Pashtun Disease

[Friends of Baloch]

There was never a country called Persia. the word Persian is derived from Pars. Pars was only city. ''Persia'' and Persepolis are just a greekified names.

Achamenids had their capital in Babylon. It might have been a tribe from begining, but today there are no Persian tribe. in modern context all ''Persian'' is, is a cultural and linguistic unit, not a racial or ethnic one. Most of Iran identify as Persian, when originally there were other tribes such as Medes, Parthians, etc.


I don't know why you are discussing wether Pashtuns are related to PErsians or not. That Greeks refered to them as ''Persian tribe'' all shows Greek ignorance of the region. Persian word derives from Pars, it's not at an ethnic name like Pashtun/Afghan. Persian word is similar to an Athenian, Olympian, or Spartan. these were all cities.

Pashtuns/Afghans are a distinct race, I agree.

No, im sorry. You are completely mistaken. Parsagadae is the city you are probably talking about. That was the capital of Cyrus. Darius then built Persepolis as a new capital. Babylon, Susa and Ecbatana were the other capitals. Before Cyrus, the Persian capital was at Anshan.

Pars / Parsa is the name in Old Persian for the 'country' of 'Persians'. Iran/Iranshahr was the name in Persian for the 'realm' of the Zoroastrians / Aryans. In Greek Parsa became Persis, then Persia.

Iranian and 'Persian' studies is a very well established field of academia. Some of the top universities in the World have centres and institutes dedicated entirely to just Iranian studies.

Achaemenid history alone has been widely studied for 100 years or so. Just get yourself a publication on the topic by Cambridge, Routledge, IBTauris, OUP etc These are the giants of academic publishing, and all of them have dedicated areas to Persian history.

[Saleh]

No, im sorry. You are completely mistaken. Parsagadae is the city you are probably talking about. That was the capital of Cyrus. Darius then built Persepolis as a new capital. Babylon, Susa and Ecbatana were the other capitals. Before Cyrus, the Persian capital was at Anshan.

Pars / Parsa is the name in Old Persian for the 'country' of 'Persians'. Iran/Iranshahr was the name in Persian for the 'realm' of the Zoroastrians / Aryans. In Greek Parsa became Persis, then Persia.

Iranian and 'Persian' studies is a very well established field of academia. Some of the top universities in the World have centres and institutes dedicated entirely to just Iranian studies.

Achaemenid history alone has been widely studied for 100 years or so. Just get yourself a publication on the topic by Cambridge, Routledge, IBTauris, OUP etc These are the giants of academic publishing, and all of them have dedicated areas to Persian history.

yeah I know every region/nation has history that are being studied at universities.

My point it, Persian is not an ethnicity. Pashtun is an ethnicty. Pashtun ethnicity/identity is based on Pashto and Pashtunwali, and the Pashtun tribes/race.

''Persian'' is like Arab. All of Middle East identify as Arab, when in reality their ancestors originally were not Arab. ''Arab'' in a modern context is a linguistic and cultural identity. Same as ''Persian''. Baluch, Pashtun, etc. are specifically ethnicities. they have real foundation.

[Friends of Baloch]

yeah I know every region/nation has history that are being studied at universities.

My point it, Persian is not an ethnicity. Pashtun is an ethnicty. Pashtun ethnicity/identity is based on Pashto and Pashtunwali, and the Pashtun tribes/race.

''Persian'' is like Arab. All of Middle East identify as Arab, when in reality their ancestors originally were not Arab. ''Arab'' in a modern context is a linguistic and cultural identity. Same as ''Persian''. Baluch, Pashtun, etc. are specifically ethnicities. they have real foundation.

I see what you mean, but i dont really agree with you.

Inside Iran the 'Persian' identity is fluid among most of the Iranians, so it is not unusual for Azeris, Lurs, Kurds and many other Iranians to also identify with or as 'Persian' (many Kurds and Azeris still do not, but smaller Iranian minorities do because they are Persian offshoots anyway). So in that sense you are right.

But for some minorities in Iran like Baluch, Arabs, Turkmens and a couple of others this generally isnt normal, or even possible, to also identify as 'Persian'.

Also Iranian Persians usually reject the idea that Persian isnt 'ethnic'. Persian Iranians reject Hazaras even though Hazaras speak Persian and have adopted the Persian culture in many ways. In Iran they call them Mongol as a put down.

Since Tajikistan became independent people there use 'Persian' and 'Tajik' interchangeably, Iranians seem to accept that but for some reason with Tajiks from Afghanistan that isnt always so. I dont know why, that has just been my observation. Maybe because Afghan Tajiks are less able to assert 'Persian' in Afghanistan and the perception of the country has been tarnished by fanaticism and perceived 'anti-Iran' character.

You are mostly right about Arabs. But with Arabs once you become familiar with them you can still easily tell them apart and can see that Gulf Arabs are the real Arabs and other Arabic speakers know that.

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

But I wonder why do you consider Encyclopedia Iranica as "fascist"?

.

It's our default narrative, Pashtuns can never be fascists, even when we attack or persecute weaker/marginalized people. We've never done that. nah uh ...no way *eye roll*