Racism against Azerbaijani Turks in Iran

[Shapur Zol Aktaf]

Mate that term and the terms which you shared before is not even in Turkish.

Leaving that aside, a quick research showed me that the term you shared, used by Palace folks against Nomadic Turkic tribes (Yörük) who had difficulties to adapt city life. It would be unfair to apply this statement to entire Turkish race. Es specially Ottoman Turks.

House of Osman (Osman Gazi) was direct decedents of Oghuz Tribes, Kayı Branch, it would have been insulting themselves.



Can't say much.... Let me give you a example.

During the Sword wielding ceremony of the Ottoman Princes. There is a sentence which they shout "Gök Girsin, Kızıl Çıksun" which means "Enters (Sword) sky (clean), exits red (covered with blood) "

This sentence is in old Turkic. Ottoman's never, ever forget about their Turkish ancestry. There are lots of examples from the curvy soil on graves or the Khan honorofic they used.

Look Sinan, could it be that ottomans were confused? We have been attacked by panturkists because of the term "donkey turks", while we have evidence that turk themselves and other nations used this term long time ago.

Bu konuda Ziya Gökalp‘ın ifadesi çok daha serttir, çünkü ona göre Osmanlı her zaman Türk‘e
yönelik olarak ―eşek Türk‖ sözünü kullanırmış (Gökalp, 1990: 33, 43)

Ziya Gokalp's saying about this(negative view about Turks in Ottomon empire)is more fierce.
He thought that every time the Ottoman's wanted to mention the Turks, they used the title
"donkey Turks".

We have the right to defence ourselves against false attacks making Iranians look like racists. There are other turkish sources that mention anti-turkism by ottomans and even by Seljuqs!

In the book Organised Crime In Europe: Concepts, Patterns and Control Policies in the
European Union and Beyond By Cyrille Fijnaut, Letizia Paoli(Published 2004, Springer, pg
206), this matter is also pointed to:

―The third structural problem had to do with the ethnic hierarchy that prevailed throughout the empire
(Ottomon empire). In the Seljuq periods, the authorities viewed Georgians. Iranians and Slavs as the top
ranking peoples, and Turks and Turkmens as the lowest. Turkish was a language only to be spoken by
people of humble descent, and it is not difficult to find offensive and racist comments in the writings of
Seljuq authors: 'Bloodthirsty Turks [...] If they get the chance, they plunder, but as soon as they see the enemy
coming, off they run'.' Matters were not much different in the Ottoman period, even though the empire was
governed by a small elite at the court, which was Turkish itself. According to Cetin Yetkin, one of the
major Turkish authors on the Seljuq and Ottoman periods. 'In the Ottoman Empire, though Turks
were a "minority", they did not have the same rights as the other minorities' (Yerkin, 1974: 175). In
fact the term 'Turk' was a pejorative. Ottoman historian Naima, who also wrote a book about the
Anatolian rebels, uses the following terms for the Turks: Tiirk-i bed-lika (Turk with an ugly face),
nadan Turk (ignorant Turk) and etrak-i bi-idrak (Turk who knows nothing).”According to Turkish history Handan Nezir Akmeshe, who describes the attempt to ingrain
self-conscioussness to Turks of the Ottomon empire prior to WWI ( Handan Nezir Akmeşe,
The Birth Of Modern Turkey: The Ottoman Military And The March To World War I,
I.B.Tauris, 2005. pg 50): (One consequence was to reinforce these officers sense of their
Turkish nationality, and a sense of national grievance arising out of die contrast between the
non-Muslim communities, with their prosperous, European-educated elites, and "the poor
Turks [who] inherited from the Ottoman Empire nothing but a broken sword and an oldfashioned plough." Unlike the non-Muslim and non-Turkish communities, they noted with
some bitterness, the Turks did not even have a proper sense of their own national identity, and
used to make fun of each other, calling themselves ―donkey Turk&#8214

 

[Shapur Zol Aktaf]

Mate that term and the terms which you shared before is not even in Turkish.

Leaving that aside, a quick research showed me that the term you shared, used by Palace folks against Nomadic Turkic tribes (Yörük) who had difficulties to adapt city life. It would be unfair to apply this statement to entire Turkish race. Es specially Ottoman Turks.

House of Osman (Osman Gazi) was direct decedents of Oghuz Tribes, Kayı Branch, it would have been insulting themselves.



Can't say much.... Let me give you a example.

