Pashtuns as Iranian people?

[khushal]

Thats partially true, dude. Yeah Khorasan means "where the sun rises" just like "Maghreb" means "where the sun dies" but it has also a cultural and historical meaning. It was the way Persians called to the Eastern Iranian provinces. India is not Khorasan.

Pashtuns from the tribal areas are not Khorasanis. Herat, Balkh, Samarqand, Bukhara, Merv, Panjkent, Tus, Neyshabur, are considered as Khorasan. Sometimes even Kabul and Ghazni were included but Kandahar and Jalalabad are not Khorasan. I find hilarious how Pashtun nationalist and Pashtun pro-Talibans are trying so hard to relate themselves to this term, but its just cultural appropiation.

BTW Tajiks also claim that Khorasan only belongs to them which is also BS. A Pashtun guy was the last king of Khorasan (Abdullah DUrrani) and several Persianized Turkic tribes ruled this land for almost a millenia.

Nationalism is s tupid lol

Talibs use the term Khorasan as an ethnic neutral name just like Pahlavi used Iran(Aryan) as an ethnic neutral name.
The Persian Empire used the term Khorasan to refer to any people East of their empire just like how the Europeans referred East of them as the Orient. Today Oriental means Southeast Asians but originally it meant the peoples of the Middle East and Central Asia. The term Khorasan is older than Afghan as far as record is concerned. There is no record of Afghan/Pashtuns before the 9th/10th century. The term has different meaning today than what it meant in the past just like the Orient has different meaning today than what it meant.

[khushal]

When did I make fun of poor people? You guys do so. From your posts, it seems you have very little knowledge and are randomly giving one or the other opinion.

http://www.pashtunforums.com/pashtun-history-/51964-original-pashtuns-assimilated-pashtuns.html

http://www.pashtunforums.com/pashtun-history-/51975-pashtuns-versus-indians-creative.html

If you disagree with me then challenge my claims. Don't run away like a pathetic pu$$y little indian with girly arms.

[salman47]

nothing wrong with that, only problem is labeling it as Iranian rather than Aryan.

For that subject you are at the wrong place, you should go and talk to the English People...

[khushal]

For that subject you are at the wrong place, you should go and talk to the English People...

For the English, Aryan has negative tendencies which is why they use Iranian.

[maneatinglizard]

I think the main points of contention in this discussion are:

1. Confusion over "Iranian" the ethno-linguistic group vs "Iranian," i.e. Persians or citizens of the modern nation of Iran.
2. Conflating "Iranian" culture with Persian culture

Regarding the first point, the matter is simply one of naming. What Western academics term "Iranian" is not related to the state of Iran, nor its citizens. Rather, they use it to mean what we historically called "Aryan." As I mentioned before, they don't use "Aryan" because of some historical reasons (white supremacists thought they were Aryans, and later Western academics avoided using the term because of that association; the Indo-Europeans who settled into India also called themselves "Aryans" while being a distinct group from the "Iranian" Aryans). And while I'm not a fan of the term they settled on, as it is a term that's been historically associated with Persians (and, as far as I know, no other Aryan group), and is bound to cause confusion because of the existence of Iran, I do understand why they avoid using Aryan. Personally, I prefer using "Iranic" instead of "Iranian," as I feel that helps separate the two groups a little (same with "Indic" instead of "Indian" to avoid triggering Punjabis/Sindhis), but if we don't like the term, it's up to our academics to push for a change.

As for the second, while the issue may be partly caused by the confusion over terminology, I think it's also partly due to other Iranic groups (us included) failing to adequately challenge Persians over Iranian heritage. The fact is that Iranian culture is not Persian culture. Persian culture is an Iranic culture, but so is Pashtun culture, Kurdish culture, Tajik culture, etc. But what's happened is that Persians have essentially appropriated the cultures of other Iranic groups as their own, and so people, even other Iranics, see aspects of our various cultures and associate them with Persia and Persians. Now, this isn't entirely the fault of Persians. Rather, there are a number of reasons for this:

1. Persians are the most visible (i.e. well-known) Iranic people everywhere other than India, particularly in the West and among Arabs. This has led to other Iranic peoples and their accomplishments being mistakenly attributed to Persians.
2. Persian is by far the most widely spoken Iranic language, was a lingua franca in the non-Arab Muslim world for centuries, and has a rich linguistic heritage that far surpasses any other Iranic language. No other Iranic language is close to Persian in terms of ubiquity, so if an Iranic person wanted to write anything down, he'd most likely do so in Persian (or Arabic) instead of his own language. While we Pashtuns are well aware of how much we've neglected our own language, that problem isn't unique to us. In fact, other groups were even less fortunate than us, as they've completely lost their original languages. And can you really blame anyone for thinking that an Iranic person who wrote in Persian is a Persian?
3. The Safawi dynasty's deliberate policy of creating a distinct Persian identity that was at best adversarial, if not outright hostile, to its neighbors. While there has always been some degree of ethnic pride among Iranics (Even as far back as the king Xerxes, who mentions being of Aryan stock in an inscription), the Safawis combined it with Shi`i extremism that put them at odds with the majority of Iranic people, not to mention the Turks and Arabs.

