And everything after that was downhill all the way.
>>>”A couple of things here stand out - for political reasons, it seems that many of Iran’s ethnic minorities were classified as Iranians (the Balochs, Azerbaijanis, ect.).”<<<
For ACTUAL/REAL reasons (linguistic & racial, included) , Iran’s ethnic minorities *ARE*, in fact, *Iranians*.
Would you categorize only English/Irish/Welsh/Scots, as “classified” AMERICANS?
Sunkenciv said: “As JerseyanExile notes, a lot of Iran isn’t Iranian.”
Wrong. See the above.
What & How do you define an American?
Jewish? Christian? Mormon? Muslim? Bah’ai?
Irish, English, Scottish, Welsh?
Perhaps German or French, Spanish, Mexican, Japanese & Chinese? Native English speaking ethnic grps in the USA (America is not, solely, the USA, by the way) ?
If you think the above are in fact Americans, or, for selective/political reasons/purposes, are to be categorized as Americans, then the same would stand very true for other countries, in war or peace.
Bear in mind that America’s political history is only just over 200 yrs old, to name the above mentioned multitude of *ethnic groups*.
Iran’s history, political and otherwise, has many centuries prior to 1776, and, at present, continuing...
Just pointing out the very obvious, *Political* Spiel... - Btw, “Spiel” is a German word and is pronounced as “Sh-peel”. ;-)
And everything after that was downhill all the way.
-- true, except for Turkmen and Arabs of course. the ones mentioned by Jersey (Baluchis and Azeris) are Irani people. Baluchis in particular speak a west-irani language. Azeris speak a Turkic language but genetically are Iranis -- descendents of those Iranis who were Turkicised (just as the present day population of Turkey are not very Turkic in blood). Their culture is Irani.
nearly 80% speak Iranic languages: whether Persian, Baluchi, Kurdish, Gilaki etc.
There are Turkic speakers (Azeris), but as I said above, they are Irani by race and culture though not by language.
There ARE other Turkic speakers (Turkmen etc.) who are NOT Irani by race or language, but are a small minority
the other small non-Irani minority are Aryanic like the Indic speakers: Pathans or Armenians. There are also Arabs, Assyrians and Georgians, but their numbers are small -- about 4%
Sorry, sc, but that statement is incredible incorrect -- the Arabs fear and loathe Iranis. Saddam and the Saudis called them Persian flies to kill and that's why Saddam's war against them was financed by Saudia, the UAE, Kuwait etc. etc. Besides racial hatred spanning 3000 years (since Median times), there is also sectarian hatred
And no, the Pakis don't give nukes to the Iranis -- they have a history of invasion from Iran and coupled with the Sunni-Shia mix, they won't arm their enemy (but the pakis would give nukes to Libya or Saudia in a heartbeat)
I’m sorry, but to ignore the separate ethnic groups inside Iran strikes me as optimistic at best, unrealistic at worst. To do so can create a distorted view of the situation. Imagine trying to understand the status on the ground in Turkey, while pretending that Kurds were Turks. Or the complexities of Afghanistan, while ignoring the heavy regional differences and just assuming that Afghanis were all Pashtuns.
Iran may have held territories in the west and east for centuries, may consider these lands to be an integral part of the nation, but often the decrees of governments and feelings of majority ethnic groups are ignored by the residents of such regions. Russia held what is now the modern Ukraine since the 1600s, but that didn’t stop separatist movements, even armed ones, from arising. And today, the Ukraine is now an independent country. Bulgaria was once considered a part of the heartland of the Ottoman Empire, and had been held for centuries. And yet again, we see various separatist groups eventually gaining strength, and leading armed revolts, before gaining independence (though only through the intervention of a foreign power).
My point is, just because territory has been held for long periods of time, does not mean that the people residing there will see themselves as being a part of the government of the nation or people they are now a part of. The ever changing map of much of the world bears ample testament to this fact. There are significant Kurdish and Baloch ethnic minorities inside Iran, and these groups are not fully satisfied with being a part of Iran. Widespread armed separatist movements have been ongoing for years (decades even) in these regions, and they have a significant amount of popular support.
As for your example, I think that it doesn’t work on several levels - first, “American”, no matter how many people may wish it, isn’t an ethnic group. Second, the United States is not founded on the concept of ethnic nationalism like most nations. And while the modern Iranian state, growing from historic Persia, wasn’t explicitly a country founded on that notion either, the sense that Iran is seen as the country of the Iranian people has pervaded it. Persianization efforts have existed since the early 1900s under the Shahs. And third, there are no major, violent separatist movements in the US that exist across ethnic lines. I don’t know of many Scotch-Irish running around the mountains, planting roadside bombs, and advocating for an independent Republic of Appalachia, or Inuit blowing up Air Force radar stations and calling for a Free Inuit state for their brothers across the border in Canada to join.