During the Sword wielding ceremony of the Ottoman Princes. There is a sentence which they shout "Gök Girsin, Kızıl Çıksun" which means "Enters (Sword) sky (clean), exits red (covered with blood) "


This sentence is in old Turkic. Ottoman's never, ever forget about their Turkish ancestry. There are lots of examples from the curvy soil on graves or the Khan honorofic they used.

Also read the following:

ccording to Alfred J. Rieber and Alexei Miller( Alfred J. Rieber, Alexei Miller,Imperial
Rule, Central European University Press, 2005. pg 33: (In the Ottoman Empire the very name
'Turk' was even rather insulting and was used to denote backwoodsmen, bumpkins, illiterate
peasants in Anatolia ' etraki-bi-idrak in an Ottoman (Arabic) play on words 'the stupid Turk'.)
Ozay Mehmet in his book Islamic Identity and Development: Studies of the Islamic Periphery
mentions,(Ozay Mehmet, Islamic Identity and Development: Studies of the Islamic Periphery,
Routledge, 1990. pg 115) (The ordinary Turks did not have a sense of belonging to a ruling
ethnic group. In particular, they had a confused sense of self-image. Who were they: Turks,
Muslims or Ottomans? Their literature was sometimes Persian, sometimes Arabic, but always
courtly and elitist. There was always a huge social and cultural distance between the Imperial
centre and the Anatolian periphery. As Bernard Lewis expressed it: ‗‘in the Imperial society
of the Ottomans the ethnic term Turk was little used, and then chiefly in a rather derogatory
sense, to designate the Turcoman nomads or, later, the ignorant and uncouth Turkish-speaking
peasants of the Anatolian villages.‘‘(Lewis 1968: 1) In the words of a British observer of the
Ottoman values and institutions at the start of the twentieth century: The surest way to insult
an Ottoman gentleman is to call him a 'Turk'. His face will straightway wear the expression a
Londoner's assumes, when he hears himself frankly styled a Cockney. He is no Turk, no
savage, he will assure you, but an Ottoman subject of the Sultan, by no means to be
confounded with certain barbarians styled Turcomans, and from whom indeed, on the male
side, he may possibly be descended. (Davey 1907: 209((
An Ottomon poet by the name of Faqiri writes:
ٗله کِٔو كهه ثِل ٗٔی هٝٓی
ه٤َ ؽبَٕ ظواكزٚ ػِٞٓی
کٔی ْٓ٘ی كه ا٣ِٚ کٔی ّبػو
ظواكزلٕ هِوُو ٍؾو ٍبٛو
ُٝی ا٣زلٝ کغٚ ٕؾجذ ارلبهی
چِٚ ُو ثو ثٞ٣٘ٚ ٗلبهی
Translation: Do you know who in this world is a Turk?
One that wears a peaseants clothing and hat
He does not know religion nor faith nor virtue

He does not wash his face, does not wash himself for prayer or cleanliness
The people of religion have this expression:
O God, please protect us from oppressive and pain brining shepeard

I think the best explanation is that ottoman and some seljuq rulers had negative view about turks because they had the image of turks from the nomadic invasions that killed and destroyed many regions. So probably they were refering to invading nomadic Turks, not the ruling elite.

 

[-SINAN-]

Also read the following:



I think the best explanation is that ottoman and some seljuq rulers had negative view about turks because they had the image of turks from the nomadic invasions that killed and destroyed many regions. So probably they were refering to invading nomadic Turks, not the ruling elite.

I simply stated both Ottomans and Seljuq are Turks to the core. There can be sources from foreigners or indivual Turks but i can flood this place with Pro-Turk sources, statements. I'm not dragging this issue more.

 

[Shapur Zol Aktaf]

I simply stated both Ottomans and Seljuq are Turks to the core. There may be sources from foreigners or indivual Turks but i can flood this place with Pro-Turk sources, statements. I'm not dragging this issue more.

These sources are from turks themselves, among them nationalist turks. Not 1 of them is by Iranians in any way!
The sources were placed here to confront Some Turks who accuse us of racism, but not insult our neigbour Turkey, I hope you understand that

 

[-SINAN-]

These sources are from turks themselves, among them nationalist turks. Not 1 of them is by Iranians in any way!

I get your point but hear me out.

One American general said;

“United Nations’ Forces Commander in Chief General Douglas MacArthur said ‘the Turks are the hero of heroes. There is no impossibility for the Turkish Brigade.’ No enemy attack succeeded in penetrating the front of the Turkish Brigade, while British and American forces were forced to withdraw from defensive lines. Even though out of ammunition, the Turks affixed their bayonets and attacked the enemy, eventually in hand-to-hand combat. The Turks succeeded in withdrawing by continuous combat and carry*ing their injured comrades from the battlefield on their backs.”

