No actually it doesnt , just because an Indian might consider himself Aryan doesn't mean you have consider him one!
'We will execute your daughter and there's nothing you can do'
- Thread starter Sailor
- Start date
- Status
Where does Aryan come in? Do you consider Japanese to be Chinese? Or is is subjective, depending on whether you consider Chinese to be Japanese or not? Or maybe the Koreans are Chinese. Damn, they all look the same rite?
Or perhaps Marathis are Gujaratis, and Malaylees are Tamils, and Punjabis are Pathans.
Common sense, mate.
Aryan is a race Flint, like Persian which the Iranians consider themselves.
Arab is also a race.
Japanese, Chinese, Korean are denotive of nationalities.
Oriental is the common term for them.
And Arab is not a common terms for all Middle Easterners, least of all Iranians. Hope you realize that.
Wrong again, Tamils and Malyalees are generally Dravidians. Punjabis and Pathans tend to be Aryans. Marathis and Gujratis are most probably Aryans.
But that is again an academic point, which is subjective to personal views.
LOL this is getting lame, Flint. Iv already said Lebanese consider themselves Phoenecians and Iranians Persians. Now then, where do I say Arab is a common term for all Middle Easterners?
What are Aryans? Its a bullshit term - doesn't mean a thing.
In any case, Aryan/Dravidian is not the point. The point is that you can't call all South Indian "Tamils" or "Malaylees" or "Kannadigas".
When you start agreeing with people who consider Irainans as Arabs, and then try to explain to me how its "subjective".
Ok Flint, Aryan is a bullshit term now which doesn't mean anything :blum3:
South Indian is again a regional denonymn, Tamils,Malyalis,Kannadas are ethnic groups.
Your analogy is horse pucky.
Oh man, Arab is generic term, like Aryan, now that you've discarded Aryan as a BS term IDK how to explain this to you, but let me try, Arab denote the Arab race, which is a miniority in Iran, it can also mean a liguistic or cultural inflence, which is there on the Persian language and culture. Now then, Monk could have been using it in any of these senses, its debatable but its still subjective.
Some Iranians are Arabs, most consider themselves Persians and Aryans, in reality there is a probable heterogenisation, specially considering the early influence of Arabic on Persian. Everyone doesn't have to agree with YOUR ideas of racial reality and offending sensibilities.
Monk used it in terms of Race, and frankly that's the only way it can be used, because it would be even more absurd to make Iranians linguistically Arab because they don't speak Arabic.
Moreover, he' making a rather insensitive remark "Arabs are known to be heartless people". Really? I wonder what runs in the blood of Arabs to make them so heartless.
Oh please, for that matter all Latin Americans can be called "Spanish".
You're infact distorting the argument even further by actually giving a detailed explanation of the racial origins of Iranians in order to justify the phrase "Iranians are Arabs", which has frankly very little to do with your post.
:| They speak Persian, Persian has developed out of Arabic, like Gurmukhi has emerged out of Devnagri, Persian and other scripts, doesn't mean the Punjabis are not linguistically part of a larger group i.e. Indians or further expanding it Indo-Europeons.
Could be a reference to culture, which you have ignored from my post, i.e. the overall influence of Arab mentality.
Mentality of a cultural group and "blood" are quite different concepts, Flint.
No Flint :| Latin Americans are that only, native Americans with Latin influence.
Yes because Iv been saying right from the start that Iranians are racially Arabs huh? :113:
Persian is a language, Gurmukhi and Devanagari are scripts. Infact, Persian is an Indo-European language whose origins follow a different pattern from Arabic. That they adopted the Arabic script is a different matter.
However, that does not make Iranians linguistically Arab.
What is Arab mentality?
Oh please, the lengths you are going to justify that remark is absurd.
In any case, Iranians are not culturally Arab, or linguistically, or racially. They are not Arabs in any sense of the term.
Exactly. And Persians are just Persians, whether or not they have Arab influence is a different matter.
"Aryan is a race Flint, like Persian which the Iranians consider themselves.
Arab is also a race."
What may I ask is "Aryan race"? Can anyone here explain?
See its an academic point, with subjective opinion again. Ancient Persian is highly Arabised, modern Persian script has bifrcated from the Perso-Arabic script like earlier Gurmukhi has heavy elements of Mahajni, Lande, Persian, Devnagri etc.
Its far from some sort of a civilisation grown in isolation with no outside linguistic,cultural and racial influence where there is only reality, which either is or is not and not agreeing with it is offending Iranian sensibilities.
Oh for chrissake, you're once again giving us Gyan, and using it to justify something like "Iranians are Arabs".
I'd agree with the gyan, but what relation does it have with the original argument?
Yes OK Flint, our speaking Indo-Europeon languages doesn't make our linguistic background Indo-Europeon either then I suppose :|
The thread from where this one has orginited will give you a pretty good idea, however if I let go of the PC crap then you ll accuse me of offending Arab and Moslem sensibilities.
OK
Flint, your wisdom has floored me and exposed my absurdity, your remarks about how Chinese are Japanese if Indians are Aryans have also been most enlightening.So anyone is free to have their views on how far this influence extends on their mentality.
You may ask, but there are like a dozen definitions I had to study during college, and I am not inclined to type them all out here. I believe others would feel the same way. But it basically means that different historians frame different views about races and these keep changing. This nullifies your analogy about you either are or you are not, there are no personal considerations.
I can't seem to locate your superior Gyan about how different nationalities are also different races Flint, where has that post gone, ah yes its there on the first page, found it :blum3:
The original argument is what Iv been writing about about all this, jeez, get over your "you said Iranians are Arabs" line and read up on what I wrote.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2009
- Messages
- 20,311
- Likes
- 8,403
Iranian is a nationality.
Iranic are those ethnic groups speaking Iranian languages. Eg Tajiks, Persians, Pashtuns, Balochs, Ossetians.
Persian, Azeri, Baloch, Tajik, Arabs, Turkomen, Armenian, Lurs, Kurds are the major ethnic groups in Iran.
All Persians, Parsis consider themselves Aryans.
Many Kurds consider themselves Kurds, as well as aryans.
Most Arabs consider themselves Arabs.
Iranians hate Gulf Arabs their role during Iran-Iraq war didn't help matters.
PS: Technically as per zoroastrian as in sanskrit Aryan is used to denote noble people and not a race, the original meaning has been corrupted in iran and india.
Iranic are those ethnic groups speaking Iranian languages. Eg Tajiks, Persians, Pashtuns, Balochs, Ossetians.
Persian, Azeri, Baloch, Tajik, Arabs, Turkomen, Armenian, Lurs, Kurds are the major ethnic groups in Iran.
All Persians, Parsis consider themselves Aryans.
Most Azeris consider themselves Turks.
Many Kurds consider themselves Kurds, as well as aryans.
Most Arabs consider themselves Arabs.
Iranians hate Gulf Arabs their role during Iran-Iraq war didn't help matters.
PS: Technically as per zoroastrian as in sanskrit Aryan is used to denote noble people and not a race, the original meaning has been corrupted in iran and india.
- Status
