Iran has two months until Azerbaijan prescribes polo to itself

[rmi5]

I'm talking about the ethnic term, not the region. Pan-Iranists talk about the name of the region. A regional name is just a regional name, nothing to do with ethnicity. But as you see, our ethnic name was derived from a regional name. Goes to show how incorrect it is in first place. It should actually be a nationality, like Iranian, not an ethnicity. That way it would be correct.

I understand your point. But, when a name is used for hundreds of years for a region, the situation would be different. I mean, foreigners will call them by the name of the region after passing some time.
Anyways, my main problem is about genetics. If we are really turk, why our genetic shows that we are more close to caucasus people and Iranians?

 

[ASQ-1918]

It is clearly not about what Persians call us either, just a side note.

Kasravi was the one who was the source of all this Pan-Iranian BS about Azerbaijani Turks. If you have read his article, you can see that during his time the people of Azerbaijan were still called as Turks. The term of "Azari" was invented by him. He worked for Pahlavi regime, and had a direct hand in adoption of that term which replaced the ethnic term of "Turk". His ideas and thoughts, from a century ago, cannot be taken seriously by any sane mind, specially if you read his article and arguments he presents. Also, it is a rule in such circles that the opinions of someone with bias cannot be deemed reliable. He insists about "Iranian unity" all the time in his articles (and how the supposed Ottoman Turkish expansion into Iran should be stopped, basically thats all he is on about, the fear for separation of Azerbaijan region from Iran), so clearly he is not someone who can be deemed reliable about a subject towards which he had a strong bias.

Also, he call northern Azerbaijanis as "Caucasians" and separates them from southern Azerbaijanis in his article. Now you tell me.

 

[ASQ-1918]

I understand your point. But, when a name is used for hundreds of years for a region, the situation would be different. I mean, foreigners will call them by the name of the region after passing some time.
Anyways, my main problem is about genetics. If we are really turk, why our genetic shows that we are more close to caucasus people and Iranians?

What is it that you don't understand? I don't have to repeat myself, we never used that term like said, neither did others.

No such thing. First of all most if not all of these "genetic tests" are done by Iranian sources (sorry, I cannot deem that as reliable in any way), secondly you are giving too much credit to such things. You cannot determine it just like that. I would rather look at the individual tests of Azerbaijanis in some sources, I have seem some of them, usually it is very mixed, and many of them has some closeness to Buryat Mongols actually, really. The so-called "Mongoloid" blood is actually easily noticable compared to Caucasians and Iranians. But also it doesn't neccesarily mean that its a feature from Oghuz Turks, we had a considerable movement of Mongols to Azerbaijan actually if you are familar with the Ilkhanid history. We talked about Qajars, they were a nomadic Oghuz tribe. Like you pointed out they didn't had any "Mongoloid" appereance in them. Or what about Nadir Shah from the Oghuz Afshar tribe? So really, you are giving too much credit for these things. Because it is actually more correct to determine it with history, because in 19th century much of Azerbaijan still identified with various Oghuz tribes.

 

[rmi5]

It is clearly not about what Persians call us either, just a side note.
Kasravi was the one who was the source of all this Pan-Iranian BS about Azerbaijani Turks. If you have read his article, you can see that during his time the people of Azerbaijan were still called as Turks. The term of "Azari" was invented by him. He worked for Pahlavi regime, and had a direct hand in adoption of that term which replaced the ethnic term of "Turk". His ideas and thoughts, from a century ago, cannot be taken seriously by any sane mind, specially if you read his article and arguments he presents. Also, it is a rule in such circles that the opinions of someone with bias cannot be deemed reliable. He insists about "Iranian unity" all the time in his articles (and how the supposed Ottoman Turkish expansion into Iran should be stopped, basically thats all he is on about, the fear for separation of Azerbaijan region from Iran), so clearly he is not someone who can be deemed reliable about a subject towards which he had a strong bias.
Also, he call northern Azerbaijanis as "Caucasians" and separates them from southern Azerbaijanis in his article. Now you tell me.

Actually, he used the term Azari for the language of Azerbaijanis before changing it to oghuz tukic language. After that, some other people used this term for the people of azerbaijan.
Actually, I bring him as an example to say that the word azerbaijani is not a new invented term, and it has been used before.