Another American General said "Turks are bullies and cowards" ( which i had seen this statement in WAFF forum, in some Greeks's signiture, i verifed that statement at that time, but couldn't find this time.)

So which one would you believe ?

The sources were placed here to confront Some Turks who accuse us of racism, but not insult our neigbour Turkey, I hope you understand that

I don't generally have a thing with Iran except sometimes and i'm not knowledgeable on the topic, so i won't comment; but i don't think this right way to confort.... That said I understand you as this kind of topic will always escalate.

 

[Nowruz]

Safavid direct lineage were from kurds, it's proven already. Later, with their migration to Azerbayjan part of Iran, they mixed with Azeri, greek, georgian, and possibly also persians. They were a mixed dynasty whose ancestors came from Kurdistan.

+1

Safavids was Kurdish (Iranian), Azaris (Iranian) have nothing to do with Turks only that they speak a Turkic language. Azerbaijan (Azarbadegan) is a part of Great Iran (Iranzamin).

 

[Nowruz]

Azaris are Iranic people not torks they just speak a torkic language. Jews are related to arabs they are both semitic people what do you think about that?

 

[gr8vision]

About the term ""etraki bi idrak" (ignorant turks).... this is not a lie Sinan. Even the fierce nationalist (one of the founders of panturkism) ziya gokalp complained about this fact that ottomans had a bad view towards turk(mens). Either they were refering to turks or turkmens, but the ottomans saw one of them as low/uncivilized/stupid.

That proves nothing - it's typical for elites ("patricians") in all countries and especially empires to look down at common folk "peasants", also known as plebeans). Same thing was of course in all empires that existed in today's Iran - whether those empires were Azerbaijani Turkic, Turkic, Arab, or Persian, they looked down at simple people, at common folk.

Azaris are Iranic people not torks they just speak a torkic language. Jews are related to arabs they are both semitic people what do you think about that?

I think you can't prove that. If "Azeris" are Iranians who "just speak" a "Torkic" language, then Persians and all Iranic people are actually Elaam people who were not Iranic and not Iranic speaking, but adopted Iranic language and now "just speak" Iranic languages such as Persian. How about that? Or do you think you are a "pure" Persian?

By the way, would you care to explain why are there non-Turkic communities living in peace in Azerbaijan's (North and South Azerbaijan)? Howcome they didn't "convert" to "just" speaking "Torkic language"? Why are they speaking Talish, Kurdish (?), Gilani, and Tat - all Iranic languages?

 

[gr8vision]

+1

Safavids was Kurdish (Iranian), Azaris (Iranian) have nothing to do with Turks only that they speak a Turkic language. Azerbaijan (Azarbadegan) is a part of Great Iran (Iranzamin).

That's not true. Safavids were not Kurdish, the theory of their Kurdishness is not proven and is a fantasy of a few Western scholars such as Savory.

What does "Great Iran" mean? When did it exist? Do you refer to 2 centuries of Achaemenids, and 4 centuries of Sassanids - the dynasties that were clearly at least half Persian (Achaemenids were half Midian)? Or do you refer to Turkic dynasties of Ghaznevids, Seljuks, Aghqoyunly, Qaraqoyunly, Safavid, Afshar, and Qajar? Which one of them created this "Iranzamin", please explain?

 

[gr8vision]

Also read the following:



I think the best explanation is that ottoman and some seljuq rulers had negative view about turks because they had the image of turks from the nomadic invasions that killed and destroyed many regions. So probably they were refering to invading nomadic Turks, not the ruling elite.

Again, none of these quotes prove anything - all of them appeared sometimes after the 15th century, as the European/Western Rennaissance progressed and being "European" and "Western" was starting to be considered "cool". Until the 15th century, the image and perception of Turks and Turkic was mostly good.

Here is an example from 19th century Harper's magazine, where the writer basically insults every nation in the world: Harper's New Monthly Magazine - Google knygos

Should we use this as "evidence" that Finnish people are "dwarfs" and Lettes are "stupid"?

 

[Serpentine]

That's not true. Safavids were not Kurdish, the theory of their Kurdishness is not proven and is a fantasy of a few Western scholars such as Savory.

What does "Great Iran" mean? When did it exist? Do you refer to 2 centuries of Achaemenids, and 4 centuries of Sassanids - the dynasties that were clearly at least half Persian (Achaemenids were half Midian)? Or do you refer to Turkic dynasties of Ghaznevids, Seljuks, Aghqoyunly, Qaraqoyunly, Safavid, Afshar, and Qajar? Which one of them created this "Iranzamin", please explain?

