PDA

View Full Version : Do You Consider Iranians to be Europid?



Pages : [1] 2

Northern Paladin
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 03:14 AM
Some Iranians on this board believe that they are Europid. Even more so they believe that they are the Noble descandants of "Aryans" and therefore even better than what is commonly referred to as "White" or "Europid".
So I would like to take a Poll. Do you Consider Iranians to be Europid?

Evolved
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 03:37 AM
Nope. They are West Asianids.

Johnson
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 03:44 AM
No. Their culture is foreign to Europe.

Stríbog
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 03:49 AM
I think he meant racially, not in terms of geographic location or culture. America and Australia are not European geographically or culturally, but are Europid racially.

There are occasionally Europid Iranians, but they are of course a small minority. It should be evaluated on a case by case basis.

Northern Paladin
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 03:52 AM
No. Their culture is foreign to Europe.

I don't either. The way I see it Iranians are different Physically and Culturally to what is European in Nature.
Iranians are for the most part Swarthy,Hook Nosed,Extremely Hairy, and a bunch of Islamic Extremists.

NormanBlood
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 03:59 AM
No I do not consider them to be Europids. There are some that are "lighter" than others but still are not individuals I would mistaken for an average European. As for those who think they are "Aryan", they are living in a fantasyland as "fantastic" as Mr. "I hate Slavs" Croat's ;)

Northern Paladin
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 04:04 AM
No I do not consider them to be Europids. There are some that are "lighter" than others but still are not individuals I would mistaken for an average European. As for those who think they are "Aryan", they are living in a fantasyland as "fantastic" as Mr. "I hate Slavs" Croat's ;)


More precisely they are living in the Past. Northern Iran was indeed inhabited by Proto-Indo-Europeans but that was 1000's of years before Christ. Since than it has been throughly inundated by Arabs,Jews,and Asiatics. Furthermore Iran was never entirely "Aryan/Proto-Indo-European" only the Northern parts.

Awar
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 04:56 AM
I consider Iranians to be Caucasoids/Europoids in the racial sense for all scientific purposes. I don't consider them to be Europeans, as they geographically surely aren't, but it's undisputable that we come from the same root as they do.

Nobody can dispute the Aryan origin of their culture ( hell, the word IRAN means 'land of Aryans', and there's infinitely more recorded mentions of the word 'Aryan' in Iranian history than all others combined.

Telperion
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 05:11 AM
Iranians are generally dark-complexioned Caucasoids. Some are as light-complexioned as most Europeans, and could probably pass for Europeans with the right clothes etc. But, that does not make them Europeans; the vast majority simply don't have a 'European' look, and many have facial features that are distinctively Mid-Eastern. And yes, their culture is clearly foreign to Europe.

Awar
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 05:20 AM
Iranians are generally dark-complexioned Caucasoids. Some are as light-complexioned as most Europeans, and could probably pass for Europeans with the right clothes etc. But, that does not make them Europeans; the vast majority simply don't have a 'European' look, and many have facial features that are distinctively Mid-Eastern. And yes, their culture is clearly foreign to Europe.

Yeah, that too :)

Dr. Solar Wolff
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 06:15 AM
Caucasians are people who now live in the former range of Neanderthal man---you figure it out. Anybody living west of the Movius Line is a Caucasian. This includes Iranians.

Johannes de León
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 09:45 AM
I don't consider them Europid in the sense i usually attribute to that word, that is Caucasians that are inside the geographical borders of Europe, perhaps there is some exception here with the former Ottomans.
If you asked if I consider them Caucasians, in general, I would say yes.

Axelrod
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 10:03 AM
iranians are caucasoid but not white, i seen a lot of iranians posing to pass as italian etc but nobody buys it.

Agrippa
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 10:23 AM
They can be called Caucasoid (in that sense Europid or white) but they are not European in race and culture.
Just some exceptions could pass as Southern Europeans, but the overwhelming majority is for sure not of an European racial type.

Evolved
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 11:24 AM
Swarthy,Hook Nosed,Extremely Hairy,

Just add 'sex-crazed' and 'war-like' you have a Dinaric stereotype. :)


and a bunch of Islamic Extremists.

I wouldn't paint them all with the same brush. Their government surely is, but the majority of the people are not fanatical like that. They tend to blend Islam with their 'Aryan' pride. The population is predominantly Muslim, but there are a lot of Iranians who are secular or atheist. People also continue to celebrate pre-Islamic festivals like Norooz (something which would not be tolerated in Saudi Arabia, for instance). Iran has a population of 70 million people, 2/3 of them are under 30 years of age. The young people seem to support the reformists and idolize Western pop culture. There are also millions of Iranian immigrants educated in the West going in and out of Iran who bring more foreign influences with them.

White Falcon
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 01:55 PM
Mostly no

http://www.forums.skadi.net/showpost.php?p=144324&postcount=100 , lol ;)

but I do think that from that link in those pictures total , maybe 3 or 4 guys could pass as Europid .
For example in 3rd pic numbers 14 and 6 , and in 4th picture number 6 maybe .

Shapur
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 02:09 PM
All who said no are fools because Europid/Caucasoid is the same!
LOL!!! If one is Europid this has nothing to do if he is an European.
Sure Iranians are not Europeans why they should be live they in Europe?
:D

Shapur
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 02:13 PM
They can be called Caucasoid (in that sense Europid or white) but they are not European in race and culture.
Just some exceptions could pass as Southern Europeans, but the overwhelming majority is for sure not of an European racial type.
Sure my friend because they are mostly Irano-Afghan/Armenoid and these types are rare in Europe. But there are also Iranians who are Armenoid with a strong Alpine appearance(so people could pass as a typical European).
But you understand it correct. ;)

Shapur
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 02:22 PM
More precisely they are living in the Past. Northern Iran was indeed inhabited by Proto-Indo-Europeans but that was 1000's of years before Christ. Since than it has been throughly inundated by Arabs,Jews,and Asiatics. Furthermore Iran was never entirely "Aryan/Proto-Indo-European" only the Northern parts.LOL! How often I said to you please bring proofs not it was so or so.
Laughable! I had with Agrippa a long discussion about this, he brought proofs and I too but you bring only words and this is meaningless!
How Coon said since 7000 BC the racial feature hadn`t change in the Iranian highland.

I find this discussion meaningless, because no racetype can pass as the other.
This is like to say can Irano-Afghans/Armenoids->the Iranians pass as Alpine/Nordic/Dinaric...->Europeans?
Could a Dinaric guy in Europe pass as an Nordic guy?
Never! He look more like Armenoid type.
Genetical Iranians and Europeans are Caucasians.
Cornish people are not so near to Greeks like Iranians people to Greeks.
This is simple and based on the neolithic invasion of Europe.
I find those discussions meaningless.
Why not begining to say could a Italian pass as a Norwegian or could a Irishman pass as a Bulgarian.

Europeans are not a homogen group they are of different racetypes.
The Iranian racetypes are Irano-Afghan/Armenoid and belong to the Europid/Caucasoid or White race.

So there are only two possibilites:
-Accepting Iranians because they are of the same race(Europid).
-Don`t accepting Iranians because they don`t live in the borders of Europe.


Btw for this point. An Iranian could pass without problem as a Bulgarian or a Greek. Don`t coming with some German, Englishman pictures, Europe is a whole area and I saw enough Greeks and Bulgarians who looked so much like Iranians or the other way arround.

;)

daniel.sakratovicz
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 02:54 PM
I have a lot of contachts with Iranians. They all are Europoid. Many of them have skulls and faces looking much more similar to northern Germans than Italians or Spaniards. I also met blond Iranians, and many have green or blue eyes.

Shapur
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 02:59 PM
I have a lot of contachts with Iranians. They all are Europoid. Many of them have skulls and faces looking much more similar to northern Germans than Italians or Spaniards. I also met blond Iranians, and many have green or blue eyes.
Sure they skull is more like northern Europeans because they are Irano-Afghan which is like the Corded type of north Europe. Also the Armenoid type which is like the Dinaric type is often found in northern Europe as Dinaric which is near to Armenoid. Hair and eye colors are from the clima. But sure there are Iranians who have fair hairs, Iran is not a whole desert it has areas where it is colder then the northest point of Europe.;)

Axelrod
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 03:14 PM
armeno/alpinoids are 99% in european pigmentation range while generally persians are not. you can fit any jew/lebanese etc in southern europe very easily but that wont make them europeans.

europid is a person of dinaric/alpine/med/nordic/east baltic primary subraces.

irano aghan? non europid caucasoid; armenoid? non europid caucasoid; orientalid? non europid caucasoid(inc. ranging sub saharan admixture). these three subraces make 98% of iranian gene pool, it therefore is mainly caucasoid non europid. persians are probably identical with gypsies and northern indians than anyone else.

here are some kurds:
http://www.redacservices.fr/roxane/turquie/albumadultes/index.htm




proto iranians like alans sarmatians etc in history are mostly slavs etc migrating west, not persians

Shapur
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 03:19 PM
armeno/alpinoids are 99% in european pigmentation range while generally persians are not. you can fit any jew/lebanese etc in southern europe but that wont make them europeans.

europid is a person of dinaric/alpine/med/nordic/east baltic primary subraces.

irano aghan? non europid caucasoid; armenoid? non europid caucasoid; orientalid? non europid caucasoid(inc. ranging sub saharan admixture). these three subraces make 98% of iranian gene pool, it therefore is mainly caucasoid non europid. persians are probably identical with gypsies and northern indians than anyone else.

here are some kurds:
http://www.redacservices.fr/roxane/turquie/albumadultes/index.htm




proto iranians like alans sarmatians etc in history are mostly slavs etc migrating west, not persians
This make so much sense! LOL!!! Europid = Caucasoid but you can not understand this. Like Gypsies? Gypsies are mostly a Dravidian/European mix.
Iranians have Armenoid/Irano-Afghan and also Dinaric and Atlanto-Med.
What do you mean with Orientalid. :D About Alans"Ossetians" they are pretty looking Iranians.

Awar
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 03:24 PM
I wouldn't compare Persians with Gypsies.
Persians I saw were usually very tall, even the women, while Gypsies are on average probably less than 170cm.

The darker skin of the Iranians also has a lot to do with the ammount of sunlight they get.

Axelrod
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 03:31 PM
The darker skin of the Iranians also has a lot to do with the ammount of sunlight they get.i think its usually the same case with all northern near easterners except southern orientalids. i dont compare them to gypsies as an insult or something, i saw a lot of iranian peoples like baluchi,kurd, pers etc can be mistaken for gypsy.

Awar
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 03:42 PM
No, I didn't think you meant that as an insult, it's just that Iranians as a whole aren't similar to Gypsies as a whole.

It's not just the stature, but also pigmentation. I've seen Iranians and even Iraqis ( on TV ) who live here in Serbia for the last decade or so. They are all much lighter-skinned than Iranians who live in Iran. The usual would be the olive colour, but some are even very pale. Compare that to Gypsies who live here for centuries, but are usually brown-skinned.

Also, the colour of the hair is different.
Iranian kids have brown or even blond hair, and as they grow it becomes darker, to a very dark brown that seems black, Gypsies are born with black hair. When exposed to sunlight, gypsy hair has an indigo blue glow.

Axelrod
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 03:49 PM
No, I didn't think you meant that as an insult, it's just that Iranians as a whole aren't similar to Gypsies as a whole.

It's not just the stature, but also pigmentation. I've seen Iranians and even Iraqis ( on TV ) who live here in Serbia for the last decade or so. They are all much lighter-skinned than Iranians who live in Iran. The usual would be the olive colour, but some are even very pale. Compare that to Gypsies who live here for centuries, but are usually brown-skinned.

Also, the colour of the hair is different.
Iranian kids have brown or even blond hair, and as they grow it becomes darker, to a very dark brown that seems black, Gypsies are born with black hair. When exposed to sunlight, gypsy hair has an indigo blue glow.

i think coon once stated that there was doubtless australoid presence along the lower plateaus of mountain belts starting from southern central iran penetrating into afghanistan and northern india/pakistan. i'm not sure, but some gypsy/kurd types seem to confirm it.

Agrippa
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 03:51 PM
Some use Europid as a name for European, not for all Caucasoids, especially in the USA, whereas in Europe, in general, Europid is the same as Caucasoid.

Furthermore Iranians are partly Orientalid, because most anthropologists consider great parts of them Iranid, which is in the scheme of Eickstedt and others an Orientalid subtype. (the other is Arabid in the South)

Not all lump this Iranids with Nordindids together. (Irano-Afghan).

This Iranids are probably the major group in Iran, followed by Armenids, Alpinoids/Pamirids, Mediterranids and Nordindids.

With Mongolid admixture in the Turkic people and a certain amount of other admixture in different parts.

Aristotle
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 03:53 PM
EYTYXEITE!

Dear Fellows, before to reply we have to study in depth the Iranian Culture and compare it to further Cultures of European People.
As you already discovered, I used in plural the word "Cultures" because European People have not only one indifferent if all are making a final result.
After a thorough study of iranian Culture we understand easily that this significant People has very strong racial connections to Europeans.
Its Traditions are more "european" in many cases than those in central Europe and its heroic life-style covers in many other circumstances the decadence which is the "motto" of present-day american life-style.
Scientifically approaching the point, we must be very careful aiming to be right!
Leaving apart any emotional preoccupation, is very easy to discover Truth and this is a little bit difficult for younger ages... But is very nice to oppose such a question by the side of a such ...junior-Company!
Kindest regards!



Some Iranians on this board believe that they are Europid. Even more so they believe that they are the Noble descandants of "Aryans" and therefore even better than what is commonly referred to as "White" or "Europid".
So I would like to take a Poll. Do you Consider Iranians to be Europid?

Awar
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 04:00 PM
Let's just say that if there wasn't for the ruin of ancient Persian culture that the wars with Rome/Byzantium and the Islamic invasion brought, EU would today include Iran :)

Polak
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 04:14 PM
Ok, at this point of the Iranian debate I'm going to throw out a challenge to our friend Shapur.

He seems to think that the relatively high levels of HG2 in selected European populations make them "racial brothers" to Iranians, who show high levels of HG9.

What the???

One would have to be a very qualified genetecist to make such a call, just from looking at very distant makers which have been typed using one method.

Dare I say, Shapur does not strike me as a qualified genetecist. I could be wrong, because I know nothing about the standard of scientific education and training in Iran, but I seriously doubt it.

Ok, so here's the challenge...

At the present time, the best way to measure the genetic relationship between selected populations is through the study of Autosomal Microsatellite Loci.

I don't like using Y-chromosome and mtDNA markers to define "racial brothers" because they tell you nothing about a person's genetic composition. A black man, for example might have the European markers R1b and H, but turn out to be 90% sub-Saharan in terms of overall genetic composition.

If Shapur actually finds some data showing Iranians clustering with certain Europeans in respect to Autosomal Loci, then I'll say he's got a point. Till then, he can shout "racial brothers" all he likes, and it won't make a difference.

How's that? I think that's fair.

Shapur
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 04:29 PM
Some use Europid as a name for European, not for all Caucasoids, especially in the USA, whereas in Europe, in general, Europid is the same as Caucasoid.

Furthermore Iranians are partly Orientalid, because most anthropologists consider great parts of them Iranid, which is in the scheme of Eickstedt and others an Orientalid subtype. (the other is Arabid in the South)

Not all lump this Iranids with Nordindids together. (Irano-Afghan).

This Iranids are probably the major group in Iran, followed by Armenids, Alpinoids/Pamirids, Mediterranids and Nordindids.

With Mongolid admixture in the Turkic people and a certain amount of other admixture in different parts.
Mostly all Iranians are Irano-Afghan or have Irano-Afghan admixture.
What you understand under Orientalid subtype is for Med.
Look on the map of racial composition from Coon and you understand what I mean. ;)

Agrippa
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 04:58 PM
Not all lump this Iranids with Nordindids together. (Irano-Afghan).

I meant Coon in special, who was not alway right anyway.

There is a fluent border between Iranids and Nordindids, though, I wouldnt lump Iranid people like some Kurds and Persians are, with Nordindid people like Kashmiris together.

Of course, its a question of definition and the border is fluent...

Aristotle
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 05:37 PM
EYTYXEITE!
Dear AWAR, talking about EU we mean an Organization included many factors, mainly, financial (as today's european "things" are considered...). I think that in this thread the core is the depth of the racial Character. Under this aspect I can definitely reply "yes"!
Maybe the most of Europeans examine different aspects of this question such "colour of the skin", "shape of nose", "distance between eyes"... Everything of course has its own significance but the core of the question is the Culture and Traditions. So, it is a matter of observation and study to decide.
Kindest Regards!
Let's just say that if there wasn't for the ruin of ancient Persian culture that the wars with Rome/Byzantium and the Islamic invasion brought, EU would today include Iran :)

Väring
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 05:41 PM
Iran has its fair share of Mongol DNA, but i believe that Iranians are mostly of Europid stock.

Awar
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 05:46 PM
EYTYXEITE!
Dear AWAR, talking about EU we mean an Organization included many factors, mainly, financial (as today's european "things" are considered...). I think that in this thread the core is the depth of the racial Character. Under this aspect I can definitely reply "yes"!
Maybe the most of Europeans examine different aspects of this question such "colour of the skin", "shape of nose", "distance between eyes"... Everything of course has its own significance but the core of the question is the Culture and Traditions. So, it is a matter of observation and study to decide.
Kindest Regards!

Once, European-style civilization was present in North Africa, the Levant, Anatolia, Iran, but then a lot has happened, and these areas were torn from Europe and now reside in a non-European and anti-European twilight zone.

Aristotle
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 06:01 PM
EYTYXEITE!

Dear AWAR, you are absolutely right!
Civilization has to do with its creators not users. Today in Greece there is a population of nearly 11.000.000 but the real Greeks are very few, extremely few in comparisson to this large number.
11.000.000 users (mostly destroyers...) but very few really associated directly with the creators' "tree".
The Civilization created "then" in all these geographical areas is a reality associated with some Nations from which the "rest" still exist!
So with Iranian People. Inside it there is a minority absolutely "white".
It is a matter of proportion, always.
Kindest Regards!

Once, European-style civilization was present in North Africa, the Levant, Anatolia, Iran, but then a lot has happened, and these areas were torn from Europe and now reside in a non-European and anti-European twilight zone.

Northern Paladin
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 06:19 PM
Iran with it's Islamic culture is clearly culturaly antagonist to Europe. As for them being Europid or not. Most Swedes,Germans,English ect would agree that they are distinctly foreign.

Awar
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 06:26 PM
EYTYXEITE!

Dear AWAR, you are absolutely right!
Civilisation has to do with its creators not users. Today in Greece there is a population of nearly 11.000.000 but the real Greeks are very few, extremely few in comparisson to this large number.
11.000.000 users (mostly destroyers...) but very few really associated directly with the creators' "tree".
The Civilisation created "then" in all these geographical areas is a reality associated with some Nations from which the "rest" still exist!
So with Iranian People. Inside it there is a minority absolutely "white".
It is a matter of proportion, always.
Kindest Regards!

I disagree. Reading Herodothus points me to believe that ANY civilization exists not thanks to the people, but inspite of the people.
If you went back through time, you'd see that even at it's peak, Greece was populated by mostly common people who don't give two shits about civilization, just like today.

This goes for any country. People are largely blind when it comes to vision and creativity, only a few combine these gifts with a great ability to combat everyday mediocrity, the work and thoughts of a few people influenced the way we are today.

The Wheel wasn't invented by some entire population, but by a man who saw a revolutionary design where everyone else saw nothing.

Civilization is created by brilliant individuals, it's kept afloat thanks to elaborate systems which keep the flock of ordinary people together, working, living and producing.

Here's a nice example of how quickly circumstances can change a whole population:
http://www.njegos.org/ng/ng10.jpg
This is an excerpt from an article originally found in NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC in 1908. Less than a hundred years later, after half a dozen wars, unsuccesful attempt at socialism etc. Montenegro is but a shadow of it's former greatness of spirit. Today live the direct as can be descendants of the Montenegrins of 1908. but during the run of the last century, they lost most of the ethnic spirit they once had. The dignity and courage were ruined mostly by corrupt communism. How wouldn't the spirit of ancient Greece be ruined by millenia of occupation and wars.

Northern Paladin
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 07:16 PM
If Turks aren't considered Europid why should Iranians be? Throughout Europe Turks are considered distinctly non-European. In Germany this is particularlly obvious. If Iranians are Europid? Why shouldn't Turks,Iraqis, and Jews also be Europid. Why shouldn't the majority of Middle Easterns be considered Europid?

In fact I'd say in general Turks,Jews, and Palestinians fellow "Middle Easterns" are more Europid than Iranians.

Aristotle
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 07:17 PM
EYTYXEITE!

Dear AWAR. I agree that Civilization is the product of a few brilliant Individuals in any case but also in a case such this we are talking refering proportions.
The mass is always ignorant and of course,the mass as a simply "user", pay no attention to Civilization.Concerning Greece of the very past I think History speaks itself. Ancient Greeks consider Civilization like something very connected to daily life because they had the aesthetic to recognize it.
In ancient Greece natives were the "producers" but the "tool" was the slaves; they were the workers; Greeks gave the orders! Then, only a few were in position to command and the production of Civilization was very easy. The State was productive because was not democratic, in no sense. The fall start after abolishing the sense of originality. They start to be more materialistic and to accept foreign gods, doctrines and ethics. So the fall came mathematically.
It was when proportion changed and original population turned to less.
Don't believe that (for example) the dirty path guiding to Byzance-era had something to do with Hellas! Then, Greeks were already minority but they still exist! Same is valid today. In the streets of Athens greek faces are the exeption to the rule. A vast brutal majority but Greeks still exist. I think same is with Iranian People.
The question is: how we can continue to bring the torch during the Time?
I think the answer is only one: preserving our originality in every sense!
And, of course, don't consider the mass; Individual matter!
Kindest Regards!





I disagree. Reading Herodothus points me to believe that ANY civilization exists not thanks to the people, but inspite of the people.
If you went back through time, you'd see that even at it's peak, Greece was populated by mostly common people who don't give two shits about civilization, just like today.

This goes for any country. People are largely blind when it comes to vision and creativity, only a few combine these gifts with a great ability to combat everyday mediocrity, the work and thoughts of a few people influenced the way we are today.

The Wheel wasn't invented by some entire population, but by a man who saw a revolutionary design where everyone else saw nothing.

Civilization is created by brilliant individuals, it's kept afloat thanks to elaborate systems which keep the flock of ordinary people together, working, living and producing.

Here's a nice example of how quickly circumstances can change a whole population:
http://www.njegos.org/ng/ng10.jpg
This is an excerpt from an article originally found in NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC in 1908. Less than a hundred years later, after half a dozen wars, unsuccesful attempt at socialism etc. Montenegro is but a shadow of it's former greatness of spirit. Today live the direct as can be descendants of the Montenegrins of 1908. but during the run of the last century, they lost most of the ethnic spirit they once had. The dignity and courage were ruined mostly by corrupt communism. How wouldn't the spirit of ancient Greece be ruined by millenia of occupation and wars.

Northern Paladin
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 07:23 PM
Here's a map of the Middle East http://www.bike2oz.c2o.org/images/Maps/Middle_East%20Route%20Marked.jpg

If Middle Easterns such as Iranians can be considered "Europid" why can't some Central Asians? There are in fact quite "Europid" looking Central Asians as well. Personally I am of the opinion that the Majority of Iranians and Middle Easterns are distinctly non-European. I once knew a boy who was 1/4 Iranian and 3/4 Swedish. What did he look like? He looked distinctly Middle Eastern with curly brown hair a big plump nose unibrow and a host of other features that stroke me as distinctly non-Swedish/Non-Northern European.

Patria
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 07:33 PM
Iranians are Caucasoids!

SS Charlemagne
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 09:21 PM
I think that some iranians had again trace of Aryan feature.

Look this pictures :
http://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/hwr5b_files/NorthEastIranVillagers.jpghttp://www.stormfront.org/whitehistory/hwr5b_files/Qashqai_Fars_South_Iran_Girl.jpg

Aryan survivors in modern Iran: Left: Two children from a North-western village of Iran; and right: A Qashqai girl from the Fars region in Southern Iran near the Persepolis ruins.



The old Iran ( Persia) was an aryan country.

Only a civilized race as Aryan had can built a Great Empire as the Persian Empire.



http://www.persiandna.com/his_aria.htm

http://www.fact-index.com/i/ir/iranians.html



for me some rest of Aryan civilization and blood had stay in Iran, but not the majority of the population are still aryan. Many Iranian was mixed with others race from the east.

Tribunale Dei Minore
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 09:58 PM
I don't either. The way I see it Iranians are different Physically and Culturally to what is European in Nature.
Iranians are for the most part Swarthy,Hook Nosed,Extremely Hairy, and a bunch of Islamic Extremists.
Yep, just like their glorious swarthy, black-haired, black-eyed, hook-nosed aryans forefathers:
Darius, King of Persia:
http://wso.williams.edu/~junterek/images/darius~1.jpg

Is Darius Europid?

dehook
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 10:02 PM
Seems to be a lot of ignorance here.

There are MANY caucasoid Iranians. I have seen many with very pale skin, light eyes and hair, and many with darker hair/eyes/skin but very caucasoid features. I think white Iranians make up the majority. To deny that Iran has a considerable Mongoloid and Arabic influence is stupid. But hey, most white American racists admit to having Amerind blood in them!

The Aryan National Press (http://www.geocities.com/aryannews/index.htm), although full of a lot of false information (apparently Iranians have no admixture and are immune to homosexuality...lol), is a good source of information for anyone interested in Iran's Aryan heritage.

Awar
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 10:06 PM
Nevertheless, Arabs are also Caucasoid.
I don't know about Mongoloid admixture, perhaps someone here has a genetic study which clearly states the ammounts of Mongoloid DNA among Iranians.

Aristotle
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 10:19 PM
EYTYXEITE!
Dear Northern Paladin, concerning Turks and Jewish there is not question. Tracing back their origins is easy to discover that Turks are Mongols (n o t European!) and Jewish are Semits (n o t European, as well!). If we will follow traces of Iranian People we will arrive to the same roots as many other "established" European People coming from same area of Pamir. It is a very long conversation...
Central Europeans like Germans are right, trying to stop the "legal" invation of the Turks against Europe and the worst agent in this case is -unfortunately- the seak "foreign policy" of the loughable "greek" Governments of last decade.
Simply, I think that Europe has many to gain considering Iranian as a positive People, able to accept real development and ready to follow European paths in the future.
I'm sure that Iranians are very progressive in depth and the only negative factor is that during the Time they were abandoned in a theocratic disappointment (another long debate).
Kindest Regards!
Here's a map of the Middle East http://www.bike2oz.c2o.org/images/Maps/Middle_East%20Route%20Marked.jpg

If Middle Easterns such as Iranians can be considered "Europid" why can't some Central Asians? There are in fact quite "Europid" looking Central Asians as well. Personally I am of the opinion that the Majority of Iranians and Middle Easterns are distinctly non-European. I once knew a boy who was 1/4 Iranian and 3/4 Swedish. What did he look like? He looked distinctly Middle Eastern with curly brown hair a big plump nose unibrow and a host of other features that stroke me as distinctly non-Swedish/Non-Northern European.

Shapur
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 10:29 PM
Ossetians are an Iranian tribe:
http://www.angeltowns2.com/members/gentilitas/database/ychgs47eap.html?nation=16

http://www.angeltowns2.com/members/gentilitas/database/ychts49eap.html?nation=14

Axelrod
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 11:18 PM
there is a common misconception, semits didnt come from mars neither did they come together as a whole, its a language family not a race, and its northern non orientalid speakers like jews, assyrians, lebanese,some syrian/iraqi arabs etc are of caucasoid stock. southern arabs have sub saharan blood which ranges their caucasoid ancestry with a negroid paternal side. as any north semite,turk,jew etc arent europid so arent the persians. end of the story

Shapur
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 11:50 PM
there is a common misconception, semits didnt come from mars neither did they come together as a whole, its a language family not a race, and its northern non orientalid speakers like jews, assyrians, lebanese,some syrian/iraqi arabs etc are of caucasoid stock. southern arabs have sub saharan blood which ranges their caucasoid ancestry with a negroid paternal side. as any north semite,turk,jew etc arent european so arent the persians. end of the story
My fool the discussion was never about Europeans, it was about the race Europid! LOL :D

Kamangir42
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 11:54 PM
Pardon the long post. This post is not directed at all the posters on this thread, only those who have propagated lies about Iranians.



Firstly, I have to say I fail to see the point of this thread. The question posed requires a factual response; not a solicitation for opinions. If enough people were of the opinion that Michael Jordan was Armenoid would that make it so?



The fact is that Europid is a synonym for Caucasoid (thanks to VioletOxygen for correcting me on that – I had been misguided by people with a vested interest). As I understand it, Iranians are Caucasoid and so therefore they are Europids too. Indeed, Arabs, Jews and Dravidian Indians are Europid too. Of course, Iranians are non-European Europids. No sane Iranian to the best of my knowledge has ever claimed otherwise.



Further, I do believe Iranians are predominantly of the Irano-Afghan subrace of the Caucasoid/Europid race (see below). This is a fact whether you like it or not. The typical Iranian is not Norindid, Orientalid or Turanid in the same sense that the typical Brit is not Veddoid or Congoid.




Outline of Human Racial Classification:



I. Capoid or Khoisanid Subspecies of southern Africa

A. Khoid (Hottentot) race

B. Sanid (Bushmen) race

II. Congoid Subspecies of sub-Saharan Africa

A. Central African race

1. Palaecongoid subrace (the Congo river basin: Ivory Coast, Ghana, Nigeria, Cameroon, Congo, Angola)

2. Sudanid subrace (western Africa: Niger, Mali, Senegal, Guinea)

3. Nilotid subrace (southern Sudan; the ancient Nubians were of this subrace)

4. Kafrid or Bantid subrace (east and south Africa: Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, Natal)

B. Bambutid race (African Pygmies)

C. Aethiopid race (Ethiopia, Somalia; hybridized with Caucasoids)

III. Caucasoid or Europid Subspecies

A. Mediterranid race

1. West Mediterranean or Iberid subrace (Spain, Portugal, Corsica, Sardinia, and coastal areas of Morocco and Tunisia; the Atlanto-Mediterranean peoples who expanded over much of the Atlantic coastal regions of Europe during the Mesolithic period were a branch of this subrace)

2. East Mediterranean or Pontid subrace (Black Sea coast of Ukraine, Romania and Bulgaria; Aegean coasts of Greece and Turkey)

3. Dinaricized Mediterraneans (Residual mixed types resulting from the blending of Mediterranids with Dinarics, Alpines or Armenids; not a unified type, has much regional variation; predominant element [over 60%] in Sicily and southern Italy, principal element in Turkey [35%], important element in western Syria, Lebanon and central Italy, common in northern Italy. The ancient Cappadocian Mediterranean subrace of Anatolia was dinaricized during the Bronze Age [second millennium B.C.] and is a major contributor to this type in modern Turkey.)