 

[ASQ-1918]

He was the king of inventions as I pointed out, and as a result of a political stance and bias he had. Ask to any sane person (after explaining what it is all about), they will tell you that whatever that came from him cannot be deemed reliable. What now, should we start to use Nazi propaganda about Jews? Not really different (the same bias), and clearly not a good example. He also separated north Azerbaijanis from south Azerbaijanis like said, a big flaw in his arguments. But which shows even more of his political stance that resulted in those arguments. Do you support that? So please stop bringing that to the discussion.

 

[rmi5]

What is it that you don't understand? I don't have to repeat myself, we never used that term like said, neither did others.

No such thing. First of all most if not all of these "genetic tests" are done by Iranian sources (sorry, I cannot deem that as reliable in any way), secondly you are giving too much credit to such things. You cannot determine it just like that. I would rather look at the individual tests of Azerbaijanis in some sources, I have seem some of them, usually it is very mixed, and many of them has some closeness to Buryat Mongols actually, really. The so-called "Mongoloid" blood is actually easily noticable compared to Caucasians and Iranians. But also it doesn't neccesarily mean that its a feature from Oghuz Turks, we had a considerable movement of Mongols to Azerbaijan actually if you are familar with the Ilkhanid history. We talked about Qajars, they were a nomadic Oghuz tribe. Like you pointed out they didn't had any "Mongoloid" appereance in them. Or what about Nadir Shah from the Oghuz Afshar tribe? So really, you are giving too much credit for these things. Because it is actually more correct to determine it with history, because in 19th century much of Azerbaijan still had various tribal identity of Oghuz tribes, and they were also nomads.

genetics is a science which precisely describes our ancestors. The fact is history is written by conquerers and they have written it in the way they wanted. but genetics gives us a measurable tool. The fact is when I look at our faces, what I see is that we are closer to caucasians than central asian tribes, and genetics proves it.

 

[ASQ-1918]

That didn't make sense at all. Seriously, what? The only time Azerbaijan Turks was conquered by any foreign force was Russians.

You don't know the genetics of anyone, so stop saying that.

Clearly, you are also filled with bias, so perhaps I should not waste my time anymore.

 

[rmi5]

He was the king of inventions as I pointed out, and as a result of a political stance and bias he had. Ask to any sane person (after explaining what it is all about), they will tell you that whatever that came from him cannot be deemed reliable. What now, should we start to use Nazi propaganda about Jews? Not really different (the same bias), and clearly not a good example. He also separated north Azerbaijanis from south Azerbaijanis like said, a big flaw in his arguments. But which shows even more of his political stance that resulted in those arguments. Do you support that? So please stop bringing that to the discussion.

I understand your point. Although comparing him with Nazi propagandists is not fair, but I accept that he had bias.

 

[rmi5]

That didn't make sense at all. We are talking about neutral sources (Arab, Persian, Russian), and common sense.
You don't know the genetics of anyone, so stop saying that.
Clearly, you are also filled with bias, so perhaps I should not waste my time anymore.

we don't know genetics of anyone, but still we can have some average of population.
I do not consider Persians and Russians as neutral. because they have had some interests involving Azerbaijan.
I don't have any bias dude, simply because there is no reason for me to have one.

 

[ASQ-1918]

Another thing, he doesn't even say it was "Turks", he says it was Ilkhanids. I think someone should have informed him that Mongols never spoke an Oghuz tongue.

 

[ASQ-1918]

we don't know genetics of anyone, but still we can have some average of population.
I do not consider Persians and Russians as neutral. because they have had some interests involving Azerbaijan.
I don't have any bias dude, simply because there is no reason for me to have one.

And the problem is that there is no such thing, and the ones that exist are claimed by people whos political bias comes quickly forward (you will se that 99% of it are a political article). But there are some individual ones that I have come across, and I already explained what they were/are. But all in all, its still a primitive argument.

My friend, you are still not making a sense. My example was a entirely different thing. Indeed, I would not consider them as neutral, like Persians with their Pan-Iranist BS.

Are you sure?

 

[rmi5]

@ASQ-1918
If I want to summarize my opinion, I would say , The most possible theory for me is that when turks came to azerbaijan, they mixed with locals. but locals were larger in numbers, maybe 5-10 times or so. that can be proved even by genetics. I know you have some doubts about genetical statistics, but I can accept them.
but, It's not acceptable for me that azerbaijan was not populated before turks, or its population get vaporized
Anyways, I consider Azerbaijanis as a separate ethnic group, from anyone else, who are related to both Iranians and Turks. but due to the relative number of locals and turks, I consider them more close to locals.