Your basic problem is that you think Iran only consists of Persians. Well it's doesn't, we have never been a pure Persian country, Iran is a multi-ethnic country in which different groups are living peacefully under the flag of Iran, as a nation and Iranian as nationality.

If a Mexican-American becomes the president of U.S, you won't jump up and down that Mexico was ruling U.S or now, Africa is not ruling the U.S.
Except Mongols, all the other dynasties after Islam who came in to power were people of the very same empire, and born and rose to power WITHIN the boundaries of Modern Iran. That's enough for us, you can get over it.

 

[Nowruz]

That's not true. Safavids were not Kurdish, the theory of their Kurdishness is not proven and is a fantasy of a few Western scholars such as Savory.

What does "Great Iran" mean? When did it exist? Do you refer to 2 centuries of Achaemenids, and 4 centuries of Sassanids - the dynasties that were clearly at least half Persian (Achaemenids were half Midian)? Or do you refer to Turkic dynasties of Ghaznevids, Seljuks, Aghqoyunly, Qaraqoyunly, Safavid, Afshar, and Qajar? Which one of them created this "Iranzamin", please explain?

Shah Ismail was a Kurd.

 

[Shapur Zol Aktaf]

That's not true. Safavids were not Kurdish, the theory of their Kurdishness is not proven and is a fantasy of a few Western scholars such as Savory.

What does "Great Iran" mean? When did it exist? Do you refer to 2 centuries of Achaemenids, and 4 centuries of Sassanids - the dynasties that were clearly at least half Persian (Achaemenids were half Midian)? Or do you refer to Turkic dynasties of Ghaznevids, Seljuks, Aghqoyunly, Qaraqoyunly, Safavid, Afshar, and Qajar? Which one of them created this "Iranzamin", please explain?

Safavids were not kurdish, but it's a fact and proven that they their ancestors were kurds who moved to Azerbayjan. They mixed there.

Further Medes, persians both are Iranian. In Iran we never say "we are persian" or he or she is persian. We just say we're Iranian.

Concept of Iran as a country/kingdom/lands goes back to sassanids. Before that it had an ethnic meaning.

While up until the end of the Parthian period in the 3rd century CE, the idea of “Irān“ had an ethnic, linguistic, and religious value, it did not yet have a political import. The idea of an “Iranian“ empire or kingdom in a political sense is a purely Sasanian one. It was the result of a convergence of interests between the new dynasty and the Zoroastrian clergy, as we can deduce from the available evidence. This convergence gave rise to the idea of an Ērān-šahr “Kingdom of the Iranians,” which was “ēr“ (Middle Persian equivalent of Old Persian “ariya“ and Avestan “airya&#8220.

Terms such as "Eran-xwarrah-Shaputr" (The glory of Eran (of) Shaputr), "Eran-ashan-kard-kwad" (Kawād pacified Eran) "Eran-amargar" (Accountant-General), ”Eran-dibīrbed" (Chief Secretary), ”Eran-drustbed“ (Chief Medical Officer), ”Eran-hambāragbed" (Commander of the Arsenal), and ”Eran-spāhbed“ (Commander-in-Chief) are from that time.

Spāhbed (Middle Persian: ������������; early form spāhpat) is a Middle Persian title meaning "army chief" used chiefly in the Sassanid Empire. Originally there was a single spāhbed, called the Ērān-spāhbed, who functioned as the generalissimo of the Sassanid army.

Here we see that Iran is one of the oldest countries of the world.

 

[Yzd Khalifa]

Some Turks who accuse us of racism, but not insult our neigbour Turkey, I hope you understand that

You and @Hussein can counter this notion; if you can do it - even if you were actually a single person - it will make difference ..

 

[Parthianshot]

Lol, this thread was started by a saudi arab, the biggest racists in the world, about turks, the second biggest racists in the world who slaugthered millions of armenian, kurdish, and greek men woman and children with their panturkist ideology, or how pan arab racists commited a genocied against kurds. Arabs oppress berbers, jews, assyrians, ethnic Persians, turks and the list goes on... in their countries. They literally treat them like second class citizens, even worse in places like qatar, bahrain, saudi arabia, kuwait, uae etc.. Ethnic Persians, even if sunni cant move into a certian city reserved for ethnic arab sunnis only in bahrain for example.

DOnt listen to the pathetic propaganda of a racist tazi.