4. South Mediterranean or Saharid subrace (predominant in Algeria and Libya, important in Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt)

5. Orientalid or Arabid subrace (predominant in Arabia, major element from Egypt to Syria, primary in northern Sudan, important in Iraq, predominant element among the Oriental Jews)

B. Dinaric race (predominant in western Balkans [Dinaric Mountains] and northern Italy, important in the Czech Republic, eastern and southern Switzerland, western Austria and eastern Ukraine)

C. Alpine race (predominant element in Luxembourg, primary in Bavaria and Bohemia, important in France, Hungary, eastern and southern Switzerland)

D. Ladogan race (named after Lake Ladoga; indigenous to Russia; includes Lappish subrace of arctic Europe)

E. Nordish or Northern European race(various subraces in the British Isles, Scandinavia, the Netherlands and Belgium; predominant element in Germany, Switzerland, Poland, Finland and the Baltic States; majority in Austria and Russia; minority in France, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary; outlined in detail in The Nordish Race (http://www.racialcompact.com/nordishrace.html))

F. Armenid race (predominant element in Armenia, common in Syria, Lebanon and northern Iraq, primary element among the Ashkenazic Jews)

G. Turanid race (partially hybridized with Mongoloids; predominant element in Kazakhstan.; common in Hungary and Turkey)

H. Irano-Afghan race (predominant in Iran and Afghanistan, primary element in Iraq, common [25%] in Turkey)

I. Indic or Nordindid race (Pakistan and northern India)

J. Dravidic race (India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka [Ceylon]; ancient stabilized Indic-Veddoid [Australoid] blend)

IV. Australoid Subspecies

A. Veddoid race (remnant Australoid population in central and southern India)

B. Negritos (remnants in Malaysia and the Philippines)

C. Melanesian race (New Guinea, Papua, Solomon Islands)

D. Australian-Tasmanian race (Australian Aborigines)

V. Mongoloid Subspecies

A. Northeast Asian race (various subraces in China, Manchuria, Korea and Japan)

B. Southeast Asian race (various subraces in Indochina, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines, some partly hybridized with Australoids)

C. Micronesian-Polynesian race (hybridized with Australoids)

D. Ainuid race (remnants of aboriginal population in northern Japan)

E. Tungid race (Mongolia and Siberia, Eskimos)

F. Amerindian race (American Indians; various subraces)



Dominant or predominant = over 60% majority

Majority or major = 50-60% majority

Principal or primary = 25-49% plurality; less than a majority, but most numerous racial type

Important = 25-49% minority; not most numerous racial type

Common = 5-25% minority

Minor = less than 5% minority


Source: http://www.racialcompact.com/racesofhumanity.html (http://www.racialcompact.com/racesofhumanity.html)

Coon confirms that Irano-Afghans form the principal element in Iran (http://www.angeltowns.com/members/racialreal/subraces.html).


Some people seem to think that the scientific research of respected anthropologists is of less value than a few pictures found on the internet.



Moreover, Iran is a multi-ethnic state (actually, it’s more an empire). There are minority groups on the periphery of the country: Arab Iranians (mix of Iranians and Arab); Turkmen Iranians (mix of Iranians and Turks); Baluchi Iranians (these guys are mostly Iranian but “Persians” would say that they have mixed somewhat – with what I don’t know); Kurdish Iranians (most “Persians” would regard these guys as brothers); and others. Azari Iranians are somewhat more complicated and difficult to pigeonhole. Yet the core of the state has been and continues to be the “Persian” Iranian. I am a “Persian” but admire all my fellow countrymen who fought to keep Iran free.



Personally, I have no interest in being acknowledged as European or “white”. For me, “white” is a meaningless term. I am not a WN like Shapur is. If you have ever met an Iranian, you would know we are a proud people. And if there are Iranians living in Europe or America today, this is not out of choice. This is a temporary home ready to be abandoned when the political situation changes. Ask yourself this: when did the migration of Iranians to the West begin? Were Iranians guest workers in Europe like the Turks?



Where is the proof that “Persian” Iranians (and their close brethren) are mixed to a “considerable” extent? Below I provide genetic evidence which strongly contradicts this. If you think Iranians are close to Turks or Mongolians or Lebanese or Syrians, or think that Europeans are not close to Iranians, think again. Is blood not a more reliable indicator than the eyes? If you can refute this genetic evidence I will be very interested to see you do so.




Graphic representation of the genetic differences between 42 population groups from "The History and Geography of Human Genes" by Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi and Piazza



http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/GeneMap.jpg



Key:
<SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><STRONG>

Axelrod
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 11:58 PM
i wasnt propagandating or anything, i never knew a persian in my life and i wont have an advantage by talking them down or something. i dont give a crap either, if you guys want to be white this much, there you go. good night, convo over

Kamangir42
Thursday, July 15th, 2004, 11:58 PM
Sorry my post got cut short.

Key:

Mongul: Nomadic people of Mongolia.
Tibetan: People of Tibet.
Eskimo: Peoples inhabiting the Arctic coastal regions of North America, Geenland and northeast Siberia.
Na-Dene: North American Indian language.
Uralic: Language family that comprises the Finno-Uric and Samoyedic subfamilies [named after the Ural mountains].
North Turkic: Turkey.
Ainu: A separate indigenous people that live in Japan.
South Dravidian: A language spoken by peoples in southern India and northern Sri Lanka.
Chukchi: Northeast Siberia
Lapp: Nomadic herding people in northern Scandinavian countries.
Basque: A people inhabiting north central Spain (said to be the most homogeneous racial group found by Cavalli-Sforza).
Sardinian: Sardinia, an island of Italy.
Thai: A people of Thailand.
Polynesian: A division of Oceania including scattered islands of the central and southern Pacific Ocean roughly between New Zealand, Hawaii, and Easter Island.
Melanesian: Islands northeast of Australia and south of the equator.
Khmer: A people of Cambodia.
Micronesian: A division of Oceania in the western Pacific Ocean comprising islands east of the Philippines and north of the equator.
Malaysian: Southern Malay Peninsula and the northern part of the island of Borneo.
Berber: North Africa.
San: Nomadic hunting people of southwest Africa.
Mbuti: African pygmies.
Bantu: linguistically related central and southern Africans.
Nilo-Saharan: linguistically related sub-Saharan Africans from Nigeria to Kenya.

Source: http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/GeneMap.htm
Let’s address some arguments often put forward to label Iranians as mixed. First, Iranians are mixed because some have quite a bit of body and facial hair. Yes, some Iranians are hairy but so what? Lack of facial and body hair is a characteristic of Mongoloids and Negroids. So does it make sense to you that being hairy must indicate that you are somehow mixed? Second, Iranians are darker than Europeans on average (though many Iranians could fit into Europe without being noticed). True, but is this surprising when you live in a country where the temperature seldom falls below 40-50˚C in summer and the sun is truly ferocious? In a country like Iran, being pale or having light coloured hair puts you at a distinct disadvantage in surviving the harsh climatic and environmental conditions. It’s a matter of natural selection. From the friezes and mosaics I have seen Iranians have been like this since the days of Cyrus and Darius (and who knows how long for before them). Can anybody prove that Iranians have not always been like this? After thousands of years it stands to reason we have adapted to the environment if we were pale in the first place that is (just as Southern Europeans have done to a lesser extent).

Now let us turn to the Aryan question. What bearing does being Muslim or not have on whether you are Aryan? The accusing Paladin is a Christian. How Aryan do you think Jesus or his message was? I think the first step must be to define Aryan. A lot of people seem to think that being Aryan means having blond hair or blue eyes. This is just conjecture. I can show you friezes of “Persian” Immortals from the Achaemenid Empire which appear to have quite dark skin. All we can say for sure is that Iranians have called themselves Aryan for thousands of years and they continue to do so to this day. My understanding is that no other people called themselves Aryan or named their land as that of the Aryans (correct me if I’m wrong but I do believe the word Aryan occurs in the ancient Indian texts but it is not used in the manner that Darius I employed it in the Behistun Inscription). Further, there are many Aryan aspects to Iranian culture. Do you know what Norouz is? What countries in Europe have anything similar to this celebration? Have you heard of the Iranian national epic the Shahnameh? It’s quite pathetic how some try to steal our history and our culture yet condemn us unfit to claim it as ours!

Paladin, you are a troll and most probably a liar. You know nothing about anthropology yet act as if you are the world’s pre-eminent authority on the matter. You say you have been to Iran but I highly doubt this. If you had, you wouldn’t place so much emphasis on one Swede-Iranian guy you have met.

Thank you AWAR for your kind words. :)

Agrippa
Friday, July 16th, 2004, 12:04 AM
there is a common misconception, semits didnt come from mars neither did they come together as a whole, its a language family not a race

Yes, but like other language groups there is a type which represents this group best, which dominated the "original" (oldest) groups.


, and its northern non orientalid speakers like jews, assyrians, lebanese,some syrian/iraqi arabs etc are of caucasoid stock.

Most of these people are secondary or assimilated Semits, therefore you must not wonder that they are more mixed than typical-original Semits. (Bedus, Southern Arab upper class)



southern arabs have sub saharan blood which ranges their caucasoid ancestry with a negroid paternal side.

Sure they have, but its quite unlikely that those Negroid part brought the language.



as any north semite,turk,jew etc arent european so arent the persians. end of the story

Right.

Northern Paladin
Friday, July 16th, 2004, 12:40 AM
I don't know how you all discern what is "Europid" and what is not.
But I do it on the basis of Appearance and not what is called "Genetic Charts"(which can be fabricated/manipulated).
Greeks supposedly cluster around Danes in that chart but I would never confuse a Dane for an Greek or vice versa. The difference is even greater with Iranians. I've seen a lot of Iranians, only a few are close to looking European, even than they have something disctintly uneuropean about them that is clear to a trained eye.

Polak
Friday, July 16th, 2004, 02:09 AM
Pardon the long post. This post is not directed at all the posters on this thread, only those who have propagated lies about Iranians.



Firstly, I have to say I fail to see the point of this thread. The question posed requires a factual response; not a solicitation for opinions. If enough people were of the opinion that Michael Jordan was Armenoid would that make it so?



The fact is that Europid is a synonym for Caucasoid (thanks to VioletOxygen for correcting me on that – I had been misguided by people with a vested interest). As I understand it, Iranians are Caucasoid and so therefore they are Europids too. Indeed, Arabs, Jews and Dravidian Indians are Europid too. Of course, Iranians are non-European Europids. No sane Iranian to the best of my knowledge has ever claimed otherwise.



Further, I do believe Iranians are predominantly of the Irano-Afghan subrace of the Caucasoid/Europid race (see below). This is a fact whether you like it or not. The typical Iranian is not Norindid, Orientalid or Turanid in the same sense that the typical Brit is not Veddoid or Congoid.


[/b][/size]
Source: http://www.racialcompact.com/racesofhumanity.html (http://www.racialcompact.com/racesofhumanity.html)

Coon confirms that Irano-Afghans form the principal element in Iran (http://www.angeltowns.com/members/racialreal/subraces.html).


Some people seem to think that the scientific research of respected anthropologists is of less value than a few pictures found on the internet.



Moreover, Iran is a multi-ethnic state (actually, it’s more an empire). There are minority groups on the periphery of the country: Arab Iranians (mix of Iranians and Arab); Turkmen Iranians (mix of Iranians and Turks); Baluchi Iranians (these guys are mostly Iranian but “Persians” would say that they have mixed somewhat – with what I don’t know); Kurdish Iranians (most “Persians” would regard these guys as brothers); and others. Azari Iranians are somewhat more complicated and difficult to pigeonhole. Yet the core of the state has been and continues to be the “Persian” Iranian. I am a “Persian” but admire all my fellow countrymen who fought to keep Iran free.



Personally, I have no interest in being acknowledged as European or “white”. For me, “white” is a meaningless term. I am not a WN like Shapur is. If you have ever met an Iranian, you would know we are a proud people. And if there are Iranians living in Europe or America today, this is not out of choice. This is a temporary home ready to be abandoned when the political situation changes. Ask yourself this: when did the migration of Iranians to the West begin? Were Iranians guest workers in Europe like the Turks?



Where is the proof that “Persian” Iranians (and their close brethren) are mixed to a “considerable” extent? Below I provide genetic evidence which strongly contradicts this. If you think Iranians are close to Turks or Mongolians or Lebanese or Syrians, or think that Europeans are not close to Iranians, think again. Is blood not a more reliable indicator than the eyes? If you can refute this genetic evidence I will be very interested to see you do so.




Graphic representation of the genetic differences between 42 population groups from "The History and Geography of Human Genes" by Cavalli-Sforza, Menozzi and Piazza



http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/GeneMap.jpg



Key:
<SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana"><STRONG>


Like I said, someone show me details on Iranian Autosomal Microsatellite Loci.

Leave all of thi **** out, and show me what counts.

I'm not intersted in someone's interpretation of old theories and outdated data.

Kamangir42
Friday, July 16th, 2004, 02:42 AM
Like I said, someone show me details on Iranian Autosomal Microsatellite Loci.

Leave all of thi **** out, and show me what counts.

I'm not intersted in someone's interpretation of old theories and outdated data.
So you are calling the seminal treatment of human genetic variation written by three of the most distinguished experts in their field "shit"? :D What are your credentials? Talk about being blinded by political considerations...



Book Description
L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza and his collaborators Paolo Menozzi and Alberto Piazza have devoted fourteen years to one of the most compelling scientific projects of our time: the reconstruction of where human populations originated and the paths by which they spread throughout the world. In this volume, the culmination of their research, the authors explain their pathbreaking use of genetic data, which they integrate with insights from geography, ecology, archaeology, physical anthropology, and linguistics to create the first full-scale account of human evolution as it occurred across all continents. This interdisciplinary approach enables them to address a wide range of issues that continue to incite debate: the timing of the first appearance of our species, the problem of African origins and the significance of work recently done on mitochondrial DNA and the popular notion of an "African Eve," the controversy pertaining to the peopling of the Americas, and the reason for the presence of non-Indo-European languages--Basque, Finnish, and Hungarian--in Europe.


The authors reconstruct the history of our evolution by focusing on genetic divergence among human groups. Using genetic information accumulated over the last fifty years, they examined over 110 different inherited traits, such as blood types, HLA factors, proteins, and DNA markers, in over eighteen hundred, primarily aboriginal, populations. By mapping the worldwide geographic distribution of the genes, the scientists are now able to chart migrations and, in exploring genetic distance, devise a clock by which to date evolutionary history: the longer two populations are separated, the greater their genetic difference should be. This volume highlights the authors' contributions to genetic geography, particularly their technique for making geographic maps of gene frequencies and their synthetic method of detecting ancient migrations, as for example the migration of Neolithic farmers from the Middle East toward Europe, West Asia, and North Africa. Beginning with an explanation of their major sources of data and concepts, the authors give an interdisciplinary account of human evolution at the world level. Chapters are then devoted to evolution on single continents and include analyses of genetic data and how these data relate to geographic, ecological, archaeological, anthropological, and linguistic information. Comprising a wide range of viewpoints, a vast store of new and recent information on genetics, and a generous supply of visual elements, including 522 geographic maps, this book is a unique source of facts and a catalyst for further debate and research.



Source: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0691087504/104-7616454-8151965?v=glance



Reviews:

"This is the most comprehensive treatment of human genetic variations available.... It will likely play an important role in future research in anthropological genetics.... An impressive display of synthesis and analysis."--Science

"This is the most comprehensive treatment of human genetic variations available. . . . An impressive display of synthesis and analysis."--Science

"This long-awaited magnum opus is a major contribution to our knowledge of human genetic variation and its distribution on a global scale."--American Scientist

"A landmark in biology. There is nothing of its kind. . . . It represents an essential historical source for all human biologists, guaranteeing its importance in evolutionary biology."--American Journal of Human Genetics

"A magisterial survey of what is known about the distribution of human genes. . . . This book is a milestone in the pursuit of human evolutionary history."--New Scientist

"A landmark in the study of human evolution."--Trends in Genetics

"A crowning achievement, a compendium of a career's work, and a sourcebook for years to come. . . . a landmark publication, a standard by which work in this field must be judged in the future."--American Journal of Human Biology


Source: http://pup.princeton.edu/titles/4593.html

Do you really think Cavalli-Sforza et al. did not use autosomal DNA data?

And if YOU can disprove their findings, go ahead. The onus is on YOU to demonstrate that their findings re Iranians are false, not the other way around.

Seriously, do you have any response? Or will you, as I expect, shift the goalposts?

Polak
Friday, July 16th, 2004, 03:09 AM
So you are calling the seminal treatment of human genetic variation written by three of the most distinguished experts in their field "shit"? :D What are your credentials? Talk about being blinded by political considerations...


Source: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0691087504/104-7616454-8151965?v=glance


Source: http://pup.princeton.edu/titles/4593.html

Do you really think Cavalli-Sforza et al. did not use autosomal DNA data?

And if YOU can disprove their findings, go ahead. The onus is on YOU to demonstrate that their findings re Iranians are false, not the other way around.

Seriously, do you have any response? Or will you, as I expect, shift the goalposts?


Ok, first of all, the information you got from racial compact, or whatever that site is called, isn't exactly real science. And I'm being kind here. If you don't realise that then you're naive and quite stupid.

Secondly, I have indeed read the works of Cavalli-Sforza. The book you quote was pretty good for its time, but sadly, back then, Cavalli didn't really have much info to work with, so he did the best he could.

Nevertheless, that map you're showing is an extremely rough representation of the data in his book.

If you're going to quote something like that, then show us more details at least. I can assure you, I have looked at all the tables and graphs there, and Iranians don't come out looking like central Europeans, which is what that illustration alone indicates.

Anyway, my challenge stands, show me some nice, new, detailed data on Iranian autosomal loci, then I'll tip my hat to both you and your friend Shapur.

Or at the very least show us all of Cavalii-Sforza's data and conclusions on Iranians.

But just wondering whether you realise that it was Cavalli-Sforza who first came up with the idea that the Slavic R1a marker was proto-Indo-European? Yup, so this of course means that Iranians are not Aryan. And this is what he showed with his PC genetic variation maps.

Ivan
Friday, July 16th, 2004, 03:32 AM
When the US has a good proportion of Nordic men in it's population, it isn't such a good thing to alienate the darker Caucasian races. I rather see a Nordic chick dating an Iranian over a Nig.

I can garauntee you, a Nordic bitch-bleach-blood will be dating one of the two.

Unfortunately, that is what it all comes down too??

LOL. ;)

Telperion
Friday, July 16th, 2004, 03:48 AM
I can garauntee you, a Nordic bitch-bleach-blood will be dating one of the two.

These sorts of trite, inane remarks don't exactly enhance the credibility of your posts.

Kamangir42
Friday, July 16th, 2004, 05:04 AM
Ok, first of all, the information you got from racial compact, or whatever that site is called, isn't exactly real science. And I'm being kind here. If you don't realise that then you're naive and quite stupid.
The information is quite obviously based on Coon. That is why I posted the second site which confirms that the "principal element" of the population of Iran is Irano-Afghan. Coon is a noted anthropologist. I'm sure he is not the intellectual genius that Polak is but he is the best I could find.

If we get back on topic, the information that I have found confirms that Iranians are predominantly Irano-Afghan of the Europid/Caucasoid race. The pertinent question is: can anyone refute this statement thereby proving Coon wrong?

If you cannot then I will simply not accept unsubstantiated claims like Iranians are principally Orientalid, Turanid or whatever nowadays rather than Irano-Afghan. Or that maybe Coon said there were a few Australoids in Iran so Iranians are gypsies (or look like them anyway).

If you think I'm being naive and stupid, then so be it. I won't lose sleep over it.



Secondly, I have indeed read the works of Cavalli-Sforza. The book you quote was pretty good for its time, but sadly, back then, Cavalli didn't really have much info to work with, so he did the best he could.

Nevertheless, that map you're showing is an extremely rough representation of the data in his book.

If you're going to quote something like that, then show us more details at least. I can assure you, I have looked at all the tables and graphs there, and Iranians don't come out looking like central Europeans, which is what that illustration alone indicates.
I'm still waiting for your refutation of a study which "examined over 110 different inherited traits, such as blood types, HLA factors, proteins, and DNA markers, in over eighteen hundred, primarily aboriginal, populations". Does this sound like Cavalli-Sforza et al. did not have "much info to work with"? And what exactly, come to think of it, is wrong with Cavalli-Sforza et al. and its conclusions?

The graph is an "extremely rough representation of the data" in the book? This is an outrage. I'm sure Cavalli-Sforza et al. will want to hear about this cynical manipulation of their data! Oh wait. It appears the graph is lifted straight from Diagram 2.3.5 on p.82. Isn't that a turn up for the books? :D

I never claimed Iranians "come out looking like" Central Europeans. In fact, Central Europeans are not even represented on that graph. My only aim in displaying this graph was to demonstrate that Iranians are very very genetically distant to Mongols and Turks, and quite distant to Arabs. My question still stands: how are Iranians "mixed to a considerable extent" with Mongols and Arabs. What exactly is a "considerable extent"? 5%? 10% 50%?

Additionally, the graph does appear to demonstrate the genetic closeness of Iranians to European populations especially in comparison with Turk, Arab and other populations which surround Iran (which should not be surprising given that physical anthropoligists have found Iranians to be predominantly of the Irano-Afghan subrace of the Cacasoid/Europid race - it all ties in, doesn't it?).



Anyway, my challenge stands, show me some nice, new, detailed data on Iranian autosomal loci, then I'll tip my hat to both you and your friend Shapur.

Or at the very least show us all of Cavalii-Sforza's data and conclusions on Iranians.
I misjudged you. I thought you were going to shift the goalposts. Instead, you denied there were any goalposts at all. Touche!

Who said you were setting the challenges? I posted that graph and asked if anyone had evidence to refute it. So I set a challenge. And your reply to my challenge was to laugh at Cavalli-Sforza et al. and set me a totally unrelated challenge about autosomal DNA (which surely Cavalli-Sforza et al. employed in their genetic testing - what do you think genetic testing entails? Measuring the chromosomes with a ruler? :D ).

How about I just repeat what I wrote in my last post?

"And if YOU can disprove their findings, go ahead. The onus is on YOU to demonstrate that their findings re Iranians are false, not the other way around."

By the way, I am not responsible for what Shapur writes and nor is he responsible for what I write.



But just wondering whether you realise that it was Cavalli-Sforza who first came up with the idea that the Slavic R1a marker was proto-Indo-European? Yup, so this of course means that Iranians are not Aryan. And this is what he showed with his PC genetic variation maps.
The graph I posted concerns the genetic closeness of several populations. It makes no mention of Aryans. It does not seek the explain the origin or migration of the Aryans. Why are you trying to muddy the issue?

I am aware of these unproven "theories" and "ideas". At the moment, this is just conjecture. In contrast to the graph I posted, of course, which is merely a representation of genetic testing unclouded by any theory.

We know only one thing about Aryans for sure. Iranians have always and continue to call themself Aryans. Our culture is Aryan. When have Poles (or Slavs in general) ever done likewise? Nor can you prove that the Kurgan people were Aryan or that that they carried HG3 because no genetic testing on their remains have been carried out. And you expect us to believe that three of the most important civilisations in history (Iran, Greece and Rome) were created by Aryan travellers from Slav lands yet the Slav lands themselves, which must have been teeming with these budding empire builders, remained a backwater with nary a peep? At the moment all your theory has are a few desperate Kashmiris eager to be your "Aryan" brothers and linguistically and racially Dravidic tribes in southern India like the Chenchus who are awaiting their invitation to the "Aryan" capital to, Warsaw (or has it been renamed "Aryanam Vaejah"? :D ), to return to the homeland.

I think I should repeat what I wrote above because it's apt. "It’s quite pathetic how some try to steal our history and our culture yet condemn us unfit to claim it as ours!" I am well aware of Poles and their forlorn attempts to cast themselves as exotic "Sarmatians".

Northern Paladin
Friday, July 16th, 2004, 05:14 AM
If Iranians can be considered "Europid" why not other Middle Easterns? Why not Central Asians?

It's naive to base all your arguments on a simple "Genetic Chart" which can be easily manipulated/fabricated to represent anything. From looking at the Chart one would assume Danes and Iranians are next of kin. Yet who among us can't tell the difference between an Iranian and a Dane? Appearances are telling indeed.

Iranians are Caucasians but so are Indians,Pakastinis,Afghans,Central Asians,Jews,Turks and other Middle Easterns(Iraqis,Saudis,Syrians,Palestian s,ect). So why not consider all these groups "Europid" instead of just Iranians.?

Awar
Friday, July 16th, 2004, 05:28 AM
The problem is in the term 'Europoid'.
I've grown to know it as just a synonym for the term 'Caucasoid' or 'White race'.

As Kamangir, an Iranian clearly stated, Iranians are not Europeans, but are Europoid/Caucasoid. Yes, I consider most of the middle east and parts of central Asia to be Europoid/Caucasoid. Does that mean I want them in my country? Certainly not.
Just as I don't want large groups of Germans, Swedes, Spaniards, Italians, French etc.

Polak
Friday, July 16th, 2004, 06:01 AM
Ahh, yes, Coon. From the 1930s. Well done there. Do you have a fetish with old books or something?


I'm still waiting for your refutation of a study which "examined over 110 different inherited traits, such as blood types, HLA factors, proteins, and DNA markers, in over eighteen hundred, primarily aboriginal, populations". Does this sound like Cavalli-Sforza et al. did not have "much info to work with"? And what exactly, come to think of it, is wrong with Cavalli-Sforza et al. and its conclusions?

No, he didn't have much to work with, considering how much more study has been done on all markers and autosomal dna since that book was published.

You must be seriously short of brain cells if you think this book is up to date.

Read this closely:

Even today we're still having trouble getting detailed genetic data based on large enough samples.

That's right, get it into your head that Cavalli's book is out of date. He didn't have much to work with. Genetics is moving ahead at a brisk pace. Is that a surprise to you?



The graph is an "extremely rough representation of the data" in the book? This is an outrage. I'm sure Cavalli-Sforza et al. will want to hear about this cynical manipulation of their data! Oh wait. It appears the graph is lifted straight from Diagram 2.3.5 on p.82. Isn't that a turn up for the books? :D

It is an extremely rough representation of the data. Are you seriously saying that you can draw up a simple picture to show what Cavalli is trying to explain in a big fat book?

Show us some more data from the book, including the actual table showing genetic distances between all the populations.


I never claimed Iranians "come out looking like" Central Europeans. In fact, Central Europeans are not even represented on that graph. My only aim in displaying this graph was to demonstrate that Iranians are very very genetically distant to Mongols and Turks, and quite distant to Arabs. My question still stands: how are Iranians "mixed to a considerable extent" with Mongols and Arabs. What exactly is a "considerable extent"? 5%? 10% 50%?

Central Europeans are there. We are talking here in the context of Cavalli's book, right? According to Cavalli Sforza, Central Europeans, in a genetic sense, include populations like the English, Danes, Poles, Dutch, Russians, Italians....and so on. All of these groups are very close in his genetic distances table.

Hmmm...have you actually read the book, or are you just relying on some snippets you've seen on the net? I have to wonder?


Additionally, the graph does appear to demonstrate the genetic closeness of Iranians to European populations especially in comparison with Turk, Arab and other populations which surround Iran (which should not be surprising given that physical anthropoligists have found Iranians to be predominantly of the Irano-Afghan subrace of the Cacasoid/Europid race - it all ties in, doesn't it?).


Perhaps, perhaps not. Anthropologists have made many mistakes in the past that current genetic studies are now refuting. Moreover, Cavalli's work was just the tip of the iceberg.

I can't say either way till I see some detailed studies, and recent ones at that, of Iranians.



I misjudged you. I thought you were going to shift the goalposts. Instead, you denied there were any goalposts at all. Touche!


Stop blabbing nonsesnse and get with the program.


Who said you were setting the challenges? I posted that graph and asked if anyone had evidence to refute it. So I set a challenge. And your reply to my challenge was to laugh at Cavalli-Sforza et al. and set me a totally unrelated challenge about autosomal DNA (which surely Cavalli-Sforza et al. employed in their genetic testing - what do you think genetic testing entails? Measuring the chromosomes with a ruler? :D ).

Yeah, even today it's hard to find data on autosomal dna, and Cavalli somehow managed to get gold back in the 1990s. I'm sure he did have some info on Iranians, but it wasn't much.

Do you have any detailed studies on Iranians. If so, show us. That's all I'm asking.



The graph I posted concerns the genetic closeness of several populations. It makes no mention of Aryans. It does not seek the explain the origin or migration of the Aryans. Why are you trying to muddy the issue?

I am aware of these unproven "theories" and "ideas". At the moment, this is just conjecture. In contrast to the graph I posted, of course, which is merely a representation of genetic testing unclouded by any theory.

The problem is that it's old, and the world has moved on since then. You get that?


We know only one thing about Aryans for sure. Iranians have always and continue to call themself Aryans. Our culture is Aryan. When have Poles (or Slavs in general) ever done likewise? Nor can you prove that the Kurgan people were Aryan or that that they carried HG3 because no genetic testing on their remains have been carried out. And you expect us to believe that three of the most important civilisations in history (Iran, Greece and Rome) were created by Aryan travellers from Slav lands yet the Slav lands themselves, which must have been teeming with these budding empire builders, remained a backwater with nary a peep? At the moment all your theory has are a few desperate Kashmiris eager to be your "Aryan" brothers and linguistically and racially Dravidic tribes in southern India like the Chenchus who are awaiting their invitation to the "Aryan" capital to, Warsaw (or has it been renamed "Aryanam Vaejah"? :D ), to return to the homeland.

According to Cavalli-Sforza, and that book you quote, Slavs are direct descendats of the Kurgan people, who he said were the proto-Aryans.

And your knowledge of European history must be extremely poor if you don't know anything about the achievements of Poland and Russia, both Slavic nations.


I think I should repeat what I wrote above because it's apt. "It’s quite pathetic how some try to steal our history and our culture yet condemn us unfit to claim it as ours!" I am well aware of Poles and their forlorn attempts to cast themselves as exotic "Sarmatians".

Well according to Cavalli-Sforza's theories, Poles have more in common with Indo-Iranians than modern Iranians do. Chew on that.

Also, if we are to believe genetic studies from the last few years, after Cavalli's book came out, then we must conclude that Iranians aren't very European at all.

http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=56946

But I don't want to jump to conclusions, because what I really want is a detailed report on Iranian autosomal dna...not just some old table from an old book, and not just some y-chromosome study.

I think that's fair.

Polak
Friday, July 16th, 2004, 06:45 AM
By the way, I don't seem to remember seeing that diagram you posted in Cavalli's book at all.

Might it just be someone else's interpretation of his genetic distances table?

If so, then the diagram is usless. We don't know who did it, how they did it, and what they were trying to show.

