was confirmed a partition would occur, he started talking about merging Northwest Pakistan with Afghanistan.

[Myanthropologies]

Much could be said about ethnic marginalization in Afghanistan, you aren't in a position to point fingers at others.

Yeah the difference is that nobody is carrying out the largest mass deportation and ethnic cleansing of an ethncity in history, and dari is a recognized second language in Afghanistan, so Afghan Tajiks in the modern ethnic sense and so are Pashtuns. If Pakistani had any claim to Pashtuns, they would make Pashto a recognized national langauge, but they don't. I know how to speak both Pashto and dari, but you probably don't know Pashto at all. Both Afghanistan and India see your country as a theat.

[Nilab]

Now your agenda is very clear. The last time I checked, Pakistani Pashtuns cluster with Kalash and Balochi people, who don't cluster with Punjabis, and depsite being more indian shifted, are still closer to Afghans. Besides, not all Pakistani Pashtuns are the same. Some Pakistani Pashtuns are less indian shifted than some Afghan ones are.

The 'Pathan' samples are close to Punjabis, and in oracles so are Baloch and Kalash.

Punjabis would be between Sindhi and Pathan here.

http://s10.postimg.org/3lm1810ft/1_2.png

[Mingle]

He's saying that Pakistani Pashtuns are Afghans, not Pakistani, which doesn't really make sense when his definition of Afghan are nationals of Afghanistan.

There are two definitions of Afghan: Afghan nationals and ethnic Afghans.


you should call the thread "classify pashtun youtubers" to make it more fair towards the pathans

Pathan is just the Indic word for Pashtun. It is not specific towards Pak Pashtuns.

[Shah-Jehan]

There are two definitions of Afghan: Afghan nationals and ethnic Afghans.


Yeah, that's what I've seen saying in the whole thread. Both cannot be used together however, you've to choose which one to use. Look at my original posts in this thread.

[Nilab]

Yeah the difference is that nobody is carrying out the largest mass deportation and ethnic cleansing of an ethncity in history, and dari is a recognized second language in Afghanistan, so Afghan Tajiks in the modern ethnic sense and so are Pashtuns. If Pakistani had any claim to Pashtuns, they would make Pashto a recognized national langauge, but they don't. I know how to speak both Pashto and dari, but you probably don't know Pashto at all. Both Afghanistan and India see your country as a theat.

That 'deportation' is only of illegal Afghan refugees and most of it is carried out by Pakistani Pashtuns themselves. Have you ever even been to Afghanistan? You are very out of touch of the ground realities. There is no seperatist millitant Pashtun movement in Pakistan.
That Dari thing has been used by a lot of Pashtuns in Afghanistan to cry discrimination as well. And in multi-ethnic countries you arent supposed to know all the languages. Persians in Iran dont speak Luri or Balochi, Bihari Indians dont speak Tamil, Turkish people dont speak Kurdish etc.

And you are turning a simple point about semantics or meaning/connotations of a word (Afghan) to something else entirely.

[Myanthropologies]

So why do you insist on calling Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras, Nuristanis etc. as Afghans? Do you agree that the majority of Afghanistan is not made up of ethnic Afghans? How do you expect people to support your position when you yourself dont fully support it?

Afghan Tajiks genetically cluster with Afghan Pashtuns, and their langauge is a recognized national langauge in Afghanistan. Therefore, Afghan Tajiks and Afghan Pashtuns can be considered ethnically Afghan. Our minority groups like Hazara, etc, are still nationally Afghan cause they've been here for ages.

Pakistani Pashtuns are not ethnically Pakistani because your government doesn't even legally recognize them as Pakistanis, and is currently ethnically cleansing them. Pashtuns are treated like foreigners and exotic people in Pakistan to the point even Punjabis call out that bullshit on Facebook after the Pashtun tea shop owner was fetishized.

[Myanthropologies]

That 'deportation' is only of illegal Afghan refugees and most of it is carried out by Pakistani Pashtuns themselves. Have you ever even been to Afghanistan? You are very out of touch of the ground realities. There is no seperatist millitant Pashtun movement in Pakistan.
That Dari thing has been used by a lot of Pashtuns in Afghanistan to cry discrimination as well. And in multi-ethnic countries you arent supposed to know all the languages. Persians in Iran dont speak Luri or Balochi, Bihari Indians dont speak Tamil, Turkish people dont speak Kurdish etc.