There's a lot more that could be said about all this (one question I find interesting is whether or not Persian works written by non-Persian Iranics should be considered as parts of Persian culture or Iranic, and more generally what makes one a Persian and not just a Persian-speaking Aryan), but one thing I want to point out is that there has always (at least as far as history goes) been two distinct, parallel strains of Iranic/Aryan culture and society. While the Persians, Parthians, and other urbanized Iranic groups are known for their empires and kingdoms, the second was known for its fierce warriors and independence. It is that strain of Iranic culture that I think Pashtuns have inherited. Despite most Pashtuns no longer living a nomadic lifestyle, most (the ones living outside large cities) still carry on the spirit of nomads.

[maneatinglizard]

There is no evidence to support that.
Our languages are totally different so is our culture.
Ancient Afghans were also different to Iranians.

Please show me an example of similarity between the two languages. The only thing I common is that we both use some Arabic words.

Many Pashto and Farsi words have an obvious common origin that isn't Arabic. For example:

land/earth: zameen - zmaka (ardh)
horse: asb - aas (hisaan)
crazy: diwana - liwanay (majnoon)
hand: dast - laas (yad)
moon: maah - myasht/spogmai (qamar)
water: aab - ooba (maa')
war: jang - jagrra/jang (harb)
cow: gaw - ghaa (baqara)
father: padar - plaar (ab)
mother: modar - moor (umm)

And then the many common words that are not shared with Arabic, like sky (asmaan), donkey (khaar), or lie (durugh).

[khushal]

But British scholars having been using this Iran since the 1800's

Exactly but from your statement it seems you have not read about Count Joseph Arthur de Gobineau or Houston Stewart Chamberlain.

[Firdousi]

Talibs use the term Khorasan as an ethnic neutral name just like Pahlavi used Iran(Aryan) as an ethnic neutral name.
The Persian Empire used the term Khorasan to refer to any people East of their empire just like how the Europeans referred East of them as the Orient. Today Oriental means Southeast Asians but originally it meant the peoples of the Middle East and Central Asia. The term Khorasan is older than Afghan as far as record is concerned. There is no record of Afghan/Pashtuns before the 9th/10th century. The term has different meaning today than what it meant in the past just like the Orient has different meaning today than what it meant.

Thats utter BS, dude. It doesn't make any sense. You got to back up that bold claim with evidences.

[Akbar]

many pashto and farsi words have an obvious common origin that isn't arabic. For example:

Land/earth: Zameen - zmaka (ardh) totally different
horse: Asb - aas (hisaan) pashto use word asp as well and is derived from farsi or the other way around
crazy: Diwana - liwanay (majnoon) totally different words
hand: Dast - laas (yad) again totally different
moon: Maah - myasht/spogmai (qamar) it's mahtab in dari and it is very different
water: Aab - ooba (maa') how is this even close?
War: Jang - jagrra/jang (harb)
cow: Gaw - ghaa (baqara) in pashto it's the a and again not evsn close
father: Padar - plaar (ab) not even close
mother: Modar - moor (umm) different

non of the above suggests if any connection between the two languages.
But we do use some words from both languages.
In dari they nowadays also use the word andiwal and in pashto there are many dark words used.

and then the many common words that are not shared with arabic, like sky (asmaan), donkey (khaar), or lie (durugh).

non of the above proved that there is a common mother language or a connection of pashtuns or pashto to iran air being a subgroup of iranian people.

[Elias]

Many Pashto and Farsi words have an obvious common origin that isn't Arabic. For example:

land/earth: zameen - zmaka (ardh)
horse: asb - aas (hisaan)
crazy: diwana - liwanay (majnoon)
hand: dast - laas (yad)
moon: maah - myasht/spogmai (qamar)
water: aab - ooba (maa')
war: jang - jagrra/jang (harb)
cow: gaw - ghaa (baqara)
father: padar - plaar (ab)
mother: modar - moor (umm)

And then the many common words that are not shared with Arabic, like sky (asmaan), donkey (khaar), or lie (durugh).

Has landaghar (short mountain) also an offensive meaning among pashto-speakers?

[Sarbani]

Its just dumb that they use the word Iranic. Just use Aryan its insulting to Afghans as Iran is now associated with Persians.

Also I doubt that the term Iran or Iranshahr was used by anyother Aryan groups from Persians. Even Parthians used Aryan so for sure Bactrians, Arachosians etc did not refer to themselves as "Iranian"

The problem is that Arya was also used by North Indians. The word Iron (pronounced the same way Persians pronounce "Iran") is used in Ossetian. So I don't think using the term Iranic is a really bad choice since the country Iran isn't supposed to be a Persian state, but an Iranic state. Modern day Iran is a continuity of the Qajar Dynasty which was founded by Azerbaijanis and includes many Iranic groups besides Persians.

[Sarbani]

There is no record of Afghan/Pashtuns before the 9th/10th century.

The name "Afghan" was mentioned by the Sassanids in the 3rd century.

[salman47]

It is our job (or atleast people interested in history) to correct this.

The problem is we don't matter. Our blood is cheap. They would rather cowardly aerial bomb us than listen to us.

[khushal]

The name "Afghan" was mentioned by the Sassanids in the 3rd century.

source

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

The name "Afghan" was mentioned by the Sassanids in the 3rd century.

citation please.