Moreover, do we know that it's possible to interpret the genetic distances as a diagram without any serious errors?

I could be wrong, but like I said, I don't remember seeing that in the book. Where did you get it?

Polak
Friday, July 16th, 2004, 06:53 AM
Ok, now we're cooking...

That diagram wasn't in Cavalli-Sforza's book at all. It's an interpretation of his genetic distances table. He had nothing to do with it.

This is the site it comes from...

http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/GeneMap.htm

So, like I said, how reliable is it? Well I'm very sceptical.

Not only does it come from 10 year old data, but we don't even know who put it together and how.

Hmmmm...

Dr. Solar Wolff
Friday, July 16th, 2004, 08:16 AM
[QUOTE=Agrippa]They can be called Caucasoid (in that sense Europid or white) but they are not European in race and culture.


I think this is the best answer to the question.

Shapur
Friday, July 16th, 2004, 12:36 PM
Polak you have no arguments. You don`t understand this yes?
The question was if Iranians are Europid. And yes they are.
The rest who said no, know nothing about this stuff.
You are not an anthropologist or an scientist. You are a child who know nothing.
The real guys who know something about this stuff like Agrippa doesn`t deny that Iranians are Europid. He said that Iranians are Europid but not European.
And this I can support 100%. Iranians are Europid but not European.
For your genetic marker HG3. It is meaningless. When you want you can create a new thread where we could discuss. And Northern Paladin know nothing!
I am sick of this thread because it is full of lies.
Why not asking are Englishmen Europid/Caucasoid?
Are they 100%? Or not?
Bullshit...


Bye:)

Polak
Friday, July 16th, 2004, 12:57 PM
Polak you have no arguments. You don`t understand this yes?
The question was if Iranians are Europid. And yes they are.
The rest who said no, know nothing about this stuff.
You are not an anthropologist or an scientist. You are a child who know nothing.
The real guys who know something about this stuff like Agrippa doesn`t deny that Iranians are Europid. He said that Iranians are Europid but not European.
And this I can support 100%. Iranians are Europid but not European.
For your genetic marker HG3. It is meaningless. When you want you can create a new thread where we could discuss. And Northern Paladin know nothing!
I am sick of this thread because it is full of lies.
Why not asking are Englishmen Europid/Caucasoid?
Are they 100%? Or not?
Bullshit...


Bye:)


A child? Pffff....

I'm not saying Iranians are not Europid. I think they are.

They are part of the West Eurasian gene pool, and fully Caucasoid.

But they are not European.

You're saying that there are links between Iranians and some Europeans via HG2 and HG9.

But I'm saying that's not much of an argument.

I believe that the vast majority of Europeans are closer genetically to each other than they are to Iranians, get it?

The vast majority, except a few outliers, like the Lapps.

This is why I would like to see some new data on Autosomal Microsatellite Loci in Iranians. That would clear up a lot for everyone.

Shapur
Friday, July 16th, 2004, 01:14 PM
A child? Pffff....

I'm not saying Iranians are not Europid. I think they are.

They are part of the West Eurasian gene pool, and fully Caucasoid.

But they are not European.

You're saying that there are links between Iranians and some Europeans via HG2 and HG9.

But I'm saying that's not much of an argument.

I believe that the vast majority of Europeans are closer genetically to each other than they are to Iranians, get it?

The vast majority, except a few outliers, like the Lapps.

This is why I would like to see some new data on Autosomal Microsatellite Loci in Iranians. That would clear up a lot for everyone.
Yeah now you changing your opinion...:D

Polak
Friday, July 16th, 2004, 01:21 PM
Yeah now you changing your opinion...:D


Change my opinion from what?

Tuor
Friday, July 16th, 2004, 04:46 PM
Iranians simply have to be europid since there people and their language (farsi) is from the indo european tree. The other peoples like turks who are avar people distantly relatied to huns and finns. As for the others like arabs they are semites and are related to the orginal hebrew people.

Polak
Friday, July 16th, 2004, 04:59 PM
Iranians simply have to be europid since there people and their language (farsi) is from the indo european tree. The other peoples like turks who are avar people distantly relatied to huns and finns. As for the others like arabs they are semites and are related to the orginal hebrew people.


Yeah, except Finns are not only Europid, they are also often Nordid. They are certainly European, while Iranians are not.

On the other hand, there are Indo-european speaking people in Central Asia who look Mongoloid.

Language doesn't always equate to race.

Awar
Friday, July 16th, 2004, 05:15 PM
Turks are not Avars... perhaps some Avars were Turkic, but primarily Avars were a tribe, and later a tribal union. Not an ethnicity.

I think they had a different name for themselves, as 'Avar' was a name given to them, meaning probably something like 'fugee' :) since they are the ones who escaped when the Gokturks destroyed the 'Avar' state in Asia.

Northern Paladin
Friday, July 16th, 2004, 06:46 PM
[QUOTE=Agrippa]They can be called Caucasoid (in that sense Europid or white) but they are not European in race and culture.


I think this is the best answer to the question.


There are quite a few light haired light eyed Turks. If Iranians can be Europid than why not Turks? Turks are Geographically much closer to Europe(Istanbul is in both Europe and Asia) and are also Caucasoid yet they aren't Europid but Iranians are? :P
Iranians to me are Middle Eastern Caucasoids. White is not a good word to use to desribe them as most of them are not "White" in appearance.
Europid=European Race. How can one be Europid if they are not European in Race?

Shapur
Friday, July 16th, 2004, 07:02 PM
There are quite a few light haired light eyed Turks. If Iranians can be Europid than why not Turks? Turks are Geographically much closer to Europe(Istanbul is in both Europe and Asia) and are also Caucasoid yet they aren't Europid but Iranians are? :P
Iranians to me are Middle Eastern Caucasoids. White is not a good word to use to desribe them as most of them are not "White" in appearance.
Europid=European Race. How can one be Europid if they are not European in Race?
So the dark south Europeans aren`t Europid, because you must be nordish to be Europid. Very interesting!

Northern Paladin
Friday, July 16th, 2004, 07:20 PM
So the dark south Europeans aren`t Europid, because you must be nordish to be Europid. Very interesting!


Why don't you answer my question why can't Turks who are Caucasian and closer to Europe be considered Europid? Most Europeans do not consider Turks Europid.

Of course Dark South Europeans are Europid. However "White" Wouldn't be a good word to describe them as they aren't of that color. Instead Southern Europid would be a more appropriate term. White usually reffers to lighter colored Europids and of course some Southern Europeans are White as well.
In classifying race Bone structure is often times more important than pigmentation and of course there is a host of other factors to Consider.

Awar
Friday, July 16th, 2004, 08:50 PM
Only on Skadi have I first heard that the term 'white' is used only for northern Europeans.
I've never considered these non-European caucasoid/europoid groups to be something other than white.

I'm sure that many, if not most, Europeans would be dumb-founded if you told them that a German is white, while a Greek isn't, or that a Turk is of a different race altogether than a Croat or a Swiss.

Why can't we just put aside these amateurish labels and stick to reality.

Väring
Friday, July 16th, 2004, 08:52 PM
If Iranians can be considered "Europid" why not other Middle Easterns? Why not Central Asians?

What's the problem? Europid sub-species can be anything from Irano-Afghans to Turanids to Nordids. The term doesn't imply a kinship with the peoples of Europe, of course.

Axelrod
Friday, July 16th, 2004, 09:10 PM
if titles caucasoid/europid and white can be seperated right; as caucasoid being everyone in the caucasoid sub species from spain to arabistan, iran, russia etc and label white being selectively used in order to specify a person of either baltic, slavic, germanic,hellenic, romance or celtic background then the problem might be solved. if a near easterner belongs to one of the european subraces of alpine, dinarid, nordid, med and phenotypically cant be told from a european then he may call himself white individually but not his nation as a whole. otherwise you make jews, turks and that stuff white. they are caucasoid but not white. ofcourse the whole thing can be solved when word europid is defined properly(i now assume it means caucasoid).

Awar
Friday, July 16th, 2004, 09:31 PM
What's the problem? Europid sub-species can be anything from Irano-Afghans to Turanids to Nordids. The term doesn't imply a kinship with the peoples of Europe, of course.

Yep.

Tribunale Dei Minore
Friday, July 16th, 2004, 11:41 PM
If Turks aren't considered Europid why should Iranians be? Throughout Europe Turks are considered distinctly non-European. In Germany this is particularlly obvious. If Iranians are Europid? Why shouldn't Turks,Iraqis, and Jews also be Europid. Why shouldn't the majority of Middle Easterns be considered Europid?

In fact I'd say in general Turks,Jews, and Palestinians fellow "Middle Easterns" are more Europid than Iranians.
You're not esspecialy bright, are you?
Europid is a racial classification. Belonging to this taxon depends on biological characteristics. The suffix '-id' (greek origin) is to identify antropological(biological) classification. Baker's taxonomy equalizes europid to caucasoid. Thats why swedes, italians, americans, jews, iraqi, turks,gypsies, and other caucasoids(=europid) are europid(=caucasoids) if they are free of negroid and mongoloid admixture. Turks are a bit more complex because the original turanid element in their genofond (10-15%) was partly mongoloid.


European is geographical term. It refers to geography. Virtually every negroe or chimp born in Europe(the continent, geography) could be (and is) considered european. It is not connected with race(biological term) but with geography. As swedes and italians are europeans, iranians and iraqi are not europeans simply because neither Iran, nor Iraq are european(geography) countries. Turks are complicated again, because as most of Turkey is in Asia(the continent, geography) small part of the country(geography) is in Europe(geography). They could be considered both asians and europeans. Politically Turkey is considered oftentimes european country.


Thus, northern, I hope the information above was presented simple enough for your (unfortunately) europid mind (biology).

Tribunale Dei Minore
Friday, July 16th, 2004, 11:59 PM
The thread is sooo retarded stated, that I even feel like an idiot replying to it. It would be wise if the administrators remove it to the free-speech zone. Either way any intelligent poster who browse the hereby sub-forum that pretends to be high and scientific and see this joke-thread would draw negative conclusions for the the whole forum. The last option of the poll is enough for me:

Do You consider Iranians to be Europids?
-No I do not consider Iranians as Europids.(No Exceptions)
-Yes I do consider Iranians as Europids.(No Exceptions)
-I consider most Iranians not to be Europeans but a few are(Exception made for the few)

Really, what kind of human being with IQ>52 would consider 'a few' iranians to be europeans, bearing in mind(mind of human with IQ>52) that Iran is asian country?
An american?

Shapur
Saturday, July 17th, 2004, 01:27 AM
The thread is sooo retarded stated, that I even feel like an idiot replying to it. It would be wise if the administrators remove it to the free-speech zone. Either way any intelligent poster who browse the hereby sub-forum that pretends to be high and scientific and see this joke-thread would draw negative conclusions for the the whole forum. The last option of the poll is enough for me:

Do You consider Iranians to be Europids?
-No I do not consider Iranians as Europids.(No Exceptions)
-Yes I do consider Iranians as Europids.(No Exceptions)
-I consider most Iranians not to be Europeans but a few are(Exception made for the few)

Really, what kind of human being with IQ>52 would consider 'a few' iranians to be europeans, bearing in mind(mind of human with IQ>52) that Iran is asian country?
An american?
Yeah :D ! That I said the whole time. But maybe they understand you! ;)

Northern Paladin
Saturday, July 17th, 2004, 03:25 AM
You're not esspecialy bright, are you?
Europid is a racial classification. Belonging to this taxon depends on biological characteristics. The suffix '-id' (greek origin) is to identify antropological(biological) classification. Baker's taxonomy equalizes europid to caucasoid. Thats why swedes, italians, americans, jews, iraqi, turks,gypsies, and other caucasoids(=europid) are europid(=caucasoids) if they are free of negroid and mongoloid admixture.


Europid=European Caucasoid. You should learn your definitions before you accuse others of being of low intelligence. You forgot to include Indians and Arabs in your List of what you consider Europid . Caucasoid is a general terminology. Europid is specifically used to refer to European Caucasoids.

Why are you defending Iranians with such Zeal? :P

Kamangir42
Saturday, July 17th, 2004, 12:36 PM
Europid=European Caucasoid. You should learn your definitions before you accuse others of being of low intelligence. You forgot to include Indians and Arabs in your List of what you consider Europid . Caucasoid is a general terminology. Europid is specifically used to refer to European Caucasoids.

Why are you defending Iranians with such Zeal? :P
You're still not quite there yet, are you? How about you look up the word "synonym" in the dictionary? Go on. You won't regret it. :)

Polak
Saturday, July 17th, 2004, 02:58 PM
I think most people agree here that Iranians are by and large Caucasoid - ie. part of the white race.

But they are not European in a sub-racial sense.

I personally think that they are on the fringe of the Caucasoid race. Just wanted to add that to my earlier statements.

Btw, so anyone got any studies on Iranian autosomal DNA?

Siegfried
Saturday, July 17th, 2004, 03:08 PM
I think most people agree here that Iranians are by and large Caucasoid - ie. part of the white race.

But they are not European in a sub-racial sense.


True, though I wouldn't want to equate Caucasoid with White.

Kamangir42
Saturday, July 17th, 2004, 03:39 PM
Would it not be easier for people of your views to ditch the term "white" and substitue "indigenous European Europid stock"? This would clear up any ambiguities and avoid inconsistencies in my opinion.

By the way Polak I will respond to you shortly. I just haven't had enough time to compose an adequate response. ;)

Awar
Saturday, July 17th, 2004, 03:44 PM
I think 'indigenous European' subraces is ok :)

Oskorei
Saturday, July 17th, 2004, 04:22 PM
IMO Iranians (at least the pure specimens) are Aryans, and this is more important than if they are European or not.

And Shia is an Aryan form of Islam (just look at the concept of the Hidden Imam/Mahdi=Kalki).

Polak
Saturday, July 17th, 2004, 05:31 PM
True, though I wouldn't want to equate Caucasoid with White.



Well, it really depends on the individual's use of these terms.

To me, white, black, yellow and red are the most broad terms one can use for human races. And these equate to Caucasoid, Negroid....or West Eurasian, Sub-Saharan...etc.

But then, when you start breaking down these major groups, Iranians fall away from Europeans. And that's basically what i was trying to say.

Dare I say, most people who posted here seem to agree with me...though they may have explained themselves in a different way.

Dorian
Saturday, July 17th, 2004, 08:13 PM
No with some exceptions.
For example in compraison with Armenians i'd say yes for 60-70% of Armenians if not more, both culturally and racially as European and White.
While only 5-10% of Iranians as White/Europoid racially but in no way, shape or form as culturally.

Awar
Saturday, July 17th, 2004, 10:14 PM
What do you mean... it's natural that Iranians are somewhat removed from other Europeans, as they live in quite a distant land. Even if there was absolutely NO intermixture with other extra-European populations, the Iranian population would still have gone a different path in the last thousands of years of being separate.

You can't expect Iran to be genetically the same as England, or even Greece, but it's not like they're of another race.

Kamangir42
Saturday, July 17th, 2004, 10:36 PM
What do you mean... it's natural that Iranians are somewhat removed from other Europeans, as they live in quite a distant land. Even if there was absolutely NO intermixture with other extra-European populations, the Iranian population would still have gone a different path in the last thousands of years of being separate.

You can't expect Iran to be genetically the same as England, or even Greece, but it's not like they're of another race.
Are you addressing me?

Kamangir42
Saturday, July 17th, 2004, 10:48 PM
Ahh, yes, Coon. From the 1930s. Well done there. Do you have a fetish with old books or something?

What is your problem with Coon’s findings exactly? Are you trying to say Iranians aren’t predominantly Irano-Afghan? Or are you just being argumentative for the sake of it?



It is an extremely rough representation of the data. Are you seriously saying that you can draw up a simple picture to show what Cavalli is trying to explain in a big fat book?

Show us some more data from the book, including the actual table showing genetic distances between all the populations.



….



Hmmm...have you actually read the book, or are you just relying on some snippets you've seen on the net? I have to wonder?







By the way, I don't seem to remember seeing that diagram you posted in Cavalli's book at all.

Might it just be someone else's interpretation of his genetic distances table?

If so, then the diagram is usless. We don't know who did it, how they did it, and what they were trying to show.

Moreover, do we know that it's possible to interpret the genetic distances as a diagram without any serious errors?

I could be wrong, but like I said, I don't remember seeing that in the book. Where did you get it?







Ok, now we're cooking...

That diagram wasn't in Cavalli-Sforza's book at all. It's an interpretation of his genetic distances table. He had nothing to do with it.

This is the site it comes from...

http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/GeneMap.htm (http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/GeneMap.htm)

So, like I said, how reliable is it? Well I'm very sceptical.

Not only does it come from 10 year old data, but we don't even know who put it together and how.

Hmmmm...


No sh it! I’m afraid you’re not cooking, far from it in fact. You are in deep freeze, or at least your brain is. I’m glad you found the site I took the map from. Great detective work considering I posted the source in my original post! Congratulations you can click on a link! :D



Let me repeat this once again so that there will be no misunderstanding on your part. For all your accusations, the map can be found in an identical form in “The History and Geography of Human Genes”. It’s Diagram 2.3.5 on p.82. I don’t know how to say this any more clearly so that you might just understand. I’m sorry but do you understand English?



Given that the principal component map is the centrepiece of the entire book, I very much doubt you have ever read this book. You are most probably a liar. I also expect an apology from you for hinting that I had somehow falsely attributed the map to Cavalli-Sforza et al. This is a very serious accusation to make.



Now back to the map. I’ll post it again to refresh your memory.



http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/GeneMap.jpg




Let me explain to you how this map was compiled because it certainly appears that you have never set eyes on the book in your life. By the way, this is taken from chapter 2 but you wouldn’t know that.


Cavalli-Sforza et al. calculate principal components using the data in the table of genetic distances. The first principal component is a number which summarises as much information about gene frequencies as possible. The second component then summarises the remaining information.



The authors then plot the populations on a two with the first principal component on the horizontal axis and the second principal component on the vertical axis. As the authors note, the African populations are in the lower right hand quadrant. The Mongoloids are in the left hand side of the diagram. The authors explicitly argue that the principal component map indicates the amount of admixture in populations. No population that we would expect to be Caucasoid can be found in another quadrant (except maybe for Berbers but this is not too surprising is it?). It all makes sense. So if you question the graph then you must also question the gene frequency data. The graph is merely a way of visually presenting the same information. How exactly is it an “extremely rough representation of the data”?



Cavalli-Sforza et al. say that Iranians are grouped very closely with European populations. We are not on the “fringe of the Caucasoid race” by any means. If Iranians are on the fringe, where are other Caucasoid populations like Indians and Near Easterners? Moreover, the map clearly indicates little to no evidence of non-Caucasoid admixture in Iranians like the European populations. This is consistent with every genetic study I have seen on Iranians. Taking the map into account, what exactly do you mean when you say Iranians are “by and large” Caucasoid?




No, he didn't have much to work with, considering how much more study has been done on all markers and autosomal dna since that book was published.

You must be seriously short of brain cells if you think this book is up to date.

Read this closely:

Even today we're still having trouble getting detailed genetic data based on large enough samples.

That's right, get it into your head that Cavalli's book is out of date. He didn't have much to work with. Genetics is moving ahead at a brisk pace. Is that a surprise to you?







Perhaps, perhaps not. Anthropologists have made many mistakes in the past that current genetic studies are now refuting. Moreover, Cavalli's work was just the tip of the iceberg.

I can't say either way till I see some detailed studies, and recent ones at that, of Iranians.







Yeah, even today it's hard to find data on autosomal dna, and Cavalli somehow managed to get gold back in the 1990s. I'm sure he did have some info on Iranians, but it wasn't much.

Do you have any detailed studies on Iranians. If so, show us. That's all I'm asking.



The problem is that it's old, and the world has moved on since then. You get that?


This is typical of your slippery style. Are you ever specific? Talking to you is like trying to hold a conversation with the Oracle of Dephi! :D



I’m sure the study of genetics has progressed. But how exactly has this invalidated the gene frequency data or the map in Cavalli-Sforza et al.? Cavalli-Sforza et al. is still regarded as the seminal text in its field. It’s the only the only study of its kind I have seen. If you wish to compare the genetic distance between populations you can’t just look at the Y chromosome or michondrial DNA in isolation. You do know that there are 23 pairs of chromosomes don’t you? I’m afraid the single Y chromosome study you refer to has no bearing whatsoever. What exactly is your problem? Can you be specific? If you could please provide an answer to this question I would be much obliged. If you cannot, then I will conclude that you are disagreeing simply because you personally cannot stomach the results.



To the best of my knowledge, no one has questioned the data. In fact, it is, as far as I am aware, the most complete statement of genetic distance between populations ever compiled. Do you have any other wide-ranging gene frequency data to compare to it? Cavalli-Sforza et al. average data from many sources. In fact, they compiled their data from 2900 articles from 136 journals. I find their study to be more reliable than others which concentrate on one chromosome and/or have too small sample sizes to make firm conclusions. Maybe you think the gene frequencies for Iranians changed in the few years after the book was published? Or perhaps you are just clutching at straws? What do you think their gene frequency data consisted of? Measuring the dimensions of the chromosomes with a ruler? :D



Central Europeans are there. We are talking here in the context of Cavalli's book, right? According to Cavalli Sforza, Central Europeans, in a genetic sense, include populations like the English, Danes, Poles, Dutch, Russians, Italians....and so on. All of these groups are very close in his genetic distances table.


This is irrelevant. The authors do not talk about Central Europeans in chapter 2 only about Europeans (this is saved for the special chapter on Europe). In fact, European is simply code language for Caucasoid. This is why they describe Southern Turks as a European population. If you had read the book you would know this.




According to Cavalli-Sforza, and that book you quote, Slavs are direct descendats of the Kurgan people, who he said were the proto-Aryans.

….



Well according to Cavalli-Sforza's theories, Poles have more in common with Indo-Iranians than modern Iranians do. Chew on that.

Let’s not get side-tracked from the issue at hand. This is all conjecture. That's why they are called "theories". You are trying to muddy the issue by introducing dubious theories based on limited data. I, on the other hand, have only presented gene frequency data and the interpretation of that data in graphical form. I have not made any questionable conclusions regarding Aryans not justified by the data.



There were no Slavs until at the very least the 5th century CE. How does Cavalli-Sforza prove that they are related to Kurgans or have more in common with Indo-Iranians? Has he genetically tested Kurgans or ancient Indo-Iranians to be able to make such claims?




And your knowledge of European history must be extremely poor if you don't know anything about the achievements of Poland and Russia, both Slavic nations.


I am well aware of the history of Russia. Most of it involves fu<king over their Slavic “brothers”, the Poles.

Rahul
Sunday, July 18th, 2004, 09:29 AM
Cavalli-Sforza et al. say that Iranians are grouped very closely with European populations. We are not on the “fringe of the Caucasoid race” by any means. If Iranians are on the fringe, where are other Caucasoid populations like Indians and Near Easterners? Moreover, the map clearly indicates little to no evidence of non-Caucasoid admixture in Iranians like the European populations. This is consistent with every genetic study I have seen on Iranians. Taking the map into account, what exactly do you mean when you say Iranians are “by and large” Caucasoid?


Those European Populations must be in South Eastern Europe and SW Europe, to an extent. Please quote from the source on the specific locale.

Rahul
Sunday, July 18th, 2004, 09:47 AM
There were no Slavs until at the very least the 5th century CE. How does Cavalli-Sforza prove that they are related to Kurgans or have more in common with Indo-Iranians? Has he genetically tested Kurgans or ancient Indo-Iranians to be able to make such claims?


This brings us to an interesting paradign shift.

However we must not let ourselves get deluded by the prophets who see the past, instead why not ask the same question to your Faras kindred Shapur?

How does Shapur know that Iranians are genetically related to the Greeks? Did he test them genetically to verify it? Did he travel back in time and came back, as well?


Kurgan Region Culture is likely related to Slav as well as Indo-Iranians which later give us an idea of that early stage of Aryan Iranian Culture in Balkh/Bactria, Dashhli and Swat in Northern Pakistan, succeeding the Kurgan Culture. And then we have the PGW which extends into Hisar, arriving from a Slavic root.

A few people are described in the Rg Ved. They include Shivasa, Vishanis, Alenas, & Pakhtasa. Vishanins were likely adherants of the ancient Slavic God of the same name. The flora and geographic locale explained here is North Western India and its rivers, especially named as well.

Polak
Sunday, July 18th, 2004, 09:47 AM
What is your problem with Coon’s findings exactly? Are you trying to say Iranians aren’t predominantly Irano-Afghan? Or are you just being argumentative for the sake of it?


Coon wrote that book in the 1930s. I very much doubt there is such a thing as the so called "Irano-Afghan" race - just people with really big hooked noses, quite possibly like you.

I don't take anything from Coon's book seriously. No one should. It's pseudo-science.



No sh it! I’m afraid you’re not cooking, far from it in fact. You are in deep freeze, or at least your brain is. I’m glad you found the site I took the map from. Great detective work considering I posted the source in my original post! Congratulations you can click on a link! :D

Thank you.




Let me repeat this once again so that there will be no misunderstanding on your part. For all your accusations, the map can be found in an identical form in “The History and Geography of Human Genes”. It’s Diagram 2.3.5 on p.82. I don’t know how to say this any more clearly so that you might just understand. I’m sorry but do you understand English?




I don't remember seeing that map in the book. I remember seeing similar data, but not the map.



Given that the principal component map is the centrepiece of the entire book, I very much doubt you have ever read this book. You are most probably a liar. I also expect an apology from you for hinting that I had somehow falsely attributed the map to Cavalli-Sforza et al. This is a very serious accusation to make.



Whoopy do. I still don't think it's directly from the book. I would have to see the book again to believe it. Maybe you can provide us with a scan of page 82?




Let me explain to you how this map was compiled because it certainly appears that you have never set eyes on the book in your life. By the way, this is taken from chapter 2 but you wouldn’t know that.


Cavalli-Sforza et al. calculate principal components using the data in the table of genetic distances. The first principal component is a number which summarises as much information about gene frequencies as possible. The second component then summarises the remaining information.



The authors then plot the populations on a two with the first principal component on the horizontal axis and the second principal component on the vertical axis. As the authors note, the African populations are in the lower right hand quadrant. The Mongoloids are in the left hand side of the diagram. The authors explicitly argue that the principal component map indicates the amount of admixture in populations. No population that we would expect to be Caucasoid can be found in another quadrant (except maybe for Berbers but this is not too surprising is it?). It all makes sense. So if you question the graph then you must also question the gene frequency data. The graph is merely a way of visually presenting the same information. How exactly is it an “extremely rough representation of the data”?



I don't care. I want to see raw data, not someone's interpetations of a whole host of markers, based on 10-year-old data.

Cavalli may be highly regarded, but he is not perfect, and back in the 1990s, this work was in it's embroynic stage.

Look, I'm really sorry, but I like to make up my own mind about things. There's no way I'm going to take an outdated book, and agree that its gospel, just because it was seen as grounbreaking in the 1990s.

I thought it was a good read back then, but we now know that current autosomal tests are the best way of calculating genetic relationships between populations.

That's all I want to see, some current data, not old theories.



Cavalli-Sforza et al. say that Iranians are grouped very closely with European populations. We are not on the “fringe of the Caucasoid race” by any means. If Iranians are on the fringe, where are other Caucasoid populations like Indians and Near Easterners? Moreover, the map clearly indicates little to no evidence of non-Caucasoid admixture in Iranians like the European populations. This is consistent with every genetic study I have seen on Iranians. Taking the map into account, what exactly do you mean when you say Iranians are “by and large” Caucasoid?



This is typical of your slippery style. Are you ever specific? Talking to you is like trying to hold a conversation with the Oracle of Dephi! :D

Blah, blah, blah. I've read the book, and from what I've seen, I still tend think Iranians are on the fringe of the Caucasoid race. I guess I have different standars from you. But I need more current data to fully make up my mind.





I’m sure the study of genetics has progressed. But how exactly has this invalidated the gene frequency data or the map in Cavalli-Sforza et al.? Cavalli-Sforza et al. is still regarded as the seminal text in its field. It’s the only the only study of its kind I have seen. If you wish to compare the genetic distance between populations you can’t just look at the Y chromosome or michondrial DNA in isolation. You do know that there are 23 pairs of chromosomes don’t you? I’m afraid the single Y chromosome study you refer to has no bearing whatsoever. What exactly is your problem? Can you be specific? If you could please provide an answer to this question I would be much obliged. If you cannot, then I will conclude that you are disagreeing simply because you personally cannot stomach the results.

I just don't see how anyone, even Cavalli, can put together a nice neat map based on 120 markers, or whatever. I really need to see the latest data for myself. That's the way I work. Sorry.





To the best of my knowledge, no one has questioned the data. In fact, it is, as far as I am aware, the most complete statement of genetic distance between populations ever compiled. Do you have any other wide-ranging gene frequency data to compare to it? Cavalli-Sforza et al. average data from many sources. In fact, they compiled their data from 2900 articles from 136 journals. I find their study to be more reliable than others which concentrate on one chromosome and/or have too small sample sizes to make firm conclusions. Maybe you think the gene frequencies for Iranians changed in the few years after the book was published? Or perhaps you are just clutching at straws? What do you think their gene frequency data consisted of? Measuring the dimensions of the chromosomes with a ruler? :D

[/color]

This is irrelevant. The authors do not talk about Central Europeans in chapter 2 only about Europeans (this is saved for the special chapter on Europe). In fact, European is simply code language for Caucasoid. This is why they describe Southern Turks as a European population. If you had read the book you would know this.



[font=Verdana]Let’s not get side-tracked from the issue at hand. This is all conjecture. That's why they are called "theories". You are trying to muddy the issue by introducing dubious theories based on limited data. I, on the other hand, have only presented gene frequency data and the interpretation of that data in graphical form. I have not made any questionable conclusions regarding Aryans not justified by the data.

Meanwhile, I'll sit back and wait for the new, raw data I need to make up my mind. I'll try to find it myself if you don't have it - just out of pure interest.





There were no Slavs until at the very least the 5th century CE. How does Cavalli-Sforza prove that they are related to Kurgans or have more in common with Indo-Iranians? Has he genetically tested Kurgans or ancient Indo-Iranians to be able to make such claims?

Before the Slavs came into being there were people who were to become Slavs. They lived on the eastern European steppes.

According to Cavalli, they were the Kurgan people, and today, it's their genes that dominate in eastern Europe, including the Slavic nations.

Argue with him not me.

If you look at one of his PC maps, you'll see that the Indo-European marker radiates from north of the Black Sea.

This means that Southern Russians are the most direct decsendanst of the proto-IE Kurgan people.



I am well aware of the history of Russia. Most of it involves fu<king over their Slavic “brothers”, the Poles.


Well then you've missed so much.