And you are turning a simple point about semantics or meaning/connotations of a word (Afghan) to something else entirely.

Can you stop turning this thread into political garbage? It is so obvious that you are Shah-Jehans sock puppet.

[Shah-Jehan]

Afghan Tajiks genetically cluster with Afghan Pashtuns, and their langauge is a recognized national langauge in Afghanistan. Therefore, Afghan Tajiks and Afghan Pashtuns can be considered ethnically Afghan. Our minority groups like Hazara, etc, are still nationally Afghan cause they've been here for ages.

Pakistani Pashtuns are not ethnically Pakistani because your government doesn't even legally recognize them as Pakistanis, and is currently ethnically cleansing them. Pashtuns are treated like foreigners and exotic people in Pakistan to the point even Punjabis call out that bullshit on Facebook after the Pashtun tea shop owner was fetishized.

Lol, bro, I'm out of this thread when you say BS like this.

You even have Lameduck here who is a 100% Pashtun person posting from the Punjab, and he loves Pakistan more than anything, anyways, man, its okay, you have your views, I have mine's. Let's agree to disagree.

Don't quote anymore, because if you do, I can't stay away from a reply, and I'm currently watching an important soccer game, so please don't.

[Myanthropologies]

Lol, bro, I'm out of this thread when you say BS like this.

You even have Lameduck here who is a 100% Pashtun person posting from the Punjab, and he loves Pakistan more than anything, anyways, man, its okay, you have your views, I have mine's. Let's agree to disagree.

Don't quote anymore, because if you do, I can't stay away from a reply, and I'm currently watching an important soccer game, so please don't.

Do you mean that you're playing an important sock puppet account game?

[Shah-Jehan]

Do you mean that you're playing an important sock puppet account game?

Man, I'm watching Toronto Fc vs Seattle Sounders, can you not please.

[Myanthropologies]

Man, I'm watching Toronto Fc vs Seattle Sounders, can you not please.

Why do you and "Nilab" sound the same? And why does "Nilab" apparently know so much about me depsite only joining today? Who's sock is he?

[Nilab]

Afghan Tajiks genetically cluster with Afghan Pashtuns, and their langauge is a recognized national langauge in Afghanistan. Therefore, Afghan Tajiks and Afghan Pashtuns can be considered ethnically Afghan. Our minority groups like Hazara, etc, are still nationally Afghan cause they've been here for ages.

Pakistani Pashtuns are not ethnically Pakistani because your government doesn't even legally recognize them as Pakistanis, and is currently ethnically cleansing them. Pashtuns are treated like foreigners and exotic people in Pakistan to the point even Punjabis call out that bullshit on Facebook after the Pashtun tea shop owner was fetishized.

You cannot make up all these new definitions all on your own. These make no sense at all. You do realize the amount of inter-ethnic fighting rivalry between Tajiks and Pashtuns in Afghanistan? Nationalist Tajiks say the same thing ' we are Khorasani not Afghan' etc.
Pakistani Pashtuns ('Pathans') also genetically cluster with Pakistani Punjabis.

Perceived notions of oppression have no bearing on an ethnicity's belonging to one country. Most of these are BS anyway and are irrelevant to what I originally said.

You call them Pashtunized Indics/Pathans when it suits you and Afghans when it suits you. Atleast try to be credible/consistent.

[Shah-Jehan]

Why do you and "Nilab" sound the same? And why does "Nilab" apparently know so much about me depsite only joining today? Who's sock is he?

He joined like two weeks ago or more? Wtf, lol are you saying that I'm talking to myself, I've even argued to him about a few things before. He seems rational, I seem rational, maybe that's why.

[Nilab]

Why do you and "Nilab" sound the same? And why does "Nilab" apparently know so much about me depsite only joining today? Who's sock is he?

Dude wtf. What do I know about you? I never made any personal attack on you, I only disputed your own personal definition of Afghan. Why do you make all these stupid accusations?

[Myanthropologies]

Another thread polluted. Thread closed.