Free Republic

write later to columnist

Iranians aren't Arabs

Someone should teach writer geography and who cares what islamic republic says anyway

bump

president bush separates people of iran from the government unlike you
therefore its more like you who doesnt support the president everyone here seems to

people are fighting for freedom against a dictatorship

why you interested ? shes straight

back at you

Overthrow of Dr. Mossadeqh.

There should be lots of things on the NET about it.

Iranian hostage crises? Course was a mistake, but the overthrow of a pro-West Secular democracy in Iran and replacement for a dictatorship for cheap oil was a mistake also. I believe if a country were to overthrow our democracy and install a dictatorship for 50 years, our reaction would be about the same to that country.

Every single expert with half a brain (course you are missing 1/10th of a brain) says Iranians are very pro-American, and 99% as you yourself stated Muslim.

When regime changes and Iran, is once again one of US top allies you can walk around with BIG L on your head.
Oh wait, judging from the level of "support" your insane, and ludricous views have received here, you already earned the BIG L award.

NOR is there any point in arguing WITH a poor fool

"There is no point is arguing a poor fool"

It's not just the language. It's ethnicity, culture, history, heritage, etc.. etc..

Iranians also typically have fairer skin tone, and European like bone structure.

Iran has 1.2 Million Christians that openly practice their faith. There are many Churches in Iran and a high percentage of Iranian-Americans are Christians.

Freeper Freedom44 is Orthodox Christian.

Not very nice.

I would encourage you to understand what the people are fighting for in the country and not mix what the government does with the people.

Also, invite you to join DoctorZin's ping list, maybe, you will have a better understanding of Iran.

The clerics aren't ideologically Iranian, most of their beliefs are based on historical Arab mindset. Though they're Persians their ideology is based on Arabism.

http://www.iranologie.com/history/history2.html

Indo-Europeans and Indo-Iranians

A long standing, and still unchallenged, belief of historians is that the people of Europe, Iran, and India, with the exception of Hungarians and the Finns, have their ancestry in common. Based on historical evidence and supports from archaeology, historians propose the existence of a pre-historic tribal confederation, called theoretically "Indo-Europeans", who eventually spread out from their original homeland to cover the mass of land in western Eurasia. Their language, costumes, and cultural characteristics survived in one way or another to the historical time, and it is based on comparative studies of various Indo-European languages and cultures that the idea of a common ancestry first came to existence (see J.P. Mallory for a detailed discussion of Indo-European theory).

A considerable amount of criticism has been bestowed upon the idea of Indo-European ancestry. It has been called a racist idea, it has been challenged by those who felt "left-out" of it, and it has been linked to colonialism and the idea of European superiority. Probably the worst use of this theory has been the Nazi ideology of a pure "Aryan" race. Nevertheless, our purpose here is purely historical, and for the sake of the narrative, we assume that the idea of a common Indo-European ancestry, first and foremost in linguistic and mythological terms rather than biological, is valid and at least supportable.

One of the most serious problems for all adherents to the common ancestry theory is the location of the original homeland of Indo-Europeans. Nineteenth century historians proposed an Eastern European homeland (lately revitalised by new archaeology), others saw Northern Europe more plausible, and in the Twentieth century, steppes of Southern Russia have won the most favour. Archaeology in the steppes shows the coexistence of many tribes during the proposed time of the start of Indo-European migrations (ca. 3000 BCE). These cultures show varied anatomies, and strengthen the idea that a common biological ancestry might not have been the case. Since no written evidence is available from this era, our only points of reference are their pottery, tool use, and burial habits, based on which they have been called the "Kurgan" people (from Russian word for grave). Their graves were built in a mount shape, and the body was buried in chambers, along with personal belongings and animals such as horses (in case of more prosperous members of the society). It is generally accepted now that Indo-Europeans as a historical reality were most likely a collection of tribes spread from Central Asia to Eastern Europe, and they all migrated in different time periods due to climactic and demographic reasons.

An eastern branch of these tribes, theoretically called proto-Indo-Iranians, lived probably in Central Asia and belonged to a branch of Kurgan people called the "Andronovo Culture" by archaeologists. These people, who called themselves Aryans (Indo-Iranian for noble, wellborn), migrated towards south into present day Afghanistan and Eastern Iran sometimes around 2000 BCE. There, they seem to have been split into two branches, the eastern one called Indo-Aryans by historians, and the other one proto-Iranians. Based on their later literature, we might assume an inter tribal war or ideological disagreement might have initiated the split. In any case, their languages, or what has been preserved of their oldest forms (Vedic Sanskrit and "Avestan" respectively), show remarkable similarities in linguistic and mythical tradition terms. These people were supposedly nomadic, they had domesticated horses, probably as early as their time in Central Asia, and had a complex pantheon of gods and natural forces. It has been suggested that prior to the first phase of their migration, Indo-Iranians have had a communal social system, but by the time of their split, they had formed into a patriarchal class system society. These changes, along with their complex belief system, leads some to believe that the proto-Indo-Iranian society was not as simplistic and nomadic based as currently assumed. Furthermore, archaeological evidence such as excavations in the Bactro-Margian Archaelogical Complex (BMAC), point out to a very early formation of settlements and commercial centres in Central Asia. Artifacts from BMAC show pottery very similar to the ones found in Mohenjudaro/Harrapan culture of Indus Valley, and Uruk culture of Sumer. Although the BMAC excavations show more influence from Dravidians of Indus Valley than Indo-Iranians, they also show an early contact of proto-Indo-Iranians with civilisation, and thus a much earlier formation of class society and complexity believed up to now. Also, the discovery of some pottery with what seems to be an early form of writing might challenge the accepted theories of the development of civilisations and cultural formation.

In any case, the branching of proto-Indo-Iranians to Indo-Aryans and proto-Iranians happened at the dawn of history, ca. 2000-1800 BC. Indo-Aryans apparently moved to the Indus Valley region, with which they might have been familiar by their contacts with BMAC traders. There they faced the challenge of an established civilisation. The traditional story would tell us that the superior military power of Indo-Aryans, especially their use of horses, left no chance for the local Dravidians, who were conquered, massacred, absorbed into the Aryans society as "untouchables" or driven to the south of the Indian peninsula. However, new studies whose scope is out of the capacity of the present paper, suggest that the conquest of the Harrapan culture and the establishment of an Indo-Aryan lead society did not happen as easily and took more time and included a higher degree of influence from the Dravidians on conquering Aryans.

No. Indo-European.

for you