Cheers

Kamangir42
Sunday, July 18th, 2004, 04:59 PM
Those European Populations must be in South Eastern Europe and SW Europe, to an extent. Please quote from the source on the specific locale.
Please read what I have written. Cavalli-Sforza et al. in “The History and Geography of Human Genes” state explicitly that Iranians are very close to European populations. From the map, which can be found as Diagram 2.35 on p.82, shows Iranians close to the Danes, the English, the Greeks and the Italians. Common sense would indicate, based on geographical distance, that Iranians are more closely related to SE and S European populations than N and NW European populations. This is largely borne out by the study. Yet it also appears that Iranians are closer to Italians than the latter are to Greeks. I have no idea why and the authors do not try and explain it either. I believe the yellow circle in the upper right quadrant is the range of populations found indigenously in Europe (the Basque are on the margin and the Lapps and Sardinians are outliers – as are the Icelandics but they are not represented on the map - partly due to their isolated existence). The Northern Indians (I’m not sure if this includes Pakistanis but I think it probably does) are less close but still Caucasoid as every population found in the upper right quadrant is, of course. This is to be expected. India is farther away from Europe than Iran.



This is the only wide-ranging study of genetic distance between populations undertaken to the best of my knowledge. The authors compile their data from 2900 articles from 136 journals. The study covers 142 alleles. No other study has ever come close to it as far as I know. A single study on Y chromosome or mitochondrial DNA haplotypes cannot even begin to compare to it.



The fact remains. The genetic distance matrices Cavalli-Sforza et al. construct from all those alleles at all those loci and represent in the form of a map result in a very standard racial taxonomy that we would all recognise instantly.



Yet Polak stubbornly denies its validity despite not being able to give any specific reason why is it “outdated”. He just “feels” it is. Perhaps he has been told this by the spirit world?



It is still a very expensive book to buy showing that it continues to be the seminal text in its field. The unabridged edition with the atlases will set you back $225.00. You should be able to find it in good libraries though.

Kamangir42
Sunday, July 18th, 2004, 05:06 PM
This brings us to an interesting paradign shift.

However we must not let ourselves get deluded by the prophets who see the past, instead why not ask the same question to your Faras kindred Shapur?

How does Shapur know that Iranians are genetically related to the Greeks? Did he test them genetically to verify it? Did he travel back in time and came back, as well?


Kurgan Region Culture is likely related to Slav as well as Indo-Iranians which later give us an idea of that early stage of Aryan Iranian Culture in Balkh/Bactria, Dashhli and Swat in Northern Pakistan, succeeding the Kurgan Culture. And then we have the PGW which extends into Hisar, arriving from a Slavic root.

A few people are described in the Rg Ved. They include Shivasa, Vishanis, Alenas, & Pakhtasa. Vishanins were likely adherants of the ancient Slavic God of the same name. The flora and geographic locale explained here is North Western India and its rivers, especially named as well.
I am not responsible for what Shapur writes and nor is he responsible for what I write. He has “different” political views to mine. I think many of his claims are overstated. My views stand by themselves.



You would have to define “genetically related” for me to provide a fuller answer. As far as I know, all human populations are genetically related to some extent. On the basis of geography I would expect Iranians to be quite closely related to Greeks and certainly closer than, say, to Belgians. There is also the Cavalli-Sforza et al. study which finds that Iranians are very closely related to European populations.



Personally, I think all this dissection of Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA studies is a waste of time. Often they disagree with each other considerably, have small sample sizes and a whole host of assumptions are relied on in the discussion sections.



I didn’t really want to get into a critique of the conclusions of these studies on “Aryan” origins and migration. But I guess you have roped me in to this never-ending merry-go-round. As you yourself say, the Kurgan Culture is “likely” related to Slav as well as other populations. But how can we know this if the Kurgans have never been genetically tested (and given how old they are it is very unlikely we will be able to)? And how can we be sure that even if the Kurgans were “Aryan” they are related to the proto-Slavs or Slavs? How can we be sure that the Kurgans were not just an “Aryan” elite presiding over a largely “non-Aryan” population? How can we be sure that the Kurgans, or even more so the later Indo-Iranians, were genetically pure? Perhaps they did not just consist of carriers of a single Y chromosome haplotype? Perhaps some carried HG3 and some HG9? How can we be sure that “Aryan” even refers to a race of people? It could just be a cultural identity? Or perhaps they were simply a subset of a race? Can we really say that the Brahui are 40% “Aryan” or Kyrgyz are 60% “Aryan” or even Mongolians are 15% “Aryan”? Taking the Kivisild et al. study into account, can we say that the racially and linguistically Dravidian Chenchus are “Aryan”? How would that work? Perhaps a Dravidian elite obtaining dominance over an Aryan population once the latter had invaded southern India? Just look at the huge spread of HG3/M17 over the globe and realise that talking about “Aryan” this or “Aryan” that is a waste of time. We don’t even know the age of HG3/M17 for God’s sake.



There are other problems too. In the Wells et al. study the Iranians from the Tehran region have 4% M17 yet in the Quintana-Murci et al. study, conducted in the same year, the exact same population has 14% HG3. Is this not strange to you? Further, there is more HG3 in Azarbaijan than in most of the centre of Iran. How then can we say that the central deserts formed a natural barrier (not taking into account that HG9 did not find it very difficult to go the other way) or that the population density in the Zagros mountains was high enough to absorb any “Aryan” migration? Azarbaijan is now most probably (and likely always has been looking at the geography) the most densely populated area of Iran, certainly higher than the Zagros mountains for obvious reasons. Does this make any sense? When the Wells et al. study examines Iranians from the Shiraz region with a sample size of 12, is this convincing to you? Does it make sense to you that nobody in the Shiraz region, where the “Aryan” Persians settled en masse, is found to have M17 in that study? How can this be an example of a dominance model if there are no traces of the supposed dominators?



Do not even get me started on HG9/M172 and its description as the “Semitic” gene. Do not get me started on the description of Elamite as Dravidian when there is no reliable evidence whatsoever that this is the case. A few hundred Brahui wander in the deserts of Baluchistan and suddenly Iran becomes the homeland of the Dravidians! Where is the evidence?



As for your comments, they provide some circumstantial evidence of some sort of migration. We do not know if it was from north to south or from south to north. We don’t know its size. We don’t know its origin or who these people were. You interpret your texts in one way whereas Iranians, as well as Greeks and Italians, interpret it in another. Besides, there were no Slavs until the 5th century CE. We don’t know where the Proto-Slavs were from or what their genetic makeup was.



I think I will stop now but I could go on and on. I also do not appreciate your mocking of Persian culture as “Semitic” or Farsi as “Semitic-accented” or your disparaging remarks in general about my culture. Do you not recognise the influence of Persian culture on your civilisation Rahul? Would you like to start comparing Persia and Kashmir head to head? Our culture has kept the traditions and history of “Aryans” alive so that Slavs, dissatisfied with their own history and culture apparently, can try to steal our identity. Over my dead body! Where is their Norouz I may ask? Where is their Shahnameh? Where is their Behistun Inscription? We were a nation of empire builders thousands of years before anyone claimed to be a Slav. Using whose blood, sweat and tears have we survived, assaulted but always ready to rise up again when our enemies are just a page in a history book?


Let me just end by saying that I have great respect for any Pakistanis who try to emphasise and celebrate the non-Islamic parts of their culture as I have for Iranians who do the same.

Northern Paladin
Sunday, July 18th, 2004, 06:23 PM
Btw, so anyone got any studies on Iranian autosomal DNA?

Why I am not suprised that nobody has this Information?

Northern Paladin
Sunday, July 18th, 2004, 06:37 PM
IMO Iranians (at least the pure specimens) are Aryans, and this is more important than if they are European or not.

And Shia is an Aryan form of Islam (just look at the concept of the Hidden Imam/Mahdi=Kalki).


There are No Pure Specimens(Aryans) left in All of Iran(There are just those with Aryan blood in higher concentrations and these are the minority of Iranians). The "Aryans" settled Iran 1000's of Years before Christ. Since than their blood has been Severly diluted. Was not India like Iran settled by "Aryans" but where are they today? The blood of Aryans was just a few drops in these countries. Where they are concentrated now are in the Slavic Nations.

Islam is not an Aryan Religion it is a Religion for Arabs made by Arabs! Islam's birth place was in Saudi Arabia and it's Prophet Mohemmed was an Arab. Shiite Muslims:a Muslim of the Shia branch of Islam
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=shiite
Shia means: the Muslims of the branch of Islam comprising sects believing in Ali and the Imams as the only rightful successors of Muhammad and in the concealment and messianic return of the last recognized Imam -- compare SUNNI
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=shia
It has nothing to do with being "Aryan". Where are you getting all this from?

Also I think you have a misconcenption of the word "Aryan" the World "Aryan" in the National Socialist Sense is not the same as "Aryan" in the Iranian sense.
What Hitler meant by "Aryan" was Northern Germanics and this had nothing to do with the true meaning of "Aryan". The Real "Aryans" were like Polak said Eastern Europeans who lived in the Steppe Region around the Black Sea 1000's of Years ago.

Kamangir42
Sunday, July 18th, 2004, 07:19 PM
There are No Pure Specimens(Aryans) left in All of Iran(There are just those with Aryan blood in higher concentrations and these are the minority of Iranians). The "Aryans" settled Iran 1000's of Years before Christ. Since than their blood has been Severly diluted. Was not India like Iran settled by "Aryans" but where are they today? The blood of Aryans was just a few drops in these countries. Where they are concentrated now are in the Slavic Nations.

Islam is not an Aryan Religion it is a Religion for Arabs made by Arabs! Islam's birth place was in Saudi Arabia and it's Prophet Mohemmed was an Arab. Shiite Muslims:a Muslim of the Shia branch of Islam
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=shiite
Shia means: the Muslims of the branch of Islam comprising sects believing in Ali and the Imams as the only rightful successors of Muhammad and in the concealment and messianic return of the last recognized Imam -- compare SUNNI
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=shia
It has nothing to do with being "Aryan". Where are you getting all this from?

Also I think you have a misconcenption of the word "Aryan" the World "Aryan" in the National Socialist Sense is not the same as "Aryan" in the Iranian sense.
What Hitler meant by "Aryan" was Northern Germanics and this had nothing to do with the true meaning of "Aryan". The Real "Aryans" were like Polak said Eastern Europeans who lived in the Steppe Region around the Black Sea 1000's of Years ago.
What has being "Aryan" got to do with being Caucasoid/Europid? You are trying to confuse the issue. Come to think of it, define an "Aryan". What is the genetic marker for an "Aryan"? Show me the studies on Iran which show that Iranians are not "Aryan".

Slavs are "Aryans"? If they are "Aryans" how come they never called themselves by that name until they tried to steal it from us, along with our past and our culture?

Define "pure". You do know that there are no genetically "pure" populations on the planet, don't you? Prove that Iranian blood has been "diluted". I see you are from the USA. Isn't that full of Mongoloids and Negroids? If your reasoning is correct, this means that you must be a "mixed breed"?

There is nothing "Aryan" about Islam. Besides, I'm not a Muslim. Persian culture is much more than that silly religion. We celebrate Norouz. We celebrate our glorious past as described in the Shahnameh. We speak our own language and have our own customs. Indeed, Persians have imported several Zoroastrian elements into our brand of Shia Islam such as the concept of the a hidden Imam. This is most probably going way over your head but it's true nonetheless.

And you are one to talk about being "Aryan". How "Aryan" a religion is Christianity? How "Aryan" was Jesus and his message? What makes you so "Aryan"? Is it because you feel "Aryan" in your bones?

I don't care what Hitler said about "Aryans". He was a pathetic loser who committed suicide. His skull used as a paperweight by Stalin. But even if you take Hitler's views into account, he himself said that Iranians were "Aryans". Of course, you wouldn't know that.

I know your sort. You are a "white" nationalist who supports Bush who is pursuing a policy largely thought up by Jews and aided by a cabinet composed of blacks, Asians and Hispanics. Can you see the inconsistency?

Axelrod
Sunday, July 18th, 2004, 09:25 PM
I don't care what Hitler said about "Aryans". He was a pathetic loser who committed suicide. His skull used as a paperweight by Stalin. But even if you take Hitler's views into account, he himself said that Iranians were "Aryans". Of course, you wouldn't know that.


that have never happened pal, his idea was rather placed on the pretty logical theory of germanic horsemen settling in and civilising india and persia. about that map i can tell that is largely a forge. that map seems to go around the net quite a lot but you arent to believe every piece of crap around. there are also maps that mark greeks brothers with east ethiopians, sforza for making genetic maps should be considered he is primarily a linguist not a geneticist. about coon, his works are indispensable and pretty much accepted in terms of subraces but for now its very outdated and pseudoistic. i dont remember coon classifying majority of iranians as irano afghan, he classified the overwhelming majority as orientalid altough these two subraces are closely related most of the time.anyway his sense of europid is in a need of upgrade soon as you see the stuff we are arguing on, such as spending hours for proving that a southwest asian nation is not at all a part of the european genetic makeup, all because of a very fatal terminology error.

i think iranians might have about 2.9-3.4% negroid and 3.6-4.2% mongoloid paternal ancestry, so mostly caucasoid. persians from different parts of the countries. 3.4%marked l1l3a sub saharan marker. this however rise to 4.2% with kurds.(di rienzo&wilson). there is no tat-c and other so implied mongoloid indicator researches avaliable so its only a parallel common guess parallel to neighboring countries. also eye blondism frequencies of central iranian plateau cities are given as 3/30, 2/32, 4/42, 7/45.(rondo, di rienzo&wilson respectively). these numbers are rather pointing out exoticism and about 5:1 rationally lower than darkest south europe statistics. ofcourse you can anytime post some bollywood actresses with compact eyes and extra white makeup to prove out your countrymen

Oskorei
Sunday, July 18th, 2004, 09:46 PM
There are No Pure Specimens(Aryans) left in All of Iran(There are just those with Aryan blood in higher concentrations and these are the minority of Iranians). The "Aryans" settled Iran 1000's of Years before Christ. Since than their blood has been Severly diluted. Was not India like Iran settled by "Aryans" but where are they today? The blood of Aryans was just a few drops in these countries. Where they are concentrated now are in the Slavic Nations.
The Indian Aryans are found in the higher castes, where blondism and blue eyes are still not too uncommon. You can also find blond and blue-eyed Iranians, and they also tend to become much more light-skinned in Sweden than in Iran. I also have met several Iranians with an Aryan/noble behaviour, and a Pan-aryan ideology.


Islam is not an Aryan Religion it is a Religion for Arabs made by Arabs! Islam's birth place was in Saudi Arabia and it's Prophet Mohemmed was an Arab. Shiite Muslims:a Muslim of the Shia branch of Islam
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=shiite
Shia means: the Muslims of the branch of Islam comprising sects believing in Ali and the Imams as the only rightful successors of Muhammad and in the concealment and messianic return of the last recognized Imam -- compare SUNNI
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=shia
It has nothing to do with being "Aryan". Where are you getting all this from?
Where shall I begin? Islam was "born" among Arabs (some sources claim that Mohammed was redhaired, but we'll leave that aside for now). However, when the Persians adopted Islam, it became mixed with Persian/Aryan ideas. Just like Christianity became mixed with Pagan ideas in Europe. And this mix became the Shia-branch of Islam. There are several parallells between the indigenous Aryan religion of Iran and Shia, like the belief in the Mahdi that will one day return and avenge the rightful. This is similar to the Shaoshyant or Kalki found in Aryan religion or Hinduism. More parallells can be found, and this is what I mean when I say Shia is an Aryan branch of Islam. Of course Zoroastrism is even more Aryan. If you think I meant that all Shiites are automatically Aryans, you must think that I'm stupid.


Also I think you have a misconcenption of the word "Aryan" the World "Aryan" in the National Socialist Sense is not the same as "Aryan" in the Iranian sense.
What Hitler meant by "Aryan" was Northern Germanics and this had nothing to do with the true meaning of "Aryan". The Real "Aryans" were like Polak said Eastern Europeans who lived in the Steppe Region around the Black Sea 1000's of Years ago.
I dont really give a *** what Hitler, or even Polak, meant by Aryan. There are enough definitions of the word Aryan, most of them older than him, and I am free to choose whichever I see fit. Try reading some Evola.

Tribunale Dei Minore
Sunday, July 18th, 2004, 09:56 PM
Europid=European Caucasoid.Exactly! Thanks for the correction!





You should learn your definitions before you accuse others of being of low intelligence.Indeed I should.






You forgot to include Indians and Arabs in your List of what you consider Europid .I've never pretended that I've listed all the Europid sub-types.Anyway many indians have dravidian blood which is not exactly caucasoid. Dravidians are race that couldn't be refered to any of the three major races. It is considered that they are neither europid nor mongoloid nor negroid.





Caucasoid is a general terminology.:| Really?



Europid is specifically used to refer to European Caucasoids.Which means that you as an American Caucasoid are not Europid.
BTW:
Tell me, northern, do you find any differences between Australian and Australoid, Mongolian and Mongoloid, American and Amerind ? Just curiosity...
Do you think, for example that Japnese are Mongolians or Australians of british descent are Australoid??.. Make sense,...Ja?






Why are you defending Iranians with such Zeal? :PI don't know ;( May be I should start defending someone defenceless like you instead :(

Shapur
Sunday, July 18th, 2004, 10:10 PM
that have never happened pal, his idea was rather placed on the pretty logical theory of germanic horsemen settling in and civilising india and persia. about that map i can tell that is largely a forge. that map seems to go around the net quite a lot but you arent to believe every piece of crap around. there are also maps that mark greeks brothers with east ethiopians, sforza for making genetic maps should be considered he is primarily a linguist not a geneticist. about coon, his works are indispensable and pretty much accepted in terms of subraces but for now its very outdated and pseudoistic. i dont remember coon classifying majority of iranians as irano afghan, he classified the overwhelming majority as orientalid altough these two subraces are closely related most of the time.anyway his sense of europid is in a need of upgrade soon as you see the stuff we are arguing on, such as spending hours for proving that a southwest asian nation is not at all a part of the european genetic makeup, all because of a very fatal terminology error.

i think iranians might have about 2.9-3.4% negroid and 3.6-4.2% mongoloid paternal ancestry, so mostly caucasoid. persians from different parts of the countries. 3.4%marked l1l3a sub saharan marker. this however rise to 4.2% with kurds.(di rienzo&wilson). there is no tat-c and other so implied mongoloid indicator researches avaliable so its only a parallel common guess parallel to neighboring countries. also eye blondism frequencies of central iranian plateau cities are given as 3/30, 2/32, 4/42, 7/45.(rondo, di rienzo&wilson respectively). these numbers are rather pointing out exoticism and about 5:1 rationally lower than darkest south europe statistics. ofcourse you can anytime post some bollywood actresses with compact eyes and extra white makeup to prove out your countrymenOn which studies you are basing these numbers?

Kurds maternal: 5% I, 10% W, 30% HV/H, 35% U, 20% K/J.
Kurds paternal: 16.8% HG1, 16.8% HG2, 11.6% HG3, 40% HG9, 7.4% HG21, 4.2% HG26, 3.2% HG28

Very negroid.... Then how much are Europeans negroids? 80%?


Oh you think it might... This list like a joke.
A think also it might that nation x should be have 10% negroid and 10% mongoloid blood.

You showed that you know nothing about this matter and you should read befro you write!

Btw I must say that there is no difference between Persians, Kurds, Lurs, Gilakis etc. we are all Iranians if we live in Iran or in other countries like Iraq, Turkey, Tajikistan, Afghanistan.
We are one nation and feel so and every Iranian has the hope that one day we will united again. So please don`t speaking so much about Persian culture or Kurdish culture. The culture is one! It is Iranian culture!
All celebrate Newrooz(New Day) and behave like our old Zoroastrian ancestors. ;)

Tribunale Dei Minore
Sunday, July 18th, 2004, 10:32 PM
The Indian Aryans are found in the higher castes, where blondism and blue eyes are still not too uncommon.Actually these are very rare. Very uncommon. Btw blondism is more common among australian aborigenes (australoids) It is strange how different degree of pigmentation is found among different species, different races etc. which leads to the conclusion(no need to be genius) that depigmentation could have different origin. Do you think that blue-eyed cats are genetically related to nordids and those cats with darker eyes to mediterraneans?



You can also find blond and blue-eyed Iranians, and they also tend to become much more light-skinned in Sweden than in Iran. Indeed, just like the ancient persians are much more light-skinned in european theories than in Iran.



I also have met several Iranians with an Aryan/noble behaviour, and a Pan-aryan ideology.I've met some europeans with noble behaviour.



Where shall I begin? Islam was "born" among Arabs (some sources claim that Mohammed was redhaired, but we'll leave that aside for now).Actually he was swede. Just like Jesus (Jeshua Ben Josif) btw.



However, when the Persians adopted Islam, it became mixed with Persian/Aryan ideas. Just like Christianity became mixed with Pagan ideas in Europe. And this mix became the Shia-branch of Islam. There are several parallells between the indigenous Aryan religion of Iran and Shia, like the belief in the Mahdi that will one day return and avenge the rightful. This is similar to the Shaoshyant or Kalki found in Aryan religion or Hinduism. More parallells can be found, and this is what I mean when I say Shia is an Aryan branch of Islam. Of course Zoroastrism is even more Aryan. If you think I meant that all Shiites are automatically Aryans, you must think that I'm stupid.


I dont really give a *** what Hitler, or even Polak, meant by Aryan. There are enough definitions of the word Aryan, most of them older than him, and I am free to choose whichever I see fit. Try reading some Evola.Agreed, there are too many definitions of aryan. Poor aryans. :~(

dehook
Monday, July 19th, 2004, 02:09 AM
Oh God, the classic Aryan debate again...


Everybody seems to find different reasons to call themselves "Aryans", and they always have. Most White Nationalists probably like to call themselves "Aryans" because it shows that they are "proud, white men". Nothing more, nothing less.

Exactly who the Aryans were is still open to question. Books such as "In Search of the Cradle of Civilization: New Light on Ancient India" (Feuerstein, Kak, Frawley) debunked the "Aryan Invasion" theory. Recent DNA analysis shows that the upper caste Indians are descended from Indo-Europeans, and so therefore there was an Aryan Invasion into India from Eastern Europe 1000's of years ago. It goes on and on.

Northern_Paladin: I don't have any problem with you calling yourself an "Aryan", but then again, don't go telling lies to anybody that doesn't fit into your "Nordic elite". Iranians have more of a right to call themselves Aryans than anybody else.

The word "Iran" is derived from the word "Aryan", ie, "The Land of the Aryans". Darius I, the Achaemenian king, in the 5th century BCE, declares himself a Persian and a descendant of the Aryan race. This is one of the oldest written records in human history which confirms that the original inhabitants of Iran were Aryans. VioletOxygen pointed out that Darius was not "blonde haired, blue eyed" but "dark haired and dark eyed". Throughout history, Europeans never referred to themselves as....(I can't be bothered with this)


"Nordic" types still do exist in Iran. You need to remember however that many of these people are probably immigrants, or descendants of immigrants from Eastern European countries such as Russia, where blondism is more frequent. Iran has been an immigrant country for many years.

I think the "Aryans" were primarily a med/alpine race. I don't rule out the possibility of there being "nordic" Aryans, in fact I believe they existed, but they definitely weren't the ONLY Aryans.

Part of my point is, if the leading geniticists/historians/anthropologers in the world aren't positive about the who/where/what of the Aryans, what good will it do us to try? Maybe we should get back to more rational topics, such as whether or not Iranians are Europid or not.

I know for a fact many Iranians have diverse lineage, I'm just trying to find some statistics with no luck...

Polak
Monday, July 19th, 2004, 02:22 AM
Please read what I have written. Cavalli-Sforza et al. in “The History and Geography of Human Genes” state explicitly that Iranians are very close to European populations. From the map, which can be found as Diagram 2.35 on p.82, shows Iranians close to the Danes, the English, the Greeks and the Italians. Common sense would indicate, based on geographical distance, that Iranians are more closely related to SE and S European populations than N and NW European populations. This is largely borne out by the study. Yet it also appears that Iranians are closer to Italians than the latter are to Greeks. I have no idea why and the authors do not try and explain it either. I believe the yellow circle in the upper right quadrant is the range of populations found indigenously in Europe (the Basque are on the margin and the Lapps and Sardinians are outliers – as are the Icelandics but they are not represented on the map - partly due to their isolated existence). The Northern Indians (I’m not sure if this includes Pakistanis but I think it probably does) are less close but still Caucasoid as every population found in the upper right quadrant is, of course. This is to be expected. India is farther away from Europe than Iran.



This is the only wide-ranging study of genetic distance between populations undertaken to the best of my knowledge. The authors compile their data from 2900 articles from 136 journals. The study covers 142 alleles. No other study has ever come close to it as far as I know. A single study on Y chromosome or mitochondrial DNA haplotypes cannot even begin to compare to it.



The fact remains. The genetic distance matrices Cavalli-Sforza et al. construct from all those alleles at all those loci and represent in the form of a map result in a very standard racial taxonomy that we would all recognise instantly.



Yet Polak stubbornly denies its validity despite not being able to give any specific reason why is it “outdated”. He just “feels” it is. Perhaps he has been told this by the spirit world?



It is still a very expensive book to buy showing that it continues to be the seminal text in its field. The unabridged edition with the atlases will set you back $225.00. You should be able to find it in good libraries though.



Cavalli-Sforza came up with a few dubious conclusions in that book.

For example, he interpreted the data to show that Poles are closer to Hungarians than to any Slavic group. Much closer.

Other data I have seen since then has not backed up this theory.

I think the problem is twofold, as I've already said.

Cavalli-Sforza tried fusing too many markers. And he did it when data on all of this stuff was just beginning to be collected.

The best way to figure anything out is to get the latest raw data, preferebly on autosomal loci, and debate that.

There's no guarantee that even the most experienced genetecists won't turn around 10 years from now and say their interpretations were wrong.

Cavalli-Sforza has already done it with some of his work.

Rahul
Monday, July 19th, 2004, 09:17 AM
I wonder why Seigfried Augustus isn't taking his good ethical stand towards the current resident idiots called Paladine and Axelrod!

The allusion is about his incosistency and ignorant attitudes towards the genetic data available on the Aryans.

Kamangir42, you are most welcome to count head to head similarities between Kashmiris and Faresis.

By the way, I am not a Valley Kashmiri, I am a Potohari Pahari Kashmiri.

What is interesting is the fact that faraswana traits and habits became popular among buddhist-loser valley kashmiris alot more than they did among Proud Potohari-Pahari people.

Siegfried
Monday, July 19th, 2004, 10:40 AM
I wonder why Seigfried Augustus isn't taking his good ethical stand towards the current resident idiots called Paladine and Axelrod!

They haven't broken any rules in this thread, have they? :) If you think they have, please report the posts with the http://www.forums.skadi.net/images/asgard/buttons/report.gif button.

I also get the feeling that you are being sarcastic about my 'good ethical stand'. If you have any problems with the way I moderate and/or think I am biased, please PM me and we can discuss it. :)
But let's keep this thread on track, and not deviate from the subject any further.

goidelicwarrior
Monday, July 19th, 2004, 02:44 PM
Why don't you answer my question why can't Turks who are Caucasian and closer to Europe be considered Europid? Most Europeans do not consider Turks Europid.

Of course Dark South Europeans are Europid. However "White" Wouldn't be a good word to describe them as they aren't of that color. Instead Southern Europid would be a more appropriate term. White usually reffers to lighter colored Europids and of course some Southern Europeans are White as well.
In classifying race Bone structure is often times more important than pigmentation and of course there is a host of other factors to Consider. No original European north or south are Darkskinned, very often tanned though ( just like in Florida or California) there are no distinct subracial lines in Europe dividing because theres been many migrations, get this fact !!! your view is more appropriate on classifying Americans.. btw. these guys are one Swedish and the other is Spanish nationalist leaders during a conference in Stockholm Sweden, do u see the " dark southener ? )

goidelicwarrior
Monday, July 19th, 2004, 02:55 PM
So the dark south Europeans aren`t Europid, because you must be nordish to be Europid. Very interesting! are u as ****** as most americans here??? southern Europeans are of med, celtic, germanic and minor north african origins and have always been playing a central role in European history since beginning of recorded history.. we share the same heritage and in many cases the same ethnic past and blood lines aswell.. show me one dark skinned southern European and I dont mean tanned.. this is an insult against the founders of greek, roman civilization e.t.c.. I suggest both donald duck and alibaba keeps their hands off EUROPE... if you dont ... the Spanish police will be forced to take care of you [offensive], that goes for both of you :D

Watch on the insults please, this is not Free Speech.
~ Johannes de León

Rahul
Monday, July 19th, 2004, 04:21 PM
Now goes goidelicwarrior, with the usual createdcivilsation fancy.

Never mind him, he is undermining reality in favour of rhetoric.

Kamangir42, Chenhus are an interesting contrast to the Kellar tribals in neighbouring Tamil Nauda State of Southern India. They are interesting since they come from a state which is more or less Sanskritic as compared to the dravidian chauvinist and Non-Aryan Tamil Nadu.

Contrasts between Andhra and Tamil Nadu can be visible to any person who has knowledge of the region's geography and its past. Moreover Telugu has affinities with Aryan speech which tamil is very far.

28% Aryan Gene in Chenchu group can be easily understood by one who knows the Andhra State. While 4% in Kellar is explained by the Indian tradition explained in ancient literature. which is not entirely mythical.

Like the Chitpavans in neighbouring Maharashtra, a number of Higher Caste Andhras actually have in their tradition that they are Sanskritics from the Northern India. The Karnatak Vokkaliga consider themselves as North Indian too, patrilineally. A number of tribes in this southern state are also practicing a form of Hinduism, unlike largely non-Hindu(as well as IA) Tamil tribals.

The past two centuries have seen a lot of noises in the form of Aryan Invasion and Genocides, but nothing has been proven so far, since their is absolutely no evidence at all, even the Aryan race theory may fall on its head given what may gradually emerge out of all the data which is being mined & realised.

And these noises have sought to discredit the idea of South Asia as a land, as a federation of folk regions. However there has always been a North South difference in the land. And East has looked entirely different, the Mon-Khmer and Mundas may have arrived from East and SE Asia themselves.

Northern Paladin
Monday, July 19th, 2004, 09:35 PM
No original European north or south are Darkskinned, very often tanned though ( just like in Florida or California) there are no distinct subracial lines in Europe dividing because theres been many migrations, get this fact !!! your view is more appropriate on classifying Americans.. btw. these guys are one Swedish and the other is Spanish nationalist leaders during a conference in Stockholm Sweden, do u see the " dark southener ? )

Your taking this the wrong way. What I meant was that Bone Structure and shared lineage is more important when considering whose Europid and who is not than just Pigmentation.