 

[ASQ-1918]

The historical sources about the numbers of Turkic tribes does not tell us so (again, neutral historians of non-Turkic origin, we are not talking about modern-day, but medieval times), and the migration of Oghuz tribes (but also other Turkic tribes in lesser numbers) was something which took place over centuries, not overnight. There is exactly a reason why Azerbaijan is Turkic, and not Iran. Iran wasn't ruled by Turkic dynasties? Actually, it was the center of Seljuqs, unlike Azerbaijan! You will not find a single Seljuq era monument in Azerbaijan, yet Persian areas such as Isfahan and Ray are full of them, even the tombs of Seljuq Sultans!

Interestinglty, you and others actually talk as if Turks got vaporized. Their numbers were big enough, no such thing as your estimate. The whole population of Caucasus region, both south and north, was barely 2 million in 1800s. You should not think as if old population numbers were like todays number. And a vast migration of groups could very well overwhelm the numbers of local populations, as it happened in many parts of the world. Also, in all of these examples actually the migrant groups adopted the language of local people! Seriously, just look at northern Italy. As for assimilation policies of a state, we surely do know that Seljuqs, who adopted Persian culture, had no such policy. Opposite of that. And had such a thing existed, it would surely first of all take place in places such as Isfahan, Kerman, Ray, don't you think? Azerbaijan was not even directly ruled by Seljuqs, but by Qypchaq Eldiguzids, who were vassals of Seljuqs! And following Eldiguzids is the Ilkhanid period, whom were Mongols. Do you see the logic here? Common sense.

There are Khalaj people in Iran, who live in Karaj and Markazi provinces. They speak a very distinct Turkic tongue that are actually one of the oldest. Their numbers are only few tens of thousands, they are not Oghuz, but another Turkic tribe from Central Asia. Yet, they don't look "Mongoloid", as you would say, either. Primitive arguments are primitive.

 

[rmi5]

The historical sources does not tell us so (again, neutral historians of non-Turkic origin, we are not talking about modern-day, but medieval times), and the migration of Oghuz tribes (but also other Turkic tribes in lesser numbers) was something which took place over centuries, not overnight. There is exactly a reason why Azerbaijan is Turkic, and not Iran. Iran wasn't ruled by Turkic dynasties? Actually, it was the center of Seljuqs, unlike Azerbaijan! You will not find a single Seljuq era monument in Azerbaijan, yet Persian areas such as Isfahan and Ray are full of them, even the tombs of Seljuq Sultans!

Interestinglty, you and others actually talk as if Turks got vaporized. Their numbers were big enough, no such thing as your estimate. The whole population of Caucasus region, both south and north, was barely 2 million in 1800s. You should not think as if old population numbers were like todays number.

There are Khalaj people in Iran, who live in Karaj and Markazi provinces. They speak a very distinct Turkic tongue that are actually one of the oldest. Their numbers are only few tens of thousands, they are not Oghuz, but another Turkic tribe from Central Asia. Yet, they don't look "Mongoloid", as you would say, either. You cannot use the arguments you use about Azerbaijani Turks either for obvious reasons, but there you have it.

The fact is the population of turkic tribes were not big either. So, what has happened to locals? have they migrated to some other place? when and to where? why there is not even any historical document showing it? My friend, we need some scientific method to measure the real numbers. Some turkish members, I think Charon, shared genetical datas showing turkic mixture is 10-15% for them and I guess about 8% for us. which it shows that my estimate seems to be more accurate

I am not sure about khalajis, because I don't have any information about them. but they may have accepted their turkic language later, or maybe they have been highly mixed with locals.

 

[ASQ-1918]

They were, as like said this was something which took place over centuries.

This is a quote from Ajayib Al-Dunya, 13th century.

Arran: No other site has as many Turks: they say there are a hundred thousand Turkish horsemen.
http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/rus11/Cudesa_2/frametext.htm

And this was only 13th century. It is well known that the migration of tribes continued well into 15th century.

What is a "Turkic mixture"? Are you saying that Turks were 100% Mongoloid? To have 10-15% "Mongoloid" admix doesn't means you are only 10-15% Turkic, unless you are saying that Turkic = 100% Mongoloid. But there is no doubt that Oghuz Turks had mixed with Iranian populations even in Central Asia. And what he posted showed the same 10-15% for whole of Azerbaijan.

What? How could they have "accepted" a language from nowhere? Their language are very distinct like said, unique, it is not Oghuz. It is older than Oghuz, and much more related to proto-Turkic aswell. I don't rule out mixing btw.