I believe the Spanaird is the one on the Left. Anyways it is obvious that those from Southern Europe tend to be darker. Of course in Spain the situation is complex as their have been many invasions/migrations of different groups. The difference is clear when comparing Northern/Central Spain and Southern Spain.

goidelicwarrior
Tuesday, July 20th, 2004, 10:03 AM
Your taking this the wrong way. What I meant was that Bone Structure and shared lineage is more important when considering whose Europid and who is not than just Pigmentation.

I believe the Spanaird is the one on the Left. Anyways it is obvious that those from Southern Europe tend to be darker. Of course in Spain the situation is complex as their have been many invasions/migrations of different groups. The difference is clear when comparing Northern/Central Spain and Southern Spain. The Spaniard is the right guy . his name is Rafael Ripoll and from DN in Spain , the other guy is A swedish right wing leader called Anders Sten from DN sister party ( http://www.nationaldemokraterna.se/presentation/engelska.asp )

goidelicwarrior
Tuesday, July 20th, 2004, 10:06 AM
[QUOTE=Rahul]Now goes goidelicwarrior, with the usual createdcivilsation fancy.

Never mind him, he is undermining reality in favour of rhetoric.... undermining reallity ? in what way ? ;)

Väring
Tuesday, July 20th, 2004, 06:38 PM
Europid=European Caucasoid. You should learn your definitions before you accuse others of being of low intelligence. You forgot to include Indians and Arabs in your List of what you consider Europid . Caucasoid is a general terminology. Europid is specifically used to refer to European Caucasoids.


I, for one, believe that Europid is the same as Caucasoid. Europids are found in their greatest concentration in Europe, which is why this term is chosen, much like Nordids are called Nordids because they are found in their greatest concentration in northern Europe. However, neither Europids or Nordids are confined to any single territory.

Abby Normal
Friday, August 13th, 2004, 05:18 PM
I say yes, as Indo-Europeans in Europe are more related to Iranians than to some inhabitants of their own continent.

However, the term 'Europid' is ridiculous! A particular group should not be considered more related to other groups who happened to migrate to the same continent than to (closer-related) groups who did not.

Northern Paladin
Friday, August 13th, 2004, 08:27 PM
I say yes, as Indo-Europeans in Europe are more related to Iranians than to some inhabitants of their own continent.

However, the term 'Europid' is ridiculous! A particular group should not be considered more related to other groups who happened to migrate to the same continent than to (closer-related) groups who did not.

Wrong. Indo-Europeans in Europe have been their since Neolithic times and are more related to UP Europeans than Irano-Afghan Middle Easterns.

Iranians are Middle Eastern. Which means they are a mix of African,Asian,and European lineages, though they are largely"Irano-Afghan". Irano-Afghan is not a European Race. As it only exists indigenously outside of European lands.

More so it is rather easy to make the distinguish the difference between indigenious Europeans and Middle Easterns. So why lump them into one group?

Awar
Friday, August 13th, 2004, 09:49 PM
You'd be hard-pressed to find any evidence of negroid or mongoloid strains among most Iranians. Irano-Afghan may be an extra-European type, but it's closely related to European types.

Indo-European is a family of languages. It probably came into Europe with Neolithics.
UP ( upper palaeolithic ) Europeans would be only a phenotype designation, since there are probably many genetically Neolithic types who look 'UP', while at the same time there are palaeolithics who look 'mediterranean' ( look like what you'd expect a Neolithic to look like ).

Abby Normal
Friday, August 13th, 2004, 10:28 PM
Wrong. Indo-Europeans in Europe have been their since Neolithic times and are more related to UP Europeans than Irano-Afghan Middle Easterns.

Iranians are Middle Eastern. Which means they are a mix of African,Asian,and European lineages, though they are largely"Irano-Afghan". Irano-Afghan is not a European Race. As it only exists indigenously outside of European lands.

More so it is rather easy to make the distinguish the difference between indigenious Europeans and Middle Easterns. So why lump them into one group?As AWAR stated, this mess about mixed 'African, Asian and European lineages' is pure drivel. On to your other misconceptions!

Clearly, my point flew straight over your head. The fact that Indo-Europeans have lived near 'UP' Europeans since Neolithic times does not make them closer related to them than to their Indo-European cousins who happened not to migrate to the paeninsula. Disregarding mixture between the two groups, it is safe to say that an Indo-European is more related to an Iranian than to any European East Baltic or Upper Paleolithic.

There is no one unified group called 'Europid'! This classification is based on a geographical entity; genetically, it is invalid.

Awar
Friday, August 13th, 2004, 10:36 PM
Again, IE is a linguistic family. You see how languages can spread relatively quickly.
Mexico has a majority of people who speak an IE language... many other non-caucasoid peoples speak IE languages, while fully caucasoid Hungarians or Basques speak non-IE languages.

You all mix phenotypes, genotypes, cultures and languages.

Basically, a 'UP' European is just a large-headed person who can speak any language and have any set of DNA.

Abby Normal
Saturday, August 14th, 2004, 01:14 AM
Again, IE is a linguistic family. You see how languages can spread relatively quickly.
Mexico has a majority of people who speak an IE language... many other non-caucasoid peoples speak IE languages, while fully caucasoid Hungarians or Basques speak non-IE languages.

You all mix phenotypes, genotypes, cultures and languages. Nay, I most often use 'Indo-Europeans' not to refer to speakers of a linguistic group, but interchangeably with 'Neolithic Europeans and their non-European relatives'. My apologies if my personal terminology equates to a butchering of language. ;)


Basically, a 'UP' European is just a large-headed person who can speak any language and have any set of DNA.How can they have any sort of DNA? 'UP' groups are more related to each other than to 'IEs' (note that I'm not speaking of the 'UP' phenotype, but its genotype; thus, I refer to 'pure UPs', not IE and UP mixes who display dominant UP traits).

Awar
Saturday, August 14th, 2004, 03:52 AM
UP traits may or may have nothing to do with palaeolithic genetic ancestry.

Indo-European is a family of languages. The Neolithics probably brought something with them, but it can easily be that the IE languages became out of interaction of the two peoples.

For example, the R1a dominant and palaeolithic 'Slavic' or 'Aryan' haplogroup is responsible for spreading the Satemic branch of IE.

morfrain_encilgar
Saturday, August 14th, 2004, 01:00 PM
UP traits may or may have nothing to do with palaeolithic genetic ancestry.

Indo-European is a family of languages. The Neolithics probably brought something with them, but it can easily be that the IE languages became out of interaction of the two peoples.

For example, the R1a dominant and palaeolithic 'Slavic' or 'Aryan' haplogroup is responsible for spreading the Satemic branch of IE.

There isn't a Satemic branch within Indo-European.

I believe there were two Indo-European expansions, one of them being from highland West Asia, and the other being in Northern Europe by Maglemosian people, who adopted Danubian agriculture and an Indo-Eurpoean language.

Shapur
Tuesday, August 24th, 2004, 10:48 AM
Wrong. Indo-Europeans in Europe have been their since Neolithic times and are more related to UP Europeans than Irano-Afghan Middle Easterns.

Iranians are Middle Eastern. Which means they are a mix of African,Asian,and European lineages, though they are largely"Irano-Afghan". Irano-Afghan is not a European Race. As it only exists indigenously outside of European lands.

More so it is rather easy to make the distinguish the difference between indigenious Europeans and Middle Easterns. So why lump them into one group?

What are African, Asian, European lineages?
Are IEs UP or Neolithic?
On which datas do you base your statements?
;)

Grimr
Tuesday, August 24th, 2004, 05:02 PM
Iranians are certainly Aryan.

Rocky
Wednesday, August 25th, 2004, 05:40 PM
I have really enjoyed reading all these posts on a nationality in West Asia. The responses tell me a lot about the prejudices of the posters. What is White? What is Europid? What is Caucasian/caucasoid? Very interesting.

My question is: How Europid/White/Caucasoid are most Europeans whether Northeastern, Northwestern, Central, Southwestern and Southeastern? I would suspect that all these Europeans are equally negroid or mongoloid or australoid as the people who live in Iran or the Levant.

The posters seem to KNOW as facts that the Kurgans spawned whatever or what proto IE speakers looked like or even the Neolithics coming from the Middle East. They are all beliefs. The history of various places is overemphasized. For example, the Roman presence in Britain or Turkic speaking conquerors of Anatolia or the Arabic speaking conquerors of Southern Europe or the Varangian conquerors in Russia are all taken out of context or put it another way, there is a lot of BS written about the genetic legacy of these conquerors. Think about Finland, one of the most Nordic places in Europe - the Finns were considered to be mongoloids by none other than von Linne himself. Now is not that BS.

So before stating things about the Iranians' racial category take a good look at yourselves because there probably are a few negroes in your family trees or mongols in your ancestoral bedrooms.

Dorian
Thursday, August 26th, 2004, 02:03 AM
Finns, Estonians and Hungarians are Indo-Europeans who speak an Asiatic language of Mongoloid conquerors. Same thing happened with Bulgars who became Bulgarians, only the Turkic (or Pamirian according to some wishful thinking Bulgarians) language was replaced with Slavic and the name remained. Genetically they are pretty much the same as IE's.

morfrain_encilgar
Thursday, August 26th, 2004, 02:17 AM
Finns, Estonians and Hungarians are Indo-Europeans who speak an Asiatic language of Mongoloid conquerors.

Actually its usually thought to be the other way around. The comb ceramic culture of the Neolithic is usually associated with Finno-Ugrian languages.

Dorian
Thursday, August 26th, 2004, 04:49 AM
Actually its usually thought to be the other way around. The comb ceramic culture of the Neolithic is usually associated with Finno-Ugrian languages.

I don't understand. In neolithic times they lived in Ural.
They came from Ural in small numbers and mixed with the Ice Age survivors and IE's producing the current population.

Ogmios22188
Thursday, August 26th, 2004, 07:00 AM
Well if you believe that Caucasoid and Europid are synonyms, then, yes, Iranians are Europids.

H. Irano-Afghan race (predominant in Iran and Afghanistan, primary element in Iraq, common [25%] in Turkey)

http://www.racialcompact.com/racesofhumanity.html

morfrain_encilgar
Thursday, August 26th, 2004, 03:16 PM
I don't understand. In neolithic times they lived in Ural.
They came from Ural in small numbers and mixed with the Ice Age survivors and IE's producing the current population.

I think that map is arguing that if Finno-Ugrian is related to Altaic then Finno-Ugrian must have arrived from the east. But Finno-Ugrian is no longer associated with Altaic, although Yukaghir (a language isolate) is now thought to be within Uralic.

Its not possible to say definately which ancient, pre-literate people spoke a certain group of languages, but the Lapps speak Finno-Ugrian, and they're not recent immigrants.

Shapur
Saturday, August 28th, 2004, 10:04 PM
There are many theories. I support the out of Iranian highland theory.
I think the origin of Aryans is the Iranian highland and they spread by farming in the neolithic time out over the whole world. We have enough evidences for this theory. The problem is that the European scientists can not accept this.
Then they must accept yeah the Iranians are maybe the first IE speakers and are these people who did an invasion to Europe. But the nordish origin theory or a out of Europe theory voice better then the true.

I will bring some evidence, also you don`t need to answer only listen and ask your self what is more logical!

In the general schoolary of analyzing events of the history you must care about some laws. We know that EVERY bigger language family which is today still exist spread by agriculture. One of these are the Kongo-Bantu language family, the Afro-Asiatic language familie, the Sino-Tibetic language family, the Dravidian language family. But it is really strange that we have an exception for the Indo-European language family, which is the ONLY one which should NOT expand by agriculture but more by a expansion theory which voice like a good science-fiction story. Also the best argument is that the horse was the key of this Indo-European expansion. The problem is that we know NO civilization on this world which is destroyed, assimilated or something else by the horse expansion. For the Indo-European expansion we make again one exception so that all is clear. Also we know that no one a folk replaced without genetic remain the whole culture, language of a nation.
Again an exception for Indo-European expansion.
The strangest thing of all this is the base of all these theories. They are more then 120 years old, sure someone can say also something which is old can be true. Sure I can also build an airplain and base it on the knowledge from 120 years ago, if the airplain will fly this is something else.
Now about the arguments which speak about an Iranian highland theory.
The first thing which is very strang is that we have NO remains of any pre-IE civilization. The Avestan language itself is 100% pure IE. The Greek language is only 40% of IE origin. Also an argument of the enemies of the out of Iranian highland theory is that Iran was Dravidian. The problem is we do not know that the Elams who settled in the southest part of the Iranian highland were Dravidians or not, also the fact that no Elamian lived ever in the Iranian highland. Instead of this we have many source which show people like the Lulubis, the Gutis, the Anshan who show more an IE origin.
One interesting thing of this which Coon bring in his book of physical anthropology is that for the last 10.000 years the racial structure of the Iranian highland had NOT changed. So how it is possible that the Iranians speak today IE when there was no racial invasion which could pass for the invade of the IE people? We have not enough and old enough scrpits which could give us good information. But the Sumerians which lived in today Iraq were one of the first people who begin to write. They wrote much also about their wars. One interesting thing on this is that they spoke about a land called Mada. It was translated by the scientists with "Land". The problem is that this translation make no sense, because in many parts of the Sumerians scripts it is the speak from we get gold from Media or that one generals of Sargon(a King of Sumeria) get taxes from Mada. Also a war against Mada. I think and every else would give me right that for those statements we need a specify land not any land. Also the fact that exact at the same place later the Median empire was. That are not the only arguments for an early presens of IEs in the Iranian highland. We have also linguistical arguments.
The Sumerians had many Iranian loanwords. How is this possible when 3000 BC(from this time are the scripts which have these Iranian loanwords) no IE people and mostly no Iranians lived in the Iranian highland?
Sure it could also be Anatolian loanwords? NO! It are Iranian loanwords which typical Iranian style this is the problem. Problem because the European scientists can not deny this facts. Urudha is one of those Iranian loanwords.
It mean in Sumerian copper. In these times the Iranian highland was the greatest copper producent of the world. Many scientists say today that the Iranian highland was the first place of industrial production of the mandkind.
So we know in many stone pictures that people(who look like today Iranians) bring copper to Sumeria, Egypt and other parts of the world.
They bring not only the copper also the loanwords for this metal.
Urudha or Rudha(in Iranian) which mean nothing else as Redish.
The copper is a redish metal so the Sumerians use this loanword.
We have about 1000 other loanwords of Iranian origin of different sources.
We read all these evidences sure there are more but I will now finish my writing with the importants part of this.
Every can now say ok the IE people lived since 3000 BC in Iran or maybe 4000 BC but they came early 5000 BC to the Iranian highland.
The biggest problem will be for this anti-theory/statement that the Balts and other Indo-European nations have Sumerian loanwords.
So there are only two possibilities:
A) The IEs come from Iran and some of them had contact with the Sumerians and go expand later about Europe and with this connected also the Sumerian loanwords.
B) The Sumerians were in Europe(the problem we know that the Sumerians were mostly black skinned people so more an Indian subcontinent source is possible).

Sepas :)

ScotchTape
Monday, August 30th, 2004, 04:14 AM
Amidst your heated arguments I would like to add my opinion. ;)
I believe Iranians are mostly Caucasoid. There is a Mongoloid and even a Negroid element in the population. The negroid or is it australoid element is in the south and the mongoloid is in the north. I have seen many examples of these people.
The majority of the population is caucasoid albeit with a darker pigmentation and distinct features from most Europeans. They have a considerable amount of body hair that distinguishes them from other Europeans.
So I consider Iranians caucasoid but different in appearance than most Europeans.

Kamangir42
Tuesday, August 31st, 2004, 12:53 AM
Amidst your heated arguments I would like to add my opinion. ;)
I believe Iranians are mostly Caucasoid. There is a Mongoloid and even a Negroid element in the population. The negroid or is it australoid element is in the south and the mongoloid is in the north. I have seen many examples of these people.
The majority of the population is caucasoid albeit with a darker pigmentation and distinct features from most Europeans. They have a considerable amount of body hair that distinguishes them from other Europeans.
So I consider Iranians caucasoid but different in appearance than most Europeans.Let me apologise in advance if you are already aware of the points I raise in this post.

Are you aware, for instance, that there are several ethnicities (some of which have significant racial differences) in Iran? The CIA World Factbook (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html) (although lacking in some respects in my opinion) amply demonstrates this:





Ethnic groups: Persian 51%, Azeri 24%, Gilaki and Mazandarani 8%, Kurd 7%, Arab 3%, Lur 2%, Baloch 2%, Turkmen 2%, other 1%






So speaking in racial terms about Iranians per se is not particularly useful.




I agree that there is a very small Mongoloid component but the Negroid element is negligible in my opinion. I would be interested if you could post some pictures of these Negroid Iranians. Even the 10,000 or so Dravidian Brahui living in the south-eastern corner of the country have practically no Australoid admixture.




I would also agree that Persians (and related groups in Iran) are Caucasoid but generally darker than Europeans (not surprising given the amount of UV radiation we have to soak up) and with distinct features. That's the way I like it.

ScotchTape
Tuesday, August 31st, 2004, 01:15 AM
Let me apologise in advance if you are already aware of the points I raise in this post.

Are you aware, for instance, that there are several ethnicities (some of which have significant racial differences) in Iran? The CIA World Factbook (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html) (although lacking in some respects in my opinion) amply demonstrates this:

Yes I'm aware of that.

[/left]




So speaking in racial terms about Iranians per se is not particularly useful.




I agree that there is a very small Mongoloid component but the Negroid element is negligible in my opinion. I would be interested if you could post some pictures of these Negroid Iranians. Even the 10,000 or so Dravidian Brahui living in the south-eastern corner of the country have practically no Australoid admixture.



Let me look for some pictures but I have seen negroid looking Iranians.


I would also agree that Persians (and related groups in Iran) are Caucasoid but generally darker than Europeans (not surprising given the amount of UV radiation we have to soak up) and with distinct features. That's the way I like it.

Thats true too.

Kamangir42
Tuesday, August 31st, 2004, 04:02 AM
that have never happened pal, his idea was rather placed on the pretty logical theory of germanic horsemen settling in and civilising india and persia.

I’d say the idea is about as far from logical as possible, pal. I like that little jibe about “civilizing” India and Persia. Northern Europe wasn’t even part of civilisation in ancient times. But I digress…



about that map i can tell that is largely a forge. that map seems to go around the net quite a lot but you arent to believe every piece of crap around. there are also maps that mark greeks brothers with east ethiopians, sforza for making genetic maps should be considered he is primarily a linguist not a geneticist.



I can’t believe I’m reading this.

Cavalli-Sforza is not primarily a linguist. He is the most pre-eminent population geneticist in the world. He has written many books and journal articles in the field. Any person who has even the smallest familiarity with population genetics is aware of this fact…

How can you show me the map is a “forge” [sic]? You can’t. The Racial Reality website posts this map too (see the link below). Now tell me Axelrod (this goes out to Polak too) are you saying that that well-respected site is promoting a forgery? I’d like for you to go on Dodona and argue that case (of course you won’t because you can’t). Why can’t you accept that the genetic map is Diagram 2.35, p.82 from Cavalli-Sforza et al. (1994)? Is it simply because you don’t like what it reports?

http://www.angeltowns.com/members/racialreal/race.html (http://www.angeltowns.com/members/racialreal/race.html)

By the way, the genetic map depicts principal components for the “classical” markers (which covers some 142 alleles). The map of which you speak (which is from a bona fide article by Arnaiz-Villena et al.) considers only HLA genes. They have nothing to do with each other. I’d like to see if you can give me one concrete reason why the map in question is flawed.

Just for you, here is the genetic distance tree on p.79 of Cavalli-Sforza et al.:



http://www.michaeljpolignano.com/Genetic%20tree1.gif





about coon, his works are indispensable and pretty much accepted in terms of subraces but for now its very outdated and pseudoistic. i dont remember coon classifying majority of iranians as irano afghan, he classified the overwhelming majority as orientalid altough these two subraces are closely related most of the time.anyway his sense of europid is in a need of upgrade soon as you see the stuff we are arguing on, such as spending hours for proving that a southwest asian nation is not at all a part of the european genetic makeup, all because of a very fatal terminology error.


Nope, wrong again (this is becoming an unfortunate habit for you). Firstly, how can a work of physical anthropology become outdated? Perhaps the physical characteristics of Iranians changed in the few decades since his field studies? Or maybe the Iranians observed by Coon all fled somewhere else? In fact, Coon was able to say that the various Caucasoid sub-races were formed several thousand years ago and have not altered significantly since then. This brings up an important point. Coon personally did extensive field work in Iran which makes him a pretty strong source on the matter. Did Eickstedt and Baker do field work in Iran or sit in their offices?

Coon wrote that most Iranians are Irano-Afghan not Orientalid (I don’t even think he used the term “Orientalid” for his own classification anyway).


Irano-Afghan: The long-faced, high-headed, hook-nosed type, usually of tall stature, which forms the principal element in the population of Iran, Afghanistan, and the Turkoman country, and which is also present in Palestine, parts of Arabia, and North Africa. It is probably related to the old Corded type of the Neolithic and Bronze Age.Source: Coon, The Races of Europe (http://www.fikas.no/~sprocket/snpa/chapter-VIII6.htm), Chapter VIII, section 6: Racial Classification within the White Family

As you can read for yourself, Coon distinguishes the Irano-Afghan from the Mediterranean Proper and Atlanto-Mediterranean which are prevalent in the Arab Middle East and North Africa.

By the way, Coon did not use term “Europid”. Given your amazing knowledge on the subject I’m surprised you did not know this…



i think iranians might have about 2.9-3.4% negroid and 3.6-4.2% mongoloid paternal ancestry, so mostly caucasoid. persians from different parts of the countries. 3.4%marked l1l3a sub saharan marker. this however rise to 4.2% with kurds.(di rienzo&wilson). there is no tat-c and other so implied mongoloid indicator researches avaliable so its only a parallel common guess parallel to neighboring countries.


You think? So you’re making this stuff up as you go along (why am I not surprised?)?

Could I bother you for a citation for Di Rienzo and Wilson? The only article I can find by these two in concert is:

Di Rienzo, A., Wilson, A.C., Branching pattern in the evolutionary tree for human mitochondrial DNA., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 88 1597–1601, 1991.

So is this the article you refer to?

The genetic evidence on Iranians (or, more strictly, Persians) that I have come across is at variance with what you have suggested. For instance, no Sub-Saharan (L1-L3) or East Asian (M-CDGZ, A, B, F, and N9a) mtDNA lineages were found in a recent article by Quintana-Murci et al.:

http://img65.exs.cx/img65/7485/quintanamurci.jpg


Source: Quintana-Murci et al., Where West Meets East: The Complex mtDNA Landscape of the Southwest and Central Asian Corridor , Am. J. Hum. Genet. 74:000–000, 2004

Re paternal lineages, there hasn’t been that much testing done on Iranians and none with which we can accurately determine non-Caucasoid paternal lineages as far as I know. But I think your estimate of Mongoloid paternal lineages is reasonable. However, I think that there is negligible Negroid paternal lineage not your estimate of 2.9-3.4%. The evidence for this is circumstantial but quite strong in my opinion.



By contrast, throughout the Near East, haplogroup A is virtually absent, for example, in Bedouin, Palestinians, and Syrians, as well as in Turks, Kurds, Armenians, Azeris, and Georgians and several Jewish groups (table 2 (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v72n4/024771/024771.text.html#tb2#tb2)). Haplogroup E is present in both Arab and Jewish populations throughout the Near East, as well as at high frequencies throughout most of Africa (Scozzari et al. 1999 (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v72n4/024771/024771.text.html#rf31#rf31), 2001 (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v72n4/024771/024771.text.html#rf30#rf30); Underhill et al. 2000 (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v72n4/024771/024771.text.html#rf41#rf41); Cruciani et al. 2002 (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v72n4/024771/024771.text.html#rf6#rf6)). However, its distribution in the Near East suggests an ancient presence in the region, rather than indicating recent gene flow: it is present not only in Near Eastern Arab populations, but also in several groups of Jews (12% 23%) and Turks ( 10%), declining to <5% as one moves toward the Caucasus and Europe. Further supporting the suggestion of an ancient presence rather than recent gene flow from East Africa, haplogroup E occurs at only 10% in the Yemen Hadramawt, substantially lower than most other Arab and Jewish groups in the Near East. Yet this is precisely the region in which female-mediated gene flow from Eastern Africa reaches its highest levels. Only 4% of the Hadramawt sample is the derived sub-Saharan African form, E3a, which indicates recent gene flow from Africa. This subclade is virtually absent from all other Near Eastern populations sampled. Moreover, haplogroup E is entirely absent from a second Yemen sample from Sena (Thomas et al. 2000 (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v72n4/024771/024771.text.html#rf36#rf36)).

Taken together, these results indicate that historical male-mediated gene flow from Ethiopia to Yemen has been low, in striking contrast to the results from mtDNA. This seems likely to be true for other parts of the Near East, too, again in contrast to the pattern from mtDNA.


Source: Richards et al, Extensive Female-Mediated Gene Flow from Sub-Saharan Africa into Near Eastern Arab Populations, Am. J. Hum. Genet., 72:1058-1064, 2003

Indeed, it is not accurate to characterise haplogroup E as entirely Negroid. Studies have shown that only certain sub-clades (such as E3a and E(xE3b)) can be said to be Negroid. In the countries surrounding Iran, Negroid paternal lineages are very rare (rarer it seems than in some parts of Europe): viz. Pakistan (0.6%) and Iraq (0.9%).

Sources:

http://www.dienekes.com/blog/archives/000541.html
http://www.dienekes.com/blog/archives/000531.html
http://www.dienekes.com/blog/archives/000540.html (http://www.dienekes.com/blog/archives/000540.html)

So it would be reasonable in my opinion to conclude that Iranians have negligible Negroid lineages and very few (in the order of 2-3%) Mongoloid lineages. As a caveat it should be noted that the extent of non-Caucasoid admixture cannot be accurately determined by averaging Y chromosome and mtDNA lineages but only by autosomal loci DNA testing.

Still, if you are able to find pictures of Negroid Iranians (or Persians I should say) I would be interested to see them.


also eye blondism frequencies of central iranian plateau cities are given as 3/30, 2/32, 4/42, 7/45.(rondo, di rienzo&wilson respectively). these numbers are rather pointing out exoticism and about 5:1 rationally lower than darkest south europe statistics.

Could you give a full citation for these sources? Moreover, I fail to grasp the relevance of eye blondism frequencies to a discussion of whether Iranians are Caucasoid. Perhaps you can enlighten me? I could very well retort that Europeans are less hairy than Iranians as evidence of them being less Caucasoid (how many hairy Negroids and Mongoloids do you know?). But I wouldn’t of course because that is stupid…

By the way, it is not surprising that Iranians generally have darker skin and exhibit blondism less frequently than European given the amount of UV radiation that we have to soak up.

http://www.angeltowns.com/members/racialreal/skincolor.html


ofcourse you can anytime post some bollywood actresses with compact eyes and extra white makeup to prove out your countrymen
Why should I want to post pictures of women from another country and with a significantly different genetic makeup to boot? I think this only proves that you are frighteningly ignorant. If you want I could post pictures of some Iranian women but I hardly think this would be relevant to the point at hand.

Razmig
Saturday, September 4th, 2004, 12:31 AM
armeno/alpinoids are 99% in european pigmentation range while generally persians are not. you can fit any jew/lebanese etc in southern europe very easily but that wont make them europeans.

europid is a person of dinaric/alpine/med/nordic/east baltic primary subraces.

irano aghan? non europid caucasoid; armenoid? non europid caucasoid; orientalid? non europid caucasoid(inc. ranging sub saharan admixture). these three subraces make 98% of iranian gene pool, it therefore is mainly caucasoid non europid. persians are probably identical with gypsies and northern indians than anyone else.

here are some kurds:
http://www.redacservices.fr/roxane/turquie/albumadultes/index.htm




proto iranians like alans sarmatians etc in history are mostly slavs etc migrating west, not persians
so since dinaric is armenoid derrivitive that makes them non europid? have you read up on your anthropology?

Razmig
Saturday, September 4th, 2004, 12:32 AM
i think its usually the same case with all northern near easterners except southern orientalids. i dont compare them to gypsies as an insult or something, i saw a lot of iranian peoples like baluchi,kurd, pers etc can be mistaken for gypsy.
thats because the original gypsies have persian and indic ancestry...

Razmig
Saturday, September 4th, 2004, 12:43 AM
this thread is a funny little joke...let me clear a few things up for those internet junkies who cannot take the liberty to look up words on google...

europid: synonym for caucasoid
iranians: anyone living in the nation of iran
inhabitors of iran: mostly caucasoids and minor turkic
europe: a fabricated continent
european: a word used to describe those who inhabit western europe and have traveled and settled other continents
ancient aryans: a people who have dispersed and mingled amongst many groups in many nations
persians: an indo-european people who settled in iran, as did the medians...
essam: the semetic speaking and originated district of the entirety of mesopotamian iran
persepolis: a city built by the leading class of ancient persia (indo-europeans)

Kamangir42
Saturday, September 4th, 2004, 03:47 AM
thats because the original gypsies have persian and indic ancestry...
The original gypsies were from India not Iran. I have not seen any evidence to indicate they have significant Persian ancestry. Most of them moved on pretty quickly to more prosperous pastures. I'd appreciate it if you did not make claims without backing them up.

Kamangir42
Saturday, September 4th, 2004, 04:05 AM
this thread is a funny little joke...let me clear a few things up for those internet junkies who cannot take the liberty to look up words on google...

europid: synonym for caucasoid
iranians: anyone living in the nation of iran
inhabitors of iran: mostly caucasoids and minor turkic
europe: a fabricated continent
european: a word used to describe those who inhabit western europe and have traveled and settled other continents
ancient aryans: a people who have dispersed and mingled amongst many groups in many nations
persians: an indo-european people who settled in iran, as did the medians...
essam: the semetic speaking and originated district of the entirety of mesopotamian iran
persepolis: a city built by the leading class of ancient persia (indo-europeans)
What is Essam? Do you mean Elam? Elamite is an isolated language unrelated to any other known language (that includes the Semitic languages).

Persian: Greek word for an Iranian used because the Achaemenid dynasty of Iran emerged from the region of Pars. Note 1: nobody in Iran is referred to as a Persian ("Farsi"). Note 2: Persians, Medians, Parthians and several other groups referred to themselves as Iranians and their country as Iran(shahr).

Aryan: an ethno-linguistic term used solely by Indo-Iranians to describe themselves and not by any other Indo-Europeans.

Persepolis: The Greek name for the Achaemenid capital Takht-e-Jamshid.

Razmig
Saturday, September 4th, 2004, 02:07 PM
What is Essam? Do you mean Elam? Elamite is an isolated language unrelated to any other known language (that includes the Semitic languages).

Persian: Greek word for an Iranian used because the Achaemenid dynasty of Iran emerged from the region of Pars. Note 1: nobody in Iran is referred to as a Persian ("Farsi"). Note 2: Persians, Medians, Parthians and several other groups referred to themselves as Iranians and their country as Iran(shahr).

Aryan: an ethno-linguistic term used solely by Indo-Iranians to describe themselves and not by any other Indo-Europeans.

Persepolis: The Greek name for the Achaemenid capital Takht-e-Jamshid.

My mistake yes I meant Elam, a people who were the son of Shem (those are who are called the Semites)...all "semetic" languages are uncomparable, so to speak.

The ruling class in Persia (the eastern division of the originally MACEDONIAN empire) was just that...not local ethnicities...thus creating a division between the actualy people of Persia, and the Persians (the rulers).

Indo-Iranian can be used to also refer to the people who inhabited India as well (because the Indic language is called IRANIAN)...there is a huge difference between those who call themselves "iranian" in Iran, and those who were the Iranians thoulsands of years ago.

Yes Persepolis is the Greek name...Perse = Persian, Polis = City (in Greek/Armenian/Thracian/Macedonian)...Armenians too call the Persians Parses, and not Iranian...however the Iranians themselves refer to their language as FARSI for a reason (PHARSI, PARSE)...there are PERSIANS and IRANIANS in IRAN...PERSIANS are ZOROASTRIAN....on the race ballot in the united states you will see both of these present.

Razmig
Saturday, September 4th, 2004, 02:13 PM
Jamshid itself doesnt seem very "Iranian" consideirng that Persepolis was home to temple, and the Arabic word for the house of praise is JAMI...hmm...I don't know Farsi very well but I'll ask a friend about what that means.

Japetos
Saturday, September 4th, 2004, 03:23 PM
I had met some Iranian girls and they were really Nordic.
I think Iranians are mainly Caucasian.

Jack
Saturday, September 4th, 2004, 03:34 PM
The gap between West 'Aryans' and East Aryans is unbrigable. They are foreigners, culturally and perhaps biologically. They may have been culturally similar to the Hellenes in the days of the ancients but they share little if anything in common with the cultures derived from the Celts, Germanics, Slavs, or Latin peoples, i.e. Europe.

Kamangir42
Saturday, September 4th, 2004, 05:11 PM
Jamshid itself doesnt seem very "Iranian" consideirng that Persepolis was home to temple, and the Arabic word for the house of praise is JAMI...hmm...I don't know Farsi very well but I'll ask a friend about what that means.
:D

Jamshid is as Iranian as it gets. Jamshid is the name of a mythical Iranian king. Takht means "throne" in Persian.

http://www.iranchamber.com/literature/shahnameh/01shahs_of_old.php

Kamangir42
Saturday, September 4th, 2004, 06:01 PM
My mistake yes I meant Elam, a people who were the son of Shem (those are who are called the Semites)...all "semetic" languages are uncomparable, so to speak.
If they were incomparable there would be no Semitic language family. Yet Hebrew, Arabic and Phoenician for example are recognised as related Semitic languages because of their common characteristics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_languages

There is no reason to think that Elamites were related to Shem. That's just a fairytale. There is no evidence Shem ever existed and might as well be some Jewish wet dream (that he lived for 600 years should be a hint!). Elamite is unrelated to any known language including the Semitic languages (how could they be sons of Shem if they did not speak a Semitic language?). Indeed, Elam is a big mystery.

By the way, Armenia is also supposed to be a son of Shem. You still believe this rubbish?

http://www.freemaninstitute.com/RTGham.htm


The ruling class in Persia (the eastern division of the originally MACEDONIAN empire) was just that...not local ethnicities...thus creating a division between the actualy people of Persia, and the Persians (the rulers).

There is no evidence to support your claim. Herodotus does not say anything of the sort. I'm starting to think you have an ulterior agenda. Herodotus (The Histories; Book 1; 125) writes:



Now the Persian nation is made up of many tribes.

The ruling dynasty was drawn from the Achaemenid clan of the Pasargadae tribe. There is no indication that the ruling elite was any different from the rest of the people. You assume that there was mixing between the Persian invaders and the indigenous people which you have not proven. Indeed, I think it more likely that the indigenous people were exterminated or displaced (that was the way of the world back then). Think about the population density that Iran could sustain in ancient times and the density India could sustain.



Indo-Iranian can be used to also refer to the people who inhabited India as well (because the Indic language is called IRANIAN)...there is a huge difference between those who call themselves "iranian" in Iran, and those who were the Iranians thoulsands of years ago.

No, the Indic languages are known as Indic or Indo-Aryan or Indo-Iranian languages not simply Iranian.

Why is there a "huge difference" between those who call themselves Iranian today and those who did the same thousands of years ago? Do you have any evidence or is this just wishful thinking? Let me guess: ancient Iranians were blond and blue-eyed.

http://www.gaugamela.com/darius11.jpg

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~ancientpersia/images/s_guards.jpg

http://www.art-arena.com/Iran/immortal.jpg

Yes, I can see how you can come to that conclusion. :P Maybe you have a time machine? :D



Yes Persepolis is the Greek name...Perse = Persian, Polis = City (in Greek/Armenian/Thracian/Macedonian)...Armenians too call the Persians Parses, and not Iranian...however the Iranians themselves refer to their language as FARSI for a reason (PHARSI, PARSE)...there are PERSIANS and IRANIANS in IRAN...PERSIANS are ZOROASTRIAN....on the race ballot in the united states you will see both of these present.Armenians do not call themselves Armenians do they? I believe you call yourselves Hayk. The fact that foreigners do not call you Hayk does not mean you do not call yourselves Hayk does it? Likewise, Iranians call themselves Iranians while foreigners call them Persians. Indeed, many countries have different domestic and foreign names (Bharat/India, Greece/Hellas, Germany/Deutschland). It's not very difficult to grasp.

Yes the official language of Iran is referred to as Farsi for a reason. It is called Farsi because it is thought to have emerged from the Fars/Pars region (although the local dialect in Fars/Pars differs from Farsi). Similarly, Spanish is known as Castilliano but that does not mean Spaniards call themselves Castilliano.

Zoroastrians in Iran do not call themselves Parsis. They refer to themselves as Zartoshti Iranians. Parsis are the Zoroastrians of India who have heavily intermarried with Indians (mainly in Gujarat). Thus, they can no longer be accurately described as Iranian and require their own category on the "race ballot".

The people referred to as Persians by foreigners refer to themselves as Iranians. Persians are simply Iranians who have discarded their tribal identity (Persian, Median, Parthian and so on). Some Iranians have not discarded their tribal identity (Gilakis, Lors, Kords) so they continue to identify themselves as Kord (or whatever) and Iranian. So Persians can be thought of as Iranians Proper.

cruhmann
Sunday, September 5th, 2004, 06:21 AM
[QUOTE=Kamangir42]
There is no reason to think that Elamites were related to Shem. That's just a fairytale. There is no evidence Shem ever existed and might as well be some Jewish wet dream (that he lived for 600 years should be a hint!). Elamite is unrelated to any known language including the Semitic languages (how could they be sons of Shem if they did not speak a Semitic language?). Indeed, Elam is a big mystery.
It's simple. It's called conquering, settling among and mixing with.
For example, the Hittites spoke a very early form of Indo-European, but were descendants of Ham, through Heth. How do explain this? Easy. Indo-Europeans conquered, settled among, and mixed with the Hattians (sons of Heth, the Hittites). It happened over and over again in historical times. Look at the people we call Italians today. They speak an Indo-European language. But are they (as a group) descendants of the original Indo-European-speaking Italics? Only to a small degree. This is true for all modern-day Europeans, even the Germans.
Race and language seldom correlate, because of all the mixing of races in the past, and transferring of languages from one race to another.
In most cases, the prople who speak a particular language today look nothing like the people who spoke that language or a form of it say 2000 years ago.

By the way, Armenia is also supposed to be a son of Shem. You still believe this rubbish?
I've never heard that theory. Can you elaborate? The early Armenian-speakers were descendants of Togarmah, grandson of Japeth.

Kamangir42
Sunday, September 5th, 2004, 02:20 PM
It's simple. It's called conquering, settling among and mixing with.
For example, the Hittites spoke a very early form of Indo-European, but were descendants of Ham, through Heth. How do explain this? Easy. Indo-Europeans conquered, settled among, and mixed with the Hattians (sons of Heth, the Hittites). It happened over and over again in historical times. Look at the people we call Italians today. They speak an Indo-European language. But are they (as a group) descendants of the original Indo-European-speaking Italics? Only to a small degree. This is true for all modern-day Europeans, even the Germans.
Race and language seldom correlate, because of all the mixing of races in the past, and transferring of languages from one race to another.
In most cases, the prople who speak a particular language today look nothing like the people who spoke that language or a form of it say 2000 years ago.

I think we're digressing from the subject of Elam and the continuing mystery about its origins. But I'll try to address your points.

Where is the evidence that this Shem even existed let alone that all these diverse peoples were sired by sons of Noah? I'll tell you: there is no evidence. It's a fairytale. You expect me to take Genesis at face value?

Again, where is your evidence of all this "race" mixing going on in ancient times? You're extrapolating from current attitudes in the West to a time with different values. Maybe such mixing occurred a few times but this does not mean it occurred every time or even most times. Indeed, strictly we're not talking about extensive race mixing but a small elite imposing its language on the populace.

Phenotype is largely determined by climatic and environmental conditions. One would expect different populations (of the same race of course: Caucasoid f.e.) living in the same region to look similar after adaptation to these conditions. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the people living in the region of Italy (or rather its different regions) two thousand years ago, say, to have looked very similar to how the people living there now look.




I've never heard that theory. Can you elaborate? The early Armenian-speakers were descendants of Togarmah, grandson of Japeth.I don't believe that anybody is a son of Shem. But the following site suggests that Armenia is a son of Shem.

http://www.freemaninstitute.com/RTGham.htm

Razmig
Monday, September 6th, 2004, 12:08 AM
By the way, Armenia is also supposed to be a son of Shem. You still believe this rubbish?
Incorrect, the Armens had not even stepped foot on Anatolia at that time. You're thinking of the fables of Hayk and hes succession at Babyl. That site is wrong, it is supposed to say ARAMIA


There is no evidence to support your claim. Herodotus does not say anything of the sort. I'm starting to think you have an ulterior agenda. Herodotus (The Histories; Book 1; 125) writes:
There need not be evidence because it is not a claim. The ruling class in Persia were the Persians...and did not call themselves anything else.



The ruling dynasty was drawn from the Achaemenid clan of the Pasargadae tribe. There is no indication that the ruling elite was any different from the rest of the people. You assume that there was mixing between the Persian invaders and the indigenous people which you have not proven. Indeed, I think it more likely that the indigenous people were exterminated or displaced (that was the way of the world back then). Think about the population density that Iran could sustain in ancient times and the density India could sustain.

If you honestly beleive that, youre fooling yourself. That sounds like a Russian denying the mingling of Turkic and Finnic tribes in Russia...we all know that people are not exterminated, that they are intermingled...and Latin America is a good example of that (especially under persecution...Turkey?). Not to mention Islam has made the Iranian people closer to other Muslims than to any original inhabitors of those lands.


No, the Indic languages are known as Indic or Indo-Aryan or Indo-Iranian languages not simply Iranian.

I hope you're not an Iranian...I don't understand what youre trying to say, but like I said, Hindi today is an Indo-Iranian derrivitive, I suppose that makes them Iranian nationals?
http://users.ipfw.edu/thompsoc/LingL103/overheads/PIEChart.gif


Why is there a "huge difference" between those who call themselves Iranian today and those who did the same thousands of years ago? Do you have any evidence or is this just wishful thinking? Let me guess: ancient Iranians were blond and blue-eyed.
Because Islam has morphed the Iranian facial features...I've been to parts of north and south west Iran and I can say many of them look like Near Easter/South Eastern peoples, but the majority are a little too intermingled to be classified as ancients. The Aryans were not blonde hair and blue eyed, as an Anatolia (the home of the Aryans) I would know that they were fair, but not norsemen...and in a climate like Iran I can imagine they would only have gotten darker in colouration.


Yes, I can see how you can come to that conclusion. Maybe you have a time machine?
This time I really hope you're not an Iranian, because you've posted images of slaves...Persia contracted and enslaved people to fight under for its honour (those who were Persians fought with swords and not spears).


Armenians do not call themselves Armenians do they? I believe you call yourselves Hayk. The fact that foreigners do not call you Hayk does not mean you do not call yourselves Hayk does it? Likewise, Iranians call themselves Iranians while foreigners call them Persians. Indeed, many countries have different domestic and foreign names (Bharat/India, Greece/Hellas, Germany/Deutschland). It's not very difficult to grasp.
The hykes are not the Armenians, because the Armens are the Armenians...Hayk and the name Hayastan was for the empire of Erebuni which was absorbed into the Armeno-Phrygian nation. Originally the Hyks were a people migrating from Illyr back into Anatolia and passed through Cilicia and where the Egyptian empire had expanded into. They confused them for the Hyksos becuase they cam from Thracia with boats, and the name stuck with them (Armenians never inherited the Hayksos but the Cypriots did). Hayastan is what we call our nation now, but it is not indigenously an Armenian name (it is Indo-Iranian). For example MY tribe calls themselves Galac (Gye-lats)...and our nation is "Gelatsaire." Yet we are Armenians. Some Armenian villages called their nation Armenis...Hayastan is an Eastern Armenian derritive, and Hyke for mostly the Eastern fringe of Anatolia.


Yes the official language of Iran is referred to as Farsi for a reason. It is called Farsi because it is thought to have emerged from the Fars/Pars region (although the local dialect in Fars/Pars differs from Farsi). Similarly, Spanish is known as Castilliano but that does not mean Spaniards call themselves Castilliano.
Incorrect. Castillian is the dialect spoken in spain as opposed to the Latin America (which is improper and misses proper pronounciation). Spanish is called ESPANOL.


Zoroastrians in Iran do not call themselves Parsis. They refer to themselves as Zartoshti Iranians. Parsis are the Zoroastrians of India who have heavily intermarried with Indians (mainly in Gujarat). Thus, they can no longer be accurately described as Iranian and require their own category on the "race ballot".
My neighbor is Zoroastrian from Iran...perhaps he is a filthy liar?


The people referred to as Persians by foreigners refer to themselves as Iranians. Persians are simply Iranians who have discarded their tribal identity (Persian, Median, Parthian and so on). Some Iranians have not discarded their tribal identity (Gilakis, Lors, Kords) so they continue to identify themselves as Kord (or whatever) and Iranian. So Persians can be thought of as Iranians Proper.
Does the fact that Gilakis live in Iran make them IRANIAN NATIONALS? I repeat, does the fact that Hindi is referred to as Indo-IRANIAN (Iranian not meaning Iran, but the original Aryans in the region) make them Iranian Nationals too? Gilakis are as much a seperate ethno-culture as Armenian was to Thracian (although they both belonged to Thraco-Phrygian language grouping).

Razmig
Monday, September 6th, 2004, 09:26 AM
BTW I'm not arguing Iranians arn't Europid because whoever started this thread did not know the defenition of Europid. (It's kind of like when people twist the meaning of the world Marriage). Europid is a synonym for Caucasoid, Caucasoids include ALL people of the Western World (spanning from Norwegians to Arabs, Russians to English, French to Turkish, Iranian to Italian etc). The idea of a seperated EUROPE is rather akward considering there is no divide between Europe and Asia Nor culturaly, Nor physically. Everything is gradual, interrelated by specifics and so fourth. This of coarse brings up the idea of "whites" being a seperate race entity, when its soul meaning is any Caucasoid who is depigmented (that is it can refer to an Arabid with blonde hair and blue eyes, although this is not possible) and is souly EXTERNAL as opposed to the geneological inheritance of genes by racial affiliation and intermingling. White, maybe the Iranians are not (because it means a SCAND basically, or a Baltic person with Scand blood)...but they are surely Caucasoid and a deffinite INDO-EUROPEAN culture. They are just Europeans that are not called EUROPE for political, and religious regions. Much like the Balkans was once called the Middle East, or ousted from Europe since it was under the Ottomans. It is still caleld the "greater extension of the Middle East" or together with Turkey it is called the Near East. Got me?

Shapur
Monday, September 6th, 2004, 07:50 PM
You with your Shems! It is laughable. There were 3 sons Tur, Iraj and Salman.
These were the sons of Feridun. We know that these 3 sons were tribes.
But how it is often in folkstory every nation or tribe is a person.
:P

Razmig
Monday, September 6th, 2004, 08:57 PM
You with your Shems! It is laughable. There were 3 sons Tur, Iraj and Salman.
These were the sons of Feridun. We know that these 3 sons were tribes.
But how it is often in folkstory every nation or tribe is a person.
:P
It's probably as much a fable as Hyke and the Hays. But it is not deniable that the absorbtion of the Meso-Semetic peoples into Iranian proper. I know that for a fact there must have been Semetic types that even reached as far north as Anatolia and even west as Italy.

Shapur
Tuesday, September 7th, 2004, 05:28 PM
It's probably as much a fable as Hyke and the Hays. But it is not deniable that the absorbtion of the Meso-Semetic peoples into Iranian proper. I know that for a fact there must have been Semetic types that even reached as far north as Anatolia and even west as Italy.
LOL! No it is not deniable that the Semits have Aryan blood.
The Hykos were Iranians tribes. Also when should the whole Iranian nation absorbe Arabic blood? Razming don`t dream!
The reality is that Iranians and Armenians are racial brothers!
And that they come from the same proto-Aryans.
Fact is that we know about Iranian countries since 4000 BC.
Or do you real think that the Armenians invade to Armenia?
The genetic speak against this.

Read books then we can have a good discussion about this stuff! :D

Kamangir42
Tuesday, September 7th, 2004, 11:36 PM
Incorrect, the Armens had not even stepped foot on Anatolia at that time. You're thinking of the fables of Hayk and hes succession at Babyl. That site is wrong, it is supposed to say ARAMIA





Not only is that site wrong, the whole bullshit story of Shem is wrong. Let’s get back to the point.



You said that Elamites were the sons of Shem. So where is your evidence that this was the case or even that Shem existed? I’ll tell you: you have none because it’s a fantasy of what the Jews wanted the origins of the world around them to be with no basis in fact whatsoever (it did however enable them f.e. to justify killing the Caananites who were supposedly not sons of Shem like them). Now I ask you this and answer me honestly: would a credible academic ever seriously write that the Elamites were the sons of Shem in a peer-reviewed journal? I think not.



I gather that you have backed away from your claim that the Semitic languages are not comparable. There is a Semitic language family (based on the common characteristics of these languages) and Elamite is not a part of it. Elamite is an isolated language and Elam remains an enigma, agree? Practically the only thing we can say about the Elamites is that they were not Semites.








There need not be evidence because it is not a claim. The ruling class in Persia were the Persians...and did not call themselves anything else.





It is a claim my Armenian friend. You did not just say that the ruling class in Persia were Persians but also that the rest of the people (the “local ethnicities” as you put it) were not Persian. This is an assertion unsupported by any facts. Indeed, Herodotus, who would surely have discussed this when talking about the origins of the Persians, does not say anything of the sort. Indeed, he says that the Persian nation is made up of many tribes and makes no distinction between them (you can find the quote and citation above). The imperial dynasty was from one of the clans of one of these tribes.








If you honestly beleive that, youre fooling yourself. That sounds like a Russian denying the mingling of Turkic and Finnic tribes in Russia...we all know that people are not exterminated, that they are intermingled...and Latin America is a good example of that (especially under persecution...Turkey?). Not to mention Islam has made the Iranian people closer to other Muslims than to any original inhabitors of those lands.





You are once more peddling a fallacy. You have provided no evidence that the Persians mixed with the indigenous people or with other Muslims. While there may be infrequent mixing between peoples at the borders, at the margin, this is far from saying that all people are mixed or indeed most are. Indeed, parochialism and the difficulty of travel suggest that mixing has (until very recently in the West) been decidedly rare. Thus, unless evidence to the contrary is provided, one must rationally conclude that such mixing has not been significant to change the characteristics of any people appreciably.



Let’s address the issue of the Persians mixing with the indigenous people first. For one thing, there are quite a few examples of one people taking another people’s land without any appreciable mixing going on between them: the Europeans annihilating the Native Americans; the Israelites annihilating the Caananites; the Japanese pushing back the dwindling Ainu; the Europeans taking the Australian Aborigines’ land; and so on. In all these cases, one people ejected another people from their land and took it for themselves. Why do I think it rational to assume that this also occurred in Iran when the Persians arrived (assuming of course that they were not indigenous in the first place!)? I want you to think about the following points.



1. Presumably, the peoples that entered the Iranian plateau and those that entered India were descended from the same stock and shared several aspects of their culture (let’s call them Aryan peoples to keep it simple).



2. Geographical factors indicate that the population density that could be sustained in ancient times in India was much higher than the density that could be sustained in Iran. It is not therefore difficult to imagine that there was a much higher indigenous population in India than there was in Iran at the time the Aryan peoples began to settle in these lands.



3. The Aryan peoples who entered India set up a caste system to separate themselves from the indigenous peoples while those in Iran did not set up a caste system despite sharing much of their culture.



I think the conclusions to be drawn from these points are quite clear. The Aryan peoples in Iran did not need to set up a caste system because there was no indigenous population left (i.e. they were killed, ejected, whatever). The Aryan peoples in India could not get rid of the indigenous population because the density of human settlement was too high to do so in the highly fertile plains of northern India. The Aryan peoples in Iran did not face such a problem because of the sparse settlement of the Iranian plateau.



Let’s address the claim that Iranians have mixed with other peoples (presumably Arabs) because of their religion. When it comes to Iranians, cultural values always come before religious belief. Nor is there any commandment of Islam that requires mixing despite what is commonly believed (in fact, some of the texts can be interpreted in a way that makes mixing frowned upon). Whatever is the case, Iranians will not breed with a Turkmen or Arab Muslim for cultural reasons. Iranians are a fiercely nationalistic people. Try calling an Iranian an Arab and see how he will react! As I said above, parochialism and the difficulties of travel also militate against such mixing. Iranians prefer to marry Iranians and Arabs prefer to marry Arabs. Moreover, there has never been any appreciable settlement of Arabs on the Iranian plateau so the interaction between these two peoples has been quite infrequent. You cannot expect me to believe 20,000 Arab invaders made any appreciable impact on millions of Iranians when there is no evidence of mass rape (prohibited by Islam) and plenty of evidence of mutual enmity between Arabs and Iranians.



All this notwithstanding, you have failed to provide evidence of extensive mixing.






I hope you're not an Iranian...I don't understand what youre trying to say, but like I said, Hindi today is an Indo-Iranian derrivitive, I suppose that makes them Iranian nationals?

http://users.ipfw.edu/thompsoc/LingL103/overheads/PIEChart.gif





I don’t regard this as relevant to our discussion at all. But, for the sake of completeness, Hindi cannot be called an Iranian language; it can, however, be called an Indo-Iranian or Indo-Aryan language. It is a matter of definition.






Because Islam has morphed the Iranian facial features...I've been to parts of north and south west Iran and I can say many of them look like Near Easter/South Eastern peoples, but the majority are a little too intermingled to be classified as ancients. The Aryans were not blonde hair and blue eyed, as an Anatolia (the home of the Aryans) I would know that they were fair, but not norsemen...and in a climate like Iran I can imagine they would only have gotten darker in colouration.





How exactly has Islam morphed Iranian facial features? You do not know what ancient Persians looked like to be able to say that modern Persians do not look much different. Unless you have a time machine and have travelled back to ancient Persia?



South-west Iran is Arab (strictly, they are Iranians who have mixed with Arabs after abandoning their language and culture). It is not representative of Iran and everyone agrees that “Arab” Iranians are somewhat intermingled.



Look. The burden of proof is on you to show that Iranians are intermingled and you have failed to do that. Until then, Occam’s Razor suggests that the people living there today are not much different to the people living there thousands of years ago. It’s like you are saying that the sun will blow up tomorrow without providing any evidence to back up your claim and then you are asking me to prove that your claim is wrong. I’m not playing your game my dear Armenian friend.



Iranians are on average a little darker than Armenians (assuming that Persians came from historic Armenia). But variation in skin colour within races is not per se particularly significant. As you have implied, the Aryans would have grown darker due to climatic and environmental conditions (UV radiation) in Iran and there is therefore no need to say that mixing with other peoples explains why Iranians are somewhat darker than Armenians.



I do not think Iranians look like Arabs except in a superficial way (we both might be hairier, darker and have bigger noses than Europeans f.e.). I do not think Iranians have the same cranial structure as Arabs, for instance. Coon, who did field studies in Iran and was the acknowledged premier expert on the Middle East, agrees with me. Other physical anthropologists (e.g. Eickstedt) resort to calling most of the people in that region as Orientalid. This strikes me as lazy and I very much doubt these academics did field studies in Iran. This does not mean that I agree with everything Coon said.



It should also be noted that most Arabs are largely only culturally and linguistically Arab (although some may have mixed with “true” racial Arabs). You won’t find many “true” Arabs in Lebanon or Syria. There has been significant race mixing (and I use the term “race” correctly) in the “true” Arab areas of the Arabian Peninsula and I’m convinced some of the Arab royal families have mixed with fairer peoples (doesn’t Prince Turki of Saudi Arabia have an Armenian mother or is it another prince I’m thinking of?). Physical anthropological studies of “true” Arabs should be restricted to Bedouin in my opinion for this reason. If most Arabs are not even racially Arab then how can you say Iranians have mixed extensively with Arabs? These Arabs must have been having sex constantly since they emerged from their mud huts 1300 years ago.






This time I really hope you're not an Iranian, because you've posted images of slaves...Persia contracted and enslaved people to fight under for its honour (those who were Persians fought with swords and not spears).





I know for sure you aren’t Iranian (and that you do not know basic facts about Iran and its history). Those were friezes of Immortals, elite Persian troops of the Persian Empire. They carried bows, short swords and spears.



http://www.livius.org/ia-in/immortals/immortals.html



The other picture was Darius III of Persia. You can recognise him by his pale skin, blue eyes and blond hair. You thought he was Dolph Lundgren didn’t you? Go on, admit it.



By the way, the Persians did not practice slavery (which is why they freed the Jews from their Babylonian Captivity).






The hykes are not the Armenians, because the Armens are the Armenians...Hayk and the name Hayastan was for the empire of Erebuni which was absorbed into the Armeno-Phrygian nation. Originally the Hyks were a people migrating from Illyr back into Anatolia and passed through Cilicia and where the Egyptian empire had expanded into. They confused them for the Hyksos becuase they cam from Thracia with boats, and the name stuck with them (Armenians never inherited the Hayksos but the Cypriots did). Hayastan is what we call our nation now, but it is not indigenously an Armenian name (it is Indo-Iranian). For example MY tribe calls themselves Galac (Gye-lats)...and our nation is "Gelatsaire." Yet we are Armenians. Some Armenian villages called their nation Armenis...Hayastan is an Eastern Armenian derritive, and Hyke for mostly the Eastern fringe of Anatolia.





I shall not pretend I am an expert on Armenia. But I will say this: Iranians call and have always called Armenians Armani and the country Armanestan. Iranians have never used the terms Hayk or Hayastan.



Still, this does not change the fact that many countries have different domestic and foreign names: Deutschland/Germany; Hellas/Greece; Bharat/India; and so on. Iranian natives have always called Iran Iran. Until 1935 foreigners called Iran Persia. Up to that time, Arab or Turkmen citizens of Iran were called Persians by foreigners (in contrast to today). After 1935, foreigners were asked to use the native name of the country, Iran, themselves. I cannot put it more simply. Understand?






Incorrect. Castillian is the dialect spoken in spain as opposed to the Latin America (which is improper and misses proper pronounciation). Spanish is called ESPANOL.





Incorrect. Castilliano is not a dialect of Spanish; it is Spanish. Castilliano is the proper term for the official language of Spain as we know it today (because each region had its own dialect) and it had been used from before the first Spaniard set foot in the Americas. A Spaniard will always say that he speaks Castilliano not español. The official language of Spain is known as Castilliano because it emerged from the region of Castillo just as the official language of Iran, Farsi, emerged from the region of Fars/Pars. This does not mean that a Spaniard would call himself Castilliano just because the national language came from there (unless, of course, he was from Castillo). Similarly, an Iranian would not call himself Farsi just because the national language emerged from that region. The language of a country and its people can have different names. Understand?






My neighbor is Zoroastrian from Iran...perhaps he is a filthy liar?





I can only say the truth. Zoroastrian Iranians are known as Zartoshti and not Parsi. Nobody in Iran is known as Parsi. These are Indian Zoroastrians who still think they are “true” Persians after more than a thousand years of mixing with Indians. Perhaps your friend calls himself Parsi because it is more “popular” than calling himself Iranian.






Does the fact that Gilakis live in Iran make them IRANIAN NATIONALS? I repeat, does the fact that Hindi is referred to as Indo-IRANIAN (Iranian not meaning Iran, but the original Aryans in the region) make them Iranian Nationals too? Gilakis are as much a seperate ethno-culture as Armenian was to Thracian (although they both belonged to Thraco-Phrygian language grouping).

[/quote]



You are confusing two separate ethnic identities. Any citizen of Iran, whether Persian, Arab or Turkmen is an Iranian national. Gilakis are Iranian nationals because they are citizens of Iran. Hindi is a language and it cannot be an Iranian national.



Gilakis are a separate ethnicity because they live in a separate geographic area and speak a language (some would call it a dialect) separate from Farsi but very closely related. Yet Gilakis do not have a separate culture from “Persians”. If you put “Persians” and Gilakis in a room you would not be able to tell them apart (nor would Gilakis and “Persians”). The Gilaki language is dying out so I would expect that in a few decades the Gilaki ethnicity will only be separated from “Persians” by tradition and geography (much like Geordies from Newcastle or Scousers from Liverpool regard themselves as separate from other peoples in England).



This does not change the fact that no one is known as “Persian” or Farsi in Iran. “Persian” or Farsi in Iran is only the name of the official language. The “Persian” ethnicity used by foreigners is merely a synonym for a racial and cultural Iranian without a tribal identity (while Iranians like Gilakis and Kords continue to have a separate tribal identity too). Indeed, many “Persians” would not be “Persian” in the sense of being descended from the region of Fars: “Median”; “Parthian”; even “Scythian” perhaps. Arab and Turkmen Iranians are not Iranian culturally or racially but are citizens of Iran. Understand?

Kamangir42
Tuesday, September 7th, 2004, 11:43 PM
It's probably as much a fable as Hyke and the Hays. But it is not deniable that the absorbtion of the Meso-Semetic peoples into Iranian proper. I know that for a fact there must have been Semetic types that even reached as far north as Anatolia and even west as Italy.
Is it undeniable because you wish it to be so? Or do you have evidence? Look. Semitic is a language family so talking about Semitic "types" does not augur well for your credibility. Further, there were never that many "true" Arabs and they would be too widely spread out to make a noticeable impact in the way you allege (they did not even have that much impact on supposedly Arab countries like Lebanon and Syria). Moreover, "true" Arabs like the Bedouin are proud and do not go about mixing with different peoples.

By the way, you do know that they occupied Armenia as well don't you?

Shapur
Wednesday, September 8th, 2004, 12:07 AM
Btw Elam mean Land of Aryans.
The Elamians called their land not Elam, somthing like Hitham or so. I forget it but not Elam! Elam is a loanword from Medin Eram or Eran"The Kurds call still today Iran by Eran, and some tribes have for the word homeland Eran."
So how you see the Elamtians were not Iranians but in the Iranian highland which go from China to Anatolia there lived different Iranian/Aryans tribe.
Also the Armenians! "This Info for Razming"! :)

Vestmannr
Wednesday, September 8th, 2004, 12:51 AM
I think it is pretty simple: Iranians may be related to some Europids, but they are not Europids. The Iranians do not have origin in Europe, nor are they representative of European stock. The 'Aryan' question is really irrelevant, as Aryan does not equal Europid or European. The question as whether there were ever Aryans in Europe can only be answered to the extent of 'how many Iranians ever entered Europe'. A few tribes at most if we count the Alans and related tribes as Iranian/Aryan. Whether they would count as 'Europid' for having entered Europe can be answered by the question of whether Senegalese are Europids because some of them live in France? Having said that, Iranians are no doubt related to Europids inasmuch as they share some origins in the Central Asian peoples of the Early Paleolithic. However, I doubt we can call the Central Asian ancestors of Europids as 'Europids'. The question should be: at what point did the Proto-Europid populations develop characteristics to distinguish themselves from their Central Asian root, and how much distance do they have between those descended from the Central Asian root or from whom the Central Asian stock descends.

Razmig
Wednesday, September 8th, 2004, 08:37 AM
The original gypsies were from India not Iran. I have not seen any evidence to indicate they have significant Persian ancestry. Most of them moved on pretty quickly to more prosperous pastures. I'd appreciate it if you did not make claims without backing them up.
It is not a claim. The army enlisted Persians and Pashtons. The Greeks were still in Afghanistan and Tajikistan when they left for battle. Do you read about history or just go by whatever is word of mouth amongst Iranians? Either way, Gypsies look like Iranians.

Razmig
Wednesday, September 8th, 2004, 08:57 AM
Is it undeniable because you wish it to be so? Or do you have evidence? Look. Semitic is a language family so talking about Semitic "types" does not augur well for your credibility. Further, there were never that many "true" Arabs and they would be too widely spread out to make a noticeable impact in the way you allege (they did not even have that much impact on supposedly Arab countries like Lebanon and Syria). Moreover, "true" Arabs like the Bedouin are proud and do not go about mixing with different peoples.

By the way, you do know that they occupied Armenia as well don't you?
The Armenians were theyre most favoured nation, but of coarse I know. The Armenian king wore a turbin in such a respectful way because the Arabs never did anything in Armenia but collect tribute. We ruled ourselves, followed our religion, spoke our own tongue and used our own alphabet. Something the Persians did not do.

The Bedouins are the ONLY Arabs. Ethnic Lebanese are Christian Phoenicians, sadly 2.1 million Muslims are illegal Palestinians, althought there are ethnic Lebanese Suunis. 1.2 Million are Lebanese (that includes Suuni). Syria on the other hand, is just another mixed region dominated by Arabs. All Arab speaking countries are just Islamic nations influenced heavily by the Bedouins. And mixed, as Islam has caused for such heavy racial mixing (harems, wive exchanges, randsome women and children, the Quran itself promotes racial mixing within the nation of Islam with other Islamic peoples).

I don't know what your talking about, I never said Semetic was a race. Pheoenician can be as much isolated from Semetic as Elamite can. Considering the drastic difference between it and South Semetic speach.

Razmig
Wednesday, September 8th, 2004, 09:37 AM
Not only is that site wrong, the whole bullshit story of Shem is wrong. Let’s get back to the point.



You said that Elamites were the sons of Shem. So where is your evidence that this was the case or even that Shem existed? I’ll tell you: you have none because it’s a fantasy of what the Jews wanted the origins of the world around them to be with no basis in fact whatsoever (it did however enable them f.e. to justify killing the Caananites who were supposedly not sons of Shem like them). Now I ask you this and answer me honestly: would a credible academic ever seriously write that the Elamites were the sons of Shem in a peer-reviewed journal? I think not.



I gather that you have backed away from your claim that the Semitic languages are not comparable. There is a Semitic language family (based on the common characteristics of these languages) and Elamite is not a part of it. Elamite is an isolated language and Elam remains an enigma, agree? Practically the only thing we can say about the Elamites is that they were not Semites..
Elamite is under the Shem, theres nothing to argue about there. Of coarse the Shem comes from the Book, and the Book is as much reliable source as any other manuscripts that historians collect. I understand what you mean, Phoenician is also isolated and sometimes included. Semetic and Indo-European are both so ancient at one point in time they were the same.


It is a claim my Armenian friend. You did not just say that the ruling class in Persia were Persians but also that the rest of the people (the “local ethnicities” as you put it) were not Persian. This is an assertion unsupported by any facts. Indeed, Herodotus, who would surely have discussed this when talking about the origins of the Persians, does not say anything of the sort. Indeed, he says that the Persian nation is made up of many tribes and makes no distinction between them (you can find the quote and citation above). The imperial dynasty was from one of the clans of one of these tribes.
Xenephone said that in his trip to Persia that the ruling class and armies of Persia would speak a tongue understandable by his soldiers and the Armenians, but the locals spoke a babyl. I don't know, say what youd like but that region has had a drastic difference in people and royalty, much like Egypt. Tribes mean nothing, Tribes can mean that a ruling class entered and settled there, so that pretty much does not disprove a claim.


You are once more peddling a fallacy. You have provided no evidence that the Persians mixed with the indigenous people or with other Muslims. While there may be infrequent mixing between peoples at the borders, at the margin, this is far from saying that all people are mixed or indeed most are. Indeed, parochialism and the difficulty of travel suggest that mixing has (until very recently in the West) been decidedly rare. Thus, unless evidence to the contrary is provided, one must rationally conclude that such mixing has not been significant to change the characteristics of any people appreciably.



Let’s address the issue of the Persians mixing with the indigenous people first. For one thing, there are quite a few examples of one people taking another people’s land without any appreciable mixing going on between them: the Europeans annihilating the Native Americans; the Israelites annihilating the Caananites; the Japanese pushing back the dwindling Ainu; the Europeans taking the Australian Aborigines’ land; and so on. In all these cases, one people ejected another people from their land and took it for themselves. Why do I think it rational to assume that this also occurred in Iran when the Persians arrived (assuming of course that they were not indigenous in the first place!)? I want you to think about the following points.



1. Presumably, the peoples that entered the Iranian plateau and those that entered India were descended from the same stock and shared several aspects of their culture (let’s call them Aryan peoples to keep it simple).



2. Geographical factors indicate that the population density that could be sustained in ancient times in India was much higher than the density that could be sustained in Iran. It is not therefore difficult to imagine that there was a much higher indigenous population in India than there was in Iran at the time the Aryan peoples began to settle in these lands.



3. The Aryan peoples who entered India set up a caste system to separate themselves from the indigenous peoples while those in Iran did not set up a caste system despite sharing much of their culture.



I think the conclusions to be drawn from these points are quite clear. The Aryan peoples in Iran did not need to set up a caste system because there was no indigenous population left (i.e. they were killed, ejected, whatever). The Aryan peoples in India could not get rid of the indigenous population because the density of human settlement was too high to do so in the highly fertile plains of northern India. The Aryan peoples in Iran did not face such a problem because of the sparse settlement of the Iranian plateau.



Let’s address the claim that Iranians have mixed with other peoples (presumably Arabs) because of their religion. When it comes to Iranians, cultural values always come before religious belief. Nor is there any commandment of Islam that requires mixing despite what is commonly believed (in fact, some of the texts can be interpreted in a way that makes mixing frowned upon). Whatever is the case, Iranians will not breed with a Turkmen or Arab Muslim for cultural reasons. Iranians are a fiercely nationalistic people. Try calling an Iranian an Arab and see how he will react! As I said above, parochialism and the difficulties of travel also militate against such mixing. Iranians prefer to marry Iranians and Arabs prefer to marry Arabs. Moreover, there has never been any appreciable settlement of Arabs on the Iranian plateau so the interaction between these two peoples has been quite infrequent. You cannot expect me to believe 20,000 Arab invaders made any appreciable impact on millions of Iranians when there is no evidence of mass rape (prohibited by Islam) and plenty of evidence of mutual enmity between Arabs and Iranians.



All this notwithstanding, you have failed to provide evidence of extensive mixing.
http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=19354&stc=1
I think theres room for racial mixture here...considering the look of Iranians...the settlement and Royalty of Turkish tribes in todays even Iranian capitol. The hundreds of years of Arab settlement, influence, and domination. The fact that the region of Elam is now mostly "Arabs" aka Muslim Semetic peoples. I'd post pictures of Bedouins and Some Iranians, but I don't think thats necissary. Persia for a long time included Mesopotamia and what not, and trade through the regions were rampant. If you honestly think no mixing occured, you're a baffoon and you need to look at yourself in the mirror. =) There goes good reason why others call Iranians Arabs, because there is not enough difference to set you apart in most cases. You call ANY muslim an Arab it is offensive, because cultural seperation is what gives people their identity...it has nothing to do with nationalism. If the Iranians were so nationalistic, I think they would have stopped following Islam, stopped writing in Arabic and singing like Arabs, stopped letting Arabs and Turks lives in their nation, and would probably stop beating their women. :(


I don’t regard this as relevant to our discussion at all. But, for the sake of completeness, Hindi cannot be called an Iranian language; it can, however, be called an Indo-Iranian or Indo-Aryan language. It is a matter of definition.
I think you're repeating exactly what I said. So what makes any other Indo-Iranian languages linked to Iran? Which is my original point. Iran is one thing, the ancient Iranians is another!!


How exactly has Islam morphed Iranian facial features? You do not know what ancient Persians looked like to be able to say that modern Persians do not look much different. Unless you have a time machine and have travelled back to ancient Persia?



South-west Iran is Arab (strictly, they are Iranians who have mixed with Arabs after abandoning their language and culture). It is not representative of Iran and everyone agrees that “Arab” Iranians are somewhat intermingled.



Look. The burden of proof is on you to show that Iranians are intermingled and you have failed to do that. Until then, Occam’s Razor suggests that the people living there today are not much different to the people living there thousands of years ago. It’s like you are saying that the sun will blow up tomorrow without providing any evidence to back up your claim and then you are asking me to prove that your claim is wrong. I’m not playing your game my dear Armenian friend.



Iranians are on average a little darker than Armenians (assuming that Persians came from historic Armenia). But variation in skin colour within races is not per se particularly significant. As you have implied, the Aryans would have grown darker due to climatic and environmental conditions (UV radiation) in Iran and there is therefore no need to say that mixing with other peoples explains why Iranians are somewhat darker than Armenians.



I do not think Iranians look like Arabs except in a superficial way (we both might be hairier, darker and have bigger noses than Europeans f.e.). I do not think Iranians have the same cranial structure as Arabs, for instance. Coon, who did field studies in Iran and was the acknowledged premier expert on the Middle East, agrees with me. Other physical anthropologists (e.g. Eickstedt) resort to calling most of the people in that region as Orientalid. This strikes me as lazy and I very much doubt these academics did field studies in Iran. This does not mean that I agree with everything Coon said.



It should also be noted that most Arabs are largely only culturally and linguistically Arab (although some may have mixed with “true” racial Arabs). You won’t find many “true” Arabs in Lebanon or Syria. There has been significant race mixing (and I use the term “race” correctly) in the “true” Arab areas of the Arabian Peninsula and I’m convinced some of the Arab royal families have mixed with fairer peoples (doesn’t Prince Turki of Saudi Arabia have an Armenian mother or is it another prince I’m thinking of?). Physical anthropological studies of “true” Arabs should be restricted to Bedouin in my opinion for this reason. If most Arabs are not even racially Arab then how can you say Iranians have mixed extensively with Arabs? These Arabs must have been having sex constantly since they emerged from their mud huts 1300 years ago.

Anatolian manuscripts, and proof of migration into Iran have said the Iranians to be fair like Anatolians. They are far from fair. Most Iranians resemble the darkest of Iranian Armenians if theyre the light ones, or Gypsies, Arabs, and sometimes resemble ligther Jews. This is far from the description given to the Aryans, Persians, and other ruling class tribesman in Iran. There are many tribes in Afghanistan but few are the ruling class, and most are Turkmen or some kind of mixture of things. Do you honestly deny that?

Iranians have mixed with Muslims, no matter their ethnicity. All muslims have mixed with Arabs, visa versa. If you knew the history of Baghdoud, and Isfahan, and the Harems and bridal tributes. The influx of working class, and intelectuals. Theres a reason why muslims have a similar appearance. Most people in Iran resemble Bedouins to me...straighter noses, brown skin and black hair for the most of them, those who arent mixed with Armenians, Germans or Russians. The Azeris look like Turanid Iranians with light skin. Only lighter Iranians have longer noses, and usually they are in the higher class or in the bigger cities.

There was an Armenian man who fooled around with a Sheikhs wife in Saudi Arabia, he tried to escape during his trials and they caught and beheaded him. Armenians are in those nations not because of Diaspora, or because of 800 years ago Arabs in Armenia (to the contrary they were not even in Armenia)...but because Armenians helped BUILD the Kuwait, and much of Saudi Arabia, with the French and Germans. My grandfather was a contractor (before he joined the legionares) and built Kuwait city. After their duties were done the Kuwaitis paid for all foreigners to leave the nation. Armenians, like Western Europeans, perhaps mixed with some royalty, which is reasonable.

If you say Arab, and mean a Bedoin, they do not have big noses, nor are they hairy. Most Arabs have very little to no body hair, and very long bodies (as opposed to some that high elevation people share of stocky build like Armenians and North Iranians, Caucasians and Balkanoids). In majority Arabs and Iranians have more in common, because they both have more Mediterannean in them, most of the Armenoid that Iran has inherited was from the Caucus, Media, Parthians, and the enslavement of Armenians and forcing of Armenians into Iran.

I have nothing to prove...look at your people and you will find your proof. =)


I know for sure you aren’t Iranian (and that you do not know basic facts about Iran and its history). Those were friezes of Immortals, elite Persian troops of the Persian Empire. They carried bows, short swords and spears.



http://www.livius.org/ia-in/immortals/immortals.html



The other picture was Darius III of Persia. You can recognise him by his pale skin, blue eyes and blond hair. You thought he was Dolph Lundgren didn’t you? Go on, admit it.



By the way, the Persians did not practice slavery (which is why they freed the Jews from their Babylonian Captivity)..

Slave to me is another word for hired mercenaries...contracted people or tribesman forced to defend their empire (which the Armenians did in Perso-Armenia). If the leader of Iran was lighter than the majority, I'm sure that pretty much proves my point of the seperation between the PERSIANS, the IRANIANS, and the people of Iran. Anyways I don't see any pale skin, it just shows that they were trying to show a definite difference between the people, and the royalty.

I am not a norcisist. He looks more like a Sultan Ozcan Abangi than a Dolph Lundgren.


I shall not pretend I am an expert on Armenia. But I will say this: Iranians call and have always called Armenians Armani and the country Armanestan. Iranians have never used the terms Hayk or Hayastan.



Still, this does not change the fact that many countries have different domestic and foreign names: Deutschland/Germany; Hellas/Greece; Bharat/India; and so on. Iranian natives have always called Iran Iran. Until 1935 foreigners called Iran Persia. Up to that time, Arab or Turkmen citizens of Iran were called Persians by foreigners (in contrast to today). After 1935, foreigners were asked to use the native name of the country, Iran, themselves. I cannot put it more simply. Understand? .

Thats because the Persians cannot pronounce an E like Armens do. The Turks on the other hand cant pronounce the A in Armen so they say Ermeni. What I meant was that the additive STAN is of Iranian extraction, something Eastern Armenians use to put after a nation. Originally in Armenian it is IA, IAN, ICH or ICHIS. Example: Parsichis. Turkia. Armenichis/Armenis. Hayastan is a combination of things. Firstly that the Egyptians confused the tribe of Illyrs passing from Balkans into the plateu ALREADY inhabited by Armens as the Hyksos (an already sea people around the region of crete, egypt, phoenicia and ionnia). They passed through a region in Cilicia that bordered Egypt where they first were given record and a name that stuck with them. Hayk is a mythical fable of the father of Armenia who destroyed Babylon. Funny enough, the Armens had nothing to do with the Hayks.

I can understand what you mean, even in Armenians, depending on what region they came from (that is excluding the seperate nations of Armenian Giligya and Galacya) there were different names for the nation. I beleive Armenians have been calling Armenia hayastan ever since Persian presence for political reasons, and not so much amongst themselves.


Incorrect. Castilliano is not a dialect of Spanish; it is Spanish. Castilliano is the proper term for the official language of Spain as we know it today (because each region had its own dialect) and it had been used from before the first Spaniard set foot in the Americas. A Spaniard will always say that he speaks Castilliano not español. The official language of Spain is known as Castilliano because it emerged from the region of Castillo just as the official language of Iran, Farsi, emerged from the region of Fars/Pars. This does not mean that a Spaniard would call himself Castilliano just because the national language came from there (unless, of course, he was from Castillo). Similarly, an Iranian would not call himself Farsi just because the national language emerged from that region. The language of a country and its people can have different names. Understand?

"The Spanish language is the official language of the country. However, catalan, gallego, euskera and valenciano are also official languages in their respective autonomous communities. "
I understand what you mean. Castilian is a word given to the people of Espania by non-Spanish moors. It was popularized as Spanish most recently, but in ancient times Im sure it was refered to as Latin or something along those lines. The reason why they prefer castilian because it is a direct link to the ethnic Spanish people, and not to the others of Spain (Basque, Catalan, Galicia) all who speak langauges CLOSE to Spanish, however are a seperate entity, or have seperate origins. Much like Galac to Armenian.


"Until 1935, Iran was known as Persia. The Medes and the Persians united in 549 BC to form the Persian Empire. Alexander the Great conquered Persia in 333 BC. Arabs brought Islam to Persia in the 7th century. Turks and Mongols ruled from the 11th century until 1502, when a native dynasty reasserted full independence. Afghanistan was severed from Iran by the British in 1857. Conservative Moslem protests in the late 1970's led to the fall of the government and the exile of Shah Reza Pahlavi. The Islamic Constitution of 1979 put an end to the monarchy, declaring Iran an Islamic Republic, and vesting final authority in the Islamic spiritual leader (then the Ayatollah Khomeini). War broke out with Iraq on 22 September 1980 over sovereignty of the Shatt al-Arab waterway. Fighting continued until 1988. The political upheavals, marked by a sometimes brutal fundamentalism, brought Iran to almost total isolation from the rest of the world. "

Simply, that Iran is a new word for Persia. Theres a reason why foreigners call Armenia Armenia...because the rulers of the region were called the Armens. Like you said the Persians were a different people than those who inhabited Iran. The rest in that excerption explains itself.

I can only say the truth. Zoroastrian Iranians are known as Zartoshti and not Parsi. Nobody in Iran is known as Parsi. These are Indian Zoroastrians who still think they are “true” Persians after more than a thousand years of mixing with Indians. Perhaps your friend calls himself Parsi because it is more “popular” than calling himself Iranian.

Don't see what makes people in Iranian any more closer to the true Persians after a more a thoulsand years of mixing with Arabs and Turks, and Indians themselves...He is deffinetly not a friend


You are confusing two separate ethnic identities. Any citizen of Iran, whether Persian, Arab or Turkmen is an Iranian national. Gilakis are Iranian nationals because they are citizens of Iran. Hindi is a language and it cannot be an Iranian national.



Gilakis are a separate ethnicity because they live in a separate geographic area and speak a language (some would call it a dialect) separate from Farsi but very closely related. Yet Gilakis do not have a separate culture from “Persians”. If you put “Persians” and Gilakis in a room you would not be able to tell them apart (nor would Gilakis and “Persians”). The Gilaki language is dying out so I would expect that in a few decades the Gilaki ethnicity will only be separated from “Persians” by tradition and geography (much like Geordies from Newcastle or Scousers from Liverpool regard themselves as separate from other peoples in England).



This does not change the fact that no one is known as “Persian” or Farsi in Iran. “Persian” or Farsi in Iran is only the name of the official language. The “Persian” ethnicity used by foreigners is merely a synonym for a racial and cultural Iranian without a tribal identity (while Iranians like Gilakis and Kords continue to have a separate tribal identity too). Indeed, many “Persians” would not be “Persian” in the sense of being descended from the region of Fars: “Median”; “Parthian”; even “Scythian” perhaps. Arab and Turkmen Iranians are not Iranian culturally or racially but are citizens of Iran. Understand? .
All Indo-European languages are related, no matter how foreignly influenced. Gilakis are close and have had influence by local authority...sure theyre closer to Iranians, they live with them. As are the Turkmen. For the most part, you will see many Iranians who resemble Arabs and Turkmen, and many Turkmen who resemble Iranians (for exception of some that have no asiatic ancestry than some mixed Iranians).

Razmig
Wednesday, September 8th, 2004, 09:50 AM
Btw Elam mean Land of Aryans.
The Elamians called their land not Elam, somthing like Hitham or so. I forget it but not Elam! Elam is a loanword from Medin Eram or Eran"The Kurds call still today Iran by Eran, and some tribes have for the word homeland Eran."
So how you see the Elamtians were not Iranians but in the Iranian highland which go from China to Anatolia there lived different Iranian/Aryans tribe.
Also the Armenians! "This Info for Razming"! :)
The Armens had no ties to the Aryans...the only nation that Armens ruled in was Parthia, that was absorbed by Persians. Whatever the Elamites called their nation, they became Persians/Iranians over time. Persia is the united EMPIRE of the all the tribes in that plateu. Iran as much describes a person from Iran as American. They are all intermixed with Tribesman, there was not a sort of regional democracy in Iran as there was democracy in the west and principalities in anatolia and the north.

Shapur
Wednesday, September 8th, 2004, 07:10 PM
I think it is pretty simple: Iranians may be related to some Europids, but they are not Europids. The Iranians do not have origin in Europe, nor are they representative of European stock. The 'Aryan' question is really irrelevant, as Aryan does not equal Europid or European. The question as whether there were ever Aryans in Europe can only be answered to the extent of 'how many Iranians ever entered Europe'. A few tribes at most if we count the Alans and related tribes as Iranian/Aryan. Whether they would count as 'Europid' for having entered Europe can be answered by the question of whether Senegalese are Europids because some of them live in France? Having said that, Iranians are no doubt related to Europids inasmuch as they share some origins in the Central Asian peoples of the Early Paleolithic. However, I doubt we can call the Central Asian ancestors of Europids as 'Europids'. The question should be: at what point did the Proto-Europid populations develop characteristics to distinguish themselves from their Central Asian root, and how much distance do they have between those descended from the Central Asian root or from whom the Central Asian stock descends.
Europid is nice descriped in Coons book. The Irano-Afghan, Armenoid racetype is typical for Iranians. So Iranians are Europids. That Iranians are not Europeans is sure. For the point how many Iranian tribes have entered Europe? Look on the genetic I would say ~30%-40% of the whole European gen material is direct from Iranians or brethen tribes.
Also the whole tribe names of European tribes like Saxons->Saka->Scythians.
The Croatians with Hrvati->Haravata, the Serbians, the Bulgars, the Hykos.
Also I think a greate part of the people of Europe are more related to Iranians by language, culture and genetic then to other Europeans.
Good samples for this are Greeks or Bulgarians!
So your arguments are irrelevant! ;)

Shapur
Wednesday, September 8th, 2004, 07:20 PM
The Armens had no ties to the Aryans...the only nation that Armens ruled in was Parthia, that was absorbed by Persians. Whatever the Elamites called their nation, they became Persians/Iranians over time. Persia is the united EMPIRE of the all the tribes in that plateu. Iran as much describes a person from Iran as American. They are all intermixed with Tribesman, there was not a sort of regional democracy in Iran as there was democracy in the west and principalities in anatolia and the north.
Razming you are telling again bullshit. The Elamtians were Dravidians!
So how could they united with the Iranian nation, when the part of Dravidian genetic is minimal? Also you with your Persian/Iranian.
Your map is laugable. The towns where I come from should be Arabic/Persian. LOL!!!! The Kurds are more in Iran, there are other tribes like Gilakis, Mazandaranis, Talyshians, Rashtis, Baloches. But all these were forgeted by this fucking map, but the Turks and Arabs are importer.
The Persian rulers like Dariush spoke Middle Persian.
Korush his self spoke Median(Old Kurdish) and Middle Persian.
So what you are speaking about? So so Armenians did understand the Persian/Iranian ruling class. Understand they still today Middle Persian?
It is to 80% equal to Farsi. Also your argumentation with your Persians here, Persians there. Guy there are many Iranian tribes. You can deny maybe the existence of some tribes but not of the whole Iranian nation from Europe to China. Or where are your good laughable stories of the other Iranians like Medians/Parthians, Bactrians, Sogdians, Scythians, Sarmatians, Cimmerians, Bulgarians and and and? Where?

Sepas

Vestmannr
Wednesday, September 8th, 2004, 07:38 PM
Europid is nice descriped in Coons book.

Coon did not coin the term 'Europid', and his theories have many flaws. I don't think one can argue Irano-Afghan as Europid on the basis of Coon's 'The Races of Europe'.


The Irano-Afghan, Armenoid racetype is typical for Iranians. So Iranians are Europids. That Iranians are not Europeans is sure.

Irano-Afghan and Armenoid are more Asiatic than Europid.


For the point how many Iranian tribes have entered Europe? Look on the genetic I would say ~30%-40% of the whole European gen material is direct from Iranians or brethen tribes.

Impossible. Far more than 60-70 percent of European genetic material is native to Europe and has no connection to the Iranian plateau.


Also the whole tribe names of European tribes like Saxons->Saka->Scythians.
The Croatians with Hrvati->Haravata, the Serbians, the Bulgars, the Hykos.
Also I think a greate part of the people of Europe are more related to Iranians by language, culture and genetic then to other Europeans.

Bad etymology is no proof. Saxon has no connection to Iranian, sorry. As for a closer relation of most Europeans to Iranians than to other Europeans? You've got to be kidding.


Good samples for this are Greeks or Bulgarians!
So your arguments are irrelevant! ;)

Sure, whatever. :|

Dorian
Thursday, September 9th, 2004, 12:01 AM
Shapur, 2000 years ago ok. Today? You got to be joking.

Ljót-fulfr
Thursday, September 9th, 2004, 01:46 AM
Are Afghans in a similar grouping as Iranians? I know an Afghanian girl with beautiful green eyes.

:birds

Gareth
Thursday, September 9th, 2004, 02:15 AM
Are Afghans in a similar grouping as Iranians? I know an Afghanian girl with beautiful green eyes.

:birds Yes, if you mean the same as I do, I agree. :)

Vestmannr
Thursday, September 9th, 2004, 02:42 AM
Yes, if you mean the same as I do, I agree. :)

Err, have you seen what she looks like now she's grown up? Fugly -

Awar
Thursday, September 9th, 2004, 02:43 AM
Err, have you seen what she looks like now she's grown up? Fugly -

Yeah, I bet you'd look like a Playboy bunny after 40 years in Afghanistan :P

Vestmannr
Thursday, September 9th, 2004, 02:45 AM
Yeah, I bet you'd look like a Playboy bunny after 40 years in Afghanistan :P

God, I hope not! I'm a man to begin with: that, and no way I'd get that dark. Afghanistan gets far less sun than the American Southwest, and I've been an outdoors person - never get that dark, though I do tan. I'm not sure I see her as being 'Europid' - Central Asiatic, sure, as Central Asiatics are the closest relatives of Europids: being the root stock that Europids evolved from. ;)

Razmig
Thursday, September 9th, 2004, 08:03 PM
Europid is nice descriped in Coons book. The Irano-Afghan, Armenoid racetype is typical for Iranians. So Iranians are Europids. That Iranians are not Europeans is sure. For the point how many Iranian tribes have entered Europe? Look on the genetic I would say ~30%-40% of the whole European gen material is direct from Iranians or brethen tribes.
Also the whole tribe names of European tribes like Saxons->Saka->Scythians.
The Croatians with Hrvati->Haravata, the Serbians, the Bulgars, the Hykos.
Also I think a greate part of the people of Europe are more related to Iranians by language, culture and genetic then to other Europeans.
Good samples for this are Greeks or Bulgarians!
So your arguments are irrelevant! ;)
Yes the Iranian's are Europids. Anyone who is not a Mongoloid or Negroid or anything inbetween is a Europid. It refers to basic bone structure, not pigmentation and differing facial features which come from years of inbreeding.
Let me correct a few things here. Bulgar in the latin word Vulgaris and it refers to Turkic people from Volka-Balkaria in European Russia where these Turks originated. Serbs are the Sorbs, which like Albanians are said to have come from Caucasia, into Krimea, then to the Balkans. Hyksos is the Egyptian word for Sea-People (Hamatic language group) and was referring to probably the Menoans of Crete. Iranian tribe is as broad a term as Indo-European tribe, because they mean the same thing. With such foreign surroundings (Turks, Arabs) the people in the Iranian plateu have held on to that identification which applies to all Indo-European people, who have had the same origins as the Aryans of India and Iran.

Razmig
Thursday, September 9th, 2004, 08:10 PM
Razming you are telling again bullshit. The Elamtians were Dravidians!
So how could they united with the Iranian nation, when the part of Dravidian genetic is minimal?!
Perhaps the Iranian's would be blonde hair and blue eyed like they claim their ancestors were if it werent for this. Considering it was an ancient nation, and the skin tone of Iranians today compared to other Indo-Europeans, it doesn't seem impossible at all (if that claim has any backing).


Also you with your Persian/Iranian.
Your map is laugable. The towns where I come from should be Arabic/Persian. LOL!!!! The Kurds are more in Iran, there are other tribes like Gilakis, Mazandaranis, Talyshians, Rashtis, Baloches. But all these were forgeted by this fucking map, but the Turks and Arabs are importer.
Don't blame me, blame the geologists who put together the map for the common wealth of Islamic Nations.


The Persian rulers like Dariush spoke Middle Persian.
Korush his self spoke Median(Old Kurdish) and Middle Persian.
So what you are speaking about? So so Armenians did understand the Persian/Iranian ruling class..

Considering the word Kurd did not exist then, that Media itself was a combination of people....The Armenians and troops of Xenephone had no problem with the ruling tribe of the Persians, when his troops passed the Armenian highlands, he logged that they had hardships communicating with the people of the region (perhaps past Media).


Understand they still today Middle Persian?
It is to 80% equal to Farsi.
I don't know what you're reffering to.


Also your argumentation with your Persians here, Persians there. Guy there are many Iranian tribes. You can deny maybe the existence of some tribes but not of the whole Iranian nation from Europe to China. Or where are your good laughable stories of the other Iranians like Medians/Parthians, Bactrians, Sogdians, Scythians, Sarmatians, Cimmerians, Bulgarians and and and? Where?
Hmm, I'm not sure what your saying. Iranian is a synonym for Indo-European speaker of the Iranian plateu, the rest have their own seperate identities (scytho-sarmatians)...the Indo-Europeans moved around all over, does that make the Aryans Anatolians because they are said to have originated there? Does that make Italians Anatolians because the Etruscans originated there? No.

BTW Bulgars were Turks, they had no tie to Indo-European linguistics and the Scythians themselves are said to have had a large influx of asiatic influence, it is still disputed whether or not they were Indo-European in origin, in language, or if they adopted it fromt he locals in that region (later the origins of the "Slavs").

Razmig
Thursday, September 9th, 2004, 08:15 PM
God, I hope not! I'm a man to begin with: that, and no way I'd get that dark. Afghanistan gets far less sun than the American Southwest, and I've been an outdoors person - never get that dark, though I do tan. I'm not sure I see her as being 'Europid' - Central Asiatic, sure, as Central Asiatics are the closest relatives of Europids: being the root stock that Europids evolved from. ;)
?

Razmig
Thursday, September 9th, 2004, 08:18 PM
Err, have you seen what she looks like now she's grown up? Fugly -
Hmm...I've never seen Afghans which were the way they looked in perfectly lighted proffessional photographs. We have a big Iranian/Afghan community here, even Persian Jews. Most of them are brown with black hair (Afghans) some isolated tribes I'm sure have different pigmentation. Considering the Germans, the Russians, were in Afghanistan. Not to mention the ancient Macedonians...the Greeks, and most recently Jews, Balkanoids (Muslim Bosnians), and Armenian/Russian business seekers.

On average Persian girls will resemble Armenian, or Greeks, or what not in the most basic of Mediterannean features, and not the extreme examples which come in rare cases that are blown out of proportion by some people on the internet who dont get out enough. =)

Aistulf
Friday, September 10th, 2004, 08:25 PM
No, I don't consider most (modern-day) Iranians to be Europid.

Skyht
Saturday, September 18th, 2004, 06:16 PM
There is a phenomenon with Iranians which I think comes from the different times in which Aryan tribes moved to different parts of Iran.



I give you an example about my family.



My Grandfather had rather dark skin, brown eyes and dark-brown hair but he had also a rather long face and a narrow nose.



But his elder brother had a fair skin, blue eyes and blond hairs he would have no problem to give himself as Scandinavian.



My Grandfathers first Son had blond hairs when born, later fair-brown hair also his skin was fair, the second son (my father) had also a fair skin and green eyes. The both later sons ware again rather dark skinned with dark brown hair and brown eyes. By the way my grandmother had Blue eyes.



I as son of my father and first born son have a fair skin, as kid fair-brown hair to blond and now dark brown hair with one part pure blond hair like the brother of my grandfather, my eyes are brown and since I had most times enough food, I'm 1.86m tall. My younger brother on the other hand has a relative dark skin and is only about 1.75m.



I heard that Iranians said that the first son has most time a more fair Skin and other Aryan characteristics, after that, when the mother isn’t very strong anymore or if there is not enough food, the kids get a darker Skin. I think there is some truth in this theory since it was so in my Family.



But this also shows that several types are available in the Iranian Genes a rarely appearing Nordic type, a more common fair skinned type and also a common relative dark skinned type.



The Genes must be the same, the best example is my Grandfather and his brother which looks completely different, also nobody believes that my brother is really my brother, but our blood and Genes are the same.

Northern Paladin
Saturday, September 18th, 2004, 09:56 PM
There is a phenomenon with Iranians which I think comes from the different times in which Aryan tribes moved to different parts of Iran.



I give you an example about my family.



My Grandfather had rather dark skin, brown eyes and dark-brown hair but he had also a rather long face and a narrow nose.



But his elder brother had a fair skin, blue eyes and blond hairs he would have no problem to give himself as Scandinavian.



My Grandfathers first Son had blond hairs when born, later fair-brown hair also his skin was fair, the second son (my father) had also a fair skin and green eyes. The both later sons ware again rather dark skinned with dark brown hair and brown eyes. By the way my grandmother had Blue eyes.



I as son of my father and first born son have a fair skin, as kid fair-brown hair to blond and now dark brown hair with one part pure blond hair like the brother of my grandfather, my eyes are brown and since I had most times enough food, I'm 1.86m tall. My younger brother on the other hand has a relative dark skin and is only about 1.75m.



I heard that Iranians said that the first son has most time a more fair Skin and other Aryan characteristics, after that, when the mother isn’t very strong anymore or if there is not enough food, the kids get a darker Skin. I think there is some truth in this theory since it was so in my Family.



But this also shows that several types are available in the Iranian Genes a rarely appearing Nordic type, a more common fair skinned type and also a common relative dark skinned type.



The Genes must be the same, the best example is my Grandfather and his brother which looks completely different, also nobody believes that my brother is really my brother, but our blood and Genes are the same.

An Iranian that can pass as a Scandinavian? I find that hard to believe.

Why don't you post some pics? I'm willing to accept the possiblity that some though very few Iranians are Europid. Maybe even Nordid. Seeing some pictures would be interesting.

Japetos
Saturday, September 18th, 2004, 10:04 PM
An Iranian that can pass as a Scandinavian? I find that hard to believe.



I have seen some Iranian girls,really Nordic.It's not impossible!

Gareth
Sunday, September 19th, 2004, 12:07 AM
Seeing some pictures would be interesting. These twins I posted are half-Turks:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=17585

rusalka
Sunday, September 19th, 2004, 04:16 AM
I'm willing to accept the possiblity that some though very few Iranians are Europid. Maybe even Nordid. Seeing some pictures would be interesting.
Given the fact that you are American I think one should be easy on you. ;) Iranians are Europid on a greater percentage than just "very few". Nordid is another matter altogether; Europid does not equal Nordid and there are dozens of other types of Europids within the indigenuous European ethnogenesis

Razmig
Sunday, September 19th, 2004, 09:12 AM
There is a phenomenon with Iranians which I think comes from the different times in which Aryan tribes moved to different parts of Iran.



I give you an example about my family.



My Grandfather had rather dark skin, brown eyes and dark-brown hair but he had also a rather long face and a narrow nose.



But his elder brother had a fair skin, blue eyes and blond hairs he would have no problem to give himself as Scandinavian.



My Grandfathers first Son had blond hairs when born, later fair-brown hair also his skin was fair, the second son (my father) had also a fair skin and green eyes. The both later sons ware again rather dark skinned with dark brown hair and brown eyes. By the way my grandmother had Blue eyes.



I as son of my father and first born son have a fair skin, as kid fair-brown hair to blond and now dark brown hair with one part pure blond hair like the brother of my grandfather, my eyes are brown and since I had most times enough food, I'm 1.86m tall. My younger brother on the other hand has a relative dark skin and is only about 1.75m.



I heard that Iranians said that the first son has most time a more fair Skin and other Aryan characteristics, after that, when the mother isn’t very strong anymore or if there is not enough food, the kids get a darker Skin. I think there is some truth in this theory since it was so in my Family.



But this also shows that several types are available in the Iranian Genes a rarely appearing Nordic type, a more common fair skinned type and also a common relative dark skinned type.



The Genes must be the same, the best example is my Grandfather and his brother which looks completely different, also nobody believes that my brother is really my brother, but our blood and Genes are the same.
A common misunderstanding that darker groups (for example Greeks) is that they misinterprit the word Nordic. In other words, in comparison to the overwhelming majority of dark/brown skinned individuals (such as is the case in Iran) brown hair will be considered blonded in comparison, and blue eyes will equate to being nordic. I myself have never seen a blue eyed Iranian, even with my travels to Iran. I have Kurds, Armenians, Russians in Iran.

The fact of the matter is, Blue or Green eyes do not make anyone pass as a Scandinavian. Most Iranian children have dark syblings. It probably has to do with the assimilation of so many different peoples that were local in Iran when the Aryans moved into Iran, or the other way around. It could be recent Russian presence and border strength in Iran, or even German institutions, etc. People focus too much one pigmentation, it throws them off a lot. Ive seen blonde haired (that is not brown or shades of it but light yellow) pure blue eyed pink skinned individuals who had brown mexican fathers, so...with that said, genes are a give and take.

Razmig
Sunday, September 19th, 2004, 09:14 AM
I have seen some Iranian girls,really Nordic.It's not impossible!
That would literally be impossible as there are not even "really nordic" greeks or any other south europids.


These twins I posted are half-Turks:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=17585
LOL the one on the right looks like a Galac. =)

Shapur
Sunday, September 19th, 2004, 12:04 PM
Nordid is not Europid! Noridsh is also not Europid!
There are enough aborigines with yellow hairs. So are they Europid?
With your arguments Greeks aren`t Europid!
Fact is that the Iranians belong to the highlander Aryan racetype(like Germans, southeast Europeans, Armenians). Slavs and Western European don`t belong to this racetype. So now a little homework for you.
Check the y-chromosomal tree and check out which groups are mostly in the Iranian genepool and the German. Then you will understand what I am saying the whole time! ;)

Skyht
Sunday, September 19th, 2004, 01:26 PM
Here is the Picture of my Grandfather with his elder brother; it’s from the 1930's, at the time the brother served in the Imperial Iranian Police (Supported by NS Germany) as a general AFAIK.



In my family it was common that only Iranians could be married and those both are really brothers, the difference between them is somewhat similar to the difference between me and my brother.



Since I followed the discussions here since a few days I must say that it is pretty funny how many here don’t know about the Aryan origin of the Iranian Tribes, it were us who first said that we belong to the Aryan race, the complete old Iranian culture is based on the Aryan one. I read here that only Slavs are Aryans and so on but it’s simply funny for me to hear that.



Also this thread sound funny, what is European please ? Only because some Aryan tribes moved to Europe it means that all Europeans are Aryans and it’s the centre of Aryans ? Iranians are no Europeans but mostly Aryan, no Aryan must be Europeans. At least the NS Germans did know to respect Iranians and the "Persian History" this seems to be forgotten these days and the word Aryan is put into Shi*t with these Neo(new) Nazis and their forums all around the internet, they don’t have even must common with the old Nazis but only let others think that someone who recognize races and differences is one of those Neo Nazis. But at least in this forum are some intelligent guys, that’s why I wrote here and I didn’t claim that anyone here is one of those Neo Nazis, at least for now.

MegaSpathi
Sunday, September 19th, 2004, 04:10 PM
Rules (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=24080#post24080):
3. Ad hominems, insults, mockery, vilification, ridicule, and the exhibition of any other objectively offensive conduct against Members, even if only in retaliation, are not permitted.

4. Vulgarity, bawdiness, drunkenness, lewdness, obscenity, profanity, curses, discourteous and ungentlemanly conduct towards female Members, disrespectful conduct towards elder Members, and other objectively unrefined conduct, even if only in retaliation, are not permitted.

5. Ad gentums, racial slurs, and aspersions against any identifiable group, even if only in retaliation, are not permitted.

6. We allow fair and benevolent criticism of all races; subraces; ethnicities; peoples; religious, cultural and social communities; as well as of ideologies; philosophies; or any other ideas; as well as of persons and Members; attitudes; and conduct, if presented in a civil and non-insulting manner. Your attitude and presentation shall determine whether you will face disciplinary procedures.

First Warning.
~ Johannes de León

MegaSpathi
Sunday, September 19th, 2004, 04:41 PM
stop talking [...] blablabal my father had that [...] and blue eyes brown eys what the hell ever! ok im not pointing this only to you. I saw many times in for example stormfront, some people(not iranians) was writing that when they were little children they had really blond and really "blue eyes" and when they now grow up the hair is much darker and [...]. I didn`t see were they were from but it sure wasn`t southeuropeans, cause we are proud people. Often those persons who speak shit about greeks and italians and so, can be what the [...] ever, a jew, an ARMENIAN, cause since we are really racial consious and reject those people, they start to talk [...], simple as that!!
Skyt said nothing about greeks so thats ok, but anyway [...]

I ve seen rather many iranians, indians with blue, or maybe "light" eyes, and perhaps brown hair, but they are not white, very brown skin, since they are not europid. This shows that blue eyes(light eyes), doesn`t have to mean the purest.(since people from there has it).

Ok what i am going to write now have nothing to do with this topic but i write it here. From what i seen on this forum, there are some nordics who keep talking [...] about ancient greece and italy were nordic, "that there were "nordic" people there building up the civilisation". How dare you, when we all know that when greece was the cradle of european civilisation, you in scandinavia were living in caves and climbing the trees. Theres always excepations, "Arthur Kemp" is one of those, "he wrote an internetbook about ancient hellas and roman empire,(don`t have any [...] idea why, he`s beyond all retards) and whule keep writing, he wrote about spain too, and porugal too. Just to write about the whole southeuropeans while he was writing about us"(and arthur kemp isn`t even nordic himself people!). And now i see this forum getting filled with arabs and [...]. I don`t joined this forum to read their [...], i get a [...] headache of that!! Anybody can write[...] on the internet , make a book and lalalaalaa!

I don`t understand this how you people usually explain that some countreys are mixed??? I see like this-From northern europe to southern europe, as further down you go, the people are having darker hair, and maybe some more "tanned" skin, usually because its more sun here. nd now we come to the excepation, and that is Albania and bosnia? i think, albania i am sure, they are a mix of turk and other. Im aware that some southeuros can be taken for a turk or anyone else from middle east, but they are very few. nordic aren`t " the purest" either, cause i seen people from there with a very tanned skin to, and usually they have brown hair, and even some with blond hair. Thats the way of nature, simple as that.

i hope my thread weren`t to long, but i was to tired to write my stuff anywere else were it should fit better.


Warning #2. This is a high brow area MegaSpathi, another one and you'll be put under moderation. Try to get your point across without going all vulgar next time, when I take out the sh*ts and f*cks your post still makes sense, so no need, right? /rusalka

Kamangir42
Sunday, September 19th, 2004, 05:03 PM
stop talking shit blablabal my father had that shit and blue eyes brown eys what the hell ever! ok im not pointing this only to you. I saw many times in for example stormfront, some people(not iranians) was writing that when they were little children they had really blond and really "blue eyes" and when they now grow up the hair is much darker and shit and shit. I didn`t see were they were from but it sure wasn`t southeuropeans, cause we are proud people. Often those persons who speak shit about greeks and italians and so, can be what the fuck ever, a jew, an ARMENIAN, cause since we are really racial consious and reject those people, they start to talk shit, simple as that!!
Skyt said nothing about greeks so thats ok, but anyway fuck off!

I ve seen rather many iranians, indians with blue, or maybe "light" eyes, and perhaps brown hair, but they are not white, very brown skin, since they are not europid. This shows that blue eyes(light eyes), doesn`t have to mean the purest.(since people from there has it).

Ok what i am going to write now have nothing to do with this topic but i write it here. From what i seen on this forum, there are some nordics who keep talking shit about ancient greece and italy were nordic, "that there were "nordic" people there building up the civilisation". How dare you, when we all know that when greece was the cradle of european civilisation, you in scandinavia were living in caves and climbing the trees. Theres always excepations, "Arthur Kemp" is one of those, "he wrote an internetbook about ancient hellas and roman empire,(don`t have any fucking idea why, he`s beyond all retards) and whule keep writing, he wrote about spain too, and porugal too. Just to write about the whole southeuropeans while he was writing about us"(and arthur kemp isn`t even nordic himself people!). And now i see this forum getting filled with arabs and shit. I don`t joined this forum to read their shit, i get a fucking headache of that!! Anybody can write shit on the internet , make a book and lalalaalaa!

I don`t understand this how you people usually explain that some countreys are mixed??? I see like this-From northern europe to southern europe, as further down you go, the people are having darker hair, and maybe some more "tanned" skin, usually because its more sun here. nd now we come to the excepation, and that is Albania and bosnia? i think, albania i am sure, they are a mix of turk and other. Im aware that some southeuros can be taken for a turk or anyone else from middle east, but they are very few. nordic aren`t " the purest" either, cause i seen people from there with a very tanned skin to, and usually they have brown hair, and even some with blond hair. Thats the way of nature, simple as that.

i hope my thread weren`t to long, but i was to tired to write my stuff anywere else were it should fit better.
:D

Yeah. No Turk or Iranian could ever be mistaken for a Greek or vice versa. Sure.

:D

rusalka
Sunday, September 19th, 2004, 05:18 PM
And for those people who think there's no way Iranians to have blue eyes, this one is for you kids:

http://www.ksabz.net/archive.asp

Check out the link, people. You'll see more pictures like these.

http://www.ksabz.net/images/cover/114.jpg http://www.ksabz.net/images/cover/115.jpghttp://www.ksabz.net/images/cover/117.jpghttp://www.ksabz.net/images/cover/108.jpg

http://www.ksabz.net/images/cover/109.jpghttp://www.ksabz.net/images/cover/110.jpghttp://www.ksabz.net/images/cover/102.jpghttp://www.ksabz.net/images/cover/104.jpghttp://www.ksabz.net/images/cover/91.jpghttp://www.ksabz.net/images/cover/67.jpg

No one can tell me all of these girl's eyes will darkening to brown when they grow up.


Now, our Iranian friends will correct me if I'm wrong but I take that these little girls are Iranians. I don't see any point in putting up photos of foreign child models on an Iranian magazine.

MegaSpathi
Sunday, September 19th, 2004, 05:21 PM
who are the moderators here, send me an instant message, i don`t see who i insulted, the only it was ment to was the iranians and other NON-europeans!
why did i get a warning from that?? this forum and this thread, just look its overuned by iranians, how can i be calm down when they write this stuff?!
what words am i not supposed to use??? how should i show my anger to this, MODERATORS??! Just look at this one-kamangirl, i even wrote that, very few, greeks now, can be taken for a turk, and even iranian if you say so. And he responded like i reject that. Is it only me getting a painful heaache of what they have to write in here???

MegaSpathi
Sunday, September 19th, 2004, 05:28 PM
And for those people who think there's no way Iranians to have blue eyes, this one is for you kids:

http://www.ksabz.net/archive.asp

Check out the link, people. You'll see more pictures like these.

http://www.ksabz.net/images/cover/114.jpg http://www.ksabz.net/images/cover/115.jpghttp://www.ksabz.net/images/cover/117.jpghttp://www.ksabz.net/images/cover/108.jpg

http://www.ksabz.net/images/cover/109.jpghttp://www.ksabz.net/images/cover/110.jpghttp://www.ksabz.net/images/cover/102.jpghttp://www.ksabz.net/images/cover/104.jpghttp://www.ksabz.net/images/cover/91.jpghttp://www.ksabz.net/images/cover/67.jpg

No one can tell me all of these girl's eyes will darkening to brown when they grow up.


Now, our Iranian friends will correct me if I'm wrong but I take that these little girls are Iranians. I don't see any point in putting up photos of foreign child models on an Iranian magazine.
no, i don`t understand why they only put up irans only light blueeyed girls. As it is not the typical iranian, what are they trying to do?

I know i haven`t seen "that eyes can get darker within the years" , can they really do that?????????????????? its possible that maybe a child have lighter hair when its small and later turn to darker, but eyes?????=)

rusalka
Sunday, September 19th, 2004, 05:29 PM
who are the moderators here, send me an instant message, i don`t see who i insulted, the only it was ment to was the iranians and other NON-europeans!
why did i get a warning from that?? this forum and this thread, just look its overuned by iranians, how can i be calm down when they write this stuff?!
what words am i not supposed to use??? how should i show my anger to this, MODERATORS??! Just look at this one-kamangirl, i even wrote that, very few, greeks now, can be taken for a turk, and even iranian if you say so. And he responded like i reject that. Is it only me getting a painful heaache of what they have to write in here???
Because, as I explained, you are getting unnecessarily vulgar in an otherwise high brow area where anthropology is being discussed. You are not supposed to be being insulting to other members and I don't care about what the other member's ethnic backgrounds are, as long as they are members. Read the rules for further explanation.

MegaSpathi
Sunday, September 19th, 2004, 05:34 PM
Since they removed, or replaced my first thread with the rules before i write this again:NO, iranians are not europid, and i don`t like this "Razmig" who write about almost all the time in his posts about greeks and other euros, when all is wrong.
I hope i didn`t write anything wrong now! i did not insult razmig or whatever, don`t understand what he has to do here in the first place though.

rusalka
Sunday, September 19th, 2004, 05:35 PM
no, i don`t understand why they only put up irans only light blueeyed girls. As it is not the typical iranian, what are they trying to do?
There are not only blue or light eyed girls on these covers, I specifically chose the ones with the blue eyes as certain geniuses under this thread had claimed Iranians cannot be blue eyed. If you check the link you will see girls with brown, hazel and green eyes as well. And yes, eye color does change before a certain age, but not drastically. Light blue eyes don't turn brown, but blue eyes can turn green. My eyes were grey as a child but now they are grey-green. Some of these girls might end up getting hazel eyes, if they have a lighter shade of it now, and some of the blue eyes might darken a little but basically, after that age, their eye color will probably not change. Hair is a different matter altogether and hair does darken in girls well after puberty. Pay attention to the color of their skin, too. Personally, many of the Iranians I have met who are now residing in the US had light skin. Not florid, but light.

Kamangir42
Sunday, September 19th, 2004, 05:42 PM
And for those people who think there's no way Iranians to have blue eyes, this one is for you kids:

http://www.ksabz.net/archive.asp

Check out the link, people. You'll see more pictures like these.

...

No one can tell me all of these girl's eyes will darkening to brown when they grow up.


Now, our Iranian friends will correct me if I'm wrong but I take that these little girls are Iranians. I don't see any point in putting up photos of foreign child models on an Iranian magazine.
It is an Iranian magazine I reckon. The name translates to "Green Family" (strange name huh?). However, I'm not sure if those girls are Iranian. It's more probable that they are the result of genetic experiments designed to discredit Greek purity. :P

I also think three of the six political members of the Islamic Guardian Council have blue eyes (Habibi, Yazdi, Larijani). I can't find good pictures of any of them so these will have to do.

http://img18.exs.cx/img18/1018/yazdi2.jpg

Ayatollah Yazdi

http://img18.exs.cx/img18/55/habibi.jpg

Habibi

Skyht
Sunday, September 19th, 2004, 05:45 PM
@MegaSpathi



Look I only wanted to prove that both Gene information’s are in Iranians, the best example was simply my Grandfather and his brother, one is "darker" type one "white" type, but both are brothers share the same blood. If his brother would be some kind of pure Aryan would my Grandfather be not ?



Its nothing against darker types... Its even more a prove that both types can be Iranian and/or-partly Aryan.

Kamangir42
Sunday, September 19th, 2004, 05:49 PM
who are the moderators here, send me an instant message, i don`t see who i insulted, the only it was ment to was the iranians and other NON-europeans!
why did i get a warning from that?? this forum and this thread, just look its overuned by iranians, how can i be calm down when they write this stuff?!
what words am i not supposed to use??? how should i show my anger to this, MODERATORS??! Just look at this one-kamangirl, i even wrote that, very few, greeks now, can be taken for a turk, and even iranian if you say so. And he responded like i reject that. Is it only me getting a painful heaache of what they have to write in here???
You chose to come to and post in a thread concerning Iranians yet you complain about Iranians overrunning this forum? Why not just ignore the thread?

I know most Greeks aren't like you which is why I'm not getting upset (I'm actually having a fun time reading your posts).

rusalka
Sunday, September 19th, 2004, 05:50 PM
Grown-up Iranians this time, from the National Iranian-American Council's gala.

Rudi Bakhtiar

http://www.niacouncil.org/images/iatc/rudi2.JPG

Amina Semlali and Gori Ameri

http://www.niacouncil.org/images/iatc/goli.JPG

Fardad Zabetian and Dokhi Fassihian (Iranian Armenians?)

http://www.niacouncil.org/images/iatc/pub4.JPG


Look at the staff page, their names and their pictures: http://www.niacouncil.org/staff.asp

Except of one Sean Murphy I don't see any non-Iranian names there. Are you telling me that all of these people would stick out in European countries?

(because of the inadequacy of the English language I feel like I have to explain myself. The post is not addressed to MegaStakhi but as a reply to the thread at hand, I use the plural you)

Kamangir42
Sunday, September 19th, 2004, 05:58 PM
Since they removed, or replaced my first thread with the rules before i write this again:NO, iranians are not europid, and i don`t like this "Razmig" who write about almost all the time in his posts about greeks and other euros, when all is wrong.
I hope i didn`t write anything wrong now! i did not insult razmig or whatever, don`t understand what he has to do here in the first place though.
I don't know how much more simply I can put this without drawing a diagram or using puppets to explain it:

Caucasoid=Europid

Europid has nothing to do with Europe. In the same way that Chinese and Japanese are Mongoloid despite not being Mongols. So Europeans are Europid but so are Armenians, Turks, Iranians, Arabs, Berbers, Indians, even Hazara are mostly Europid (at least genotypically).

Saying that Iranians are not Europid but Caucasoid is like saying "Chinese are not Sinid, they are Mongoloid" or "Marco van Basten is not from Holland, he's from the Netherlands."

Do you get it now? Why should Razmig even acknowledge your existence if you fail to grasp even this simple point?

MegaSpathi
Sunday, September 19th, 2004, 06:06 PM
I don't know how much more simply I can put this without drawing a diagram or using puppets to explain it:

Caucasoid=Europid

Europid has nothing to do with Europe. In the same way that Chinese and Japanese are Mongoloid despite not being Mongols. So Europeans are Europid but so are Armenians, Turks, Iranians, Arabs, Berbers, Indians, even Hazara are mostly Europid (at least genotypically).

Saying that Iranians are not Europid but Caucasoid is like saying "Chinese are not Sinid, they are Mongoloid" or "Marco van Basten is not from Holland, he's from the Netherlands."

Do you get it now? Why should Razmig even acknowledge your existence if you fail to grasp even this simple point?
hmmm ok, i could agree about that. But look at the poll, the one who maked that poll wrote: There it says " i consider some europeans to be euroPEAN", thats why i am getting like this.

Kamangir42
Sunday, September 19th, 2004, 06:13 PM
Grown-up Iranians this time, from the National Iranian-American Council's gala.

...

Look at the staff page, their names and their pictures: http://www.niacouncil.org/staff.asp

Except of one Sean Murphy I don't see any non-Iranian names there. Are you telling me that all of these people would stick out in European countries?

(because of the inadequacy of the English language I feel like I have to explain myself. The post is not addressed to MegaStakhi but as a reply to the thread at hand, I use the plural you)
Having -IAN at the end of your surname does not necessarily mean you are Armenian. I myself have -IAN at the end of mine but I am not Armenian to the best of my knowledge (although my father's family is said to have come from the Caucasus a couple of centuries back). Indeed, the surname endings -IAN and -ADZE have their origins in Iran not Armenia or Georgia (as do the foreign name of both those countries).

rusalka
Sunday, September 19th, 2004, 06:16 PM
Having -IAN at the end of your surname does not necessarily mean you are Armenian. I myself have -IAN at the end of mine and I am not Armenian to the best of my knowledge (although my father's family is said to have come from the Caucasus a couple of centuries back). Indeed, I think the surname endings -IAN and -ADZE have their roots in Iran rather than Armenia or Georgia.
Ah, thanks for the information. All the Armenians in Turkey have -yan at the end of their surnames, which means "son of" as far as I know, and it has been the case with the Armenians I've met here in the US too; so I thought those two people might be Armenians as well, albeit from Iran. I remember Razmig having a post about this, explaining the intricacies between Armenian and Georgian last names but I can't seem to locate it.

Speaking of the Caucasus, not exactly related per se, but do you think you might find pictures of Gilakis? There isn't much on Google and I'm assuming that there might be more under Persian websites, which of course, I cannot search.

Kamangir42
Sunday, September 19th, 2004, 06:16 PM
hmmm ok, i could agree about that. But look at the poll, the one who maked that poll wrote: There it says " i consider some europeans to be euroPEAN", thats why i am getting like this.
The poll was set-up by an American. That is all the explanation you need. :D

rusalka
Sunday, September 19th, 2004, 06:20 PM
The poll was set-up by an American. That is all the explanation you need. :D
I was going to say. ;)

Kamangir42
Sunday, September 19th, 2004, 06:59 PM
Ah, thanks for the information. All the Armenians in Turkey have -yan at the end of their surnames, which means "son of" as far as I know, and it has been the case with the Armenians I've met here in the US too; so I thought those two people might be Armenians as well, albeit from Iran. I remember Razmig having a post about this, explaining the intricacies between Armenian and Georgian last names but I can't seem to locate it.

Speaking of the Caucasus, not exactly related per se, but do you think you might find pictures of Gilakis? There isn't much on Google and I'm assuming that there might be more under Persian websites, which of course, I cannot search.
I can understand the presumption. I am always getting mistaken for Armenian (at least I would be if my skin wasn't so brown :D ).

I don't want to sound like a Persian chauvinist but there aren't that many famous Rashtis (aka Gilakis). The only one I can think of right now as definitely Rashti is the comic actor Miri. The director Abbas Kiarostami might be too (having "kia" somewhere in your surname is a good indication of being Rasthi so the footballers Mahdavikia and Navidkia might originally be from Gilan despite being born elsewhere).

http://www.iranian.com/Nostalgia/Stars/miri.html

You'd be really hard pressed to tell Persians and Rashtis apart (I can't to be honest).

I don't really hang around Rashti websites so sorry I can't help you more. You might watch the Kiarostami film "Under the Olive Trees" which is set in Gilan. You might also try going to www.corbis.com (http://www.corbis.com/) and searching for the Iranian earthquake in 1990 (which hit Gilan).

rusalka
Sunday, September 19th, 2004, 07:59 PM
I don't really hang around Rashti websites so sorry I can't help you more. You might watch the Kiarostami film "Under the Olive Trees" which is set in Gilan. You might also try going to www.corbis.com (http://www.corbis.com/) and searching for the Iranian earthquake in 1990 (which hit Gilan).
Thanks for the suggestions, will do. I had seen Taste of Cherry (Ta'm e Guillas) by Kiarostami. His work was great.

hyelander
Sunday, September 19th, 2004, 08:23 PM
[QUOTE=rusalka]Ah, thanks for the information. All the Armenians in Turkey have -yan at the end of their surnames, which means "son of" as far as I know, and it has been the case with the Armenians I've met here in the US too; so I thought those two people might be Armenians as well, albeit from Iran. I remember Razmig having a post about this, explaining the intricacies between Armenian and Georgian last names but I can't seem to locate it.


It depends from were these Armenians were. If they are from Armenia, most of them they would have -yan last name. But most Armenians all of the world have -ian last name. There are some last names with with diferent endings -un(c)ts, on(c)ts (Akunc, Taronc, Tonunc, basicaly from Artsakh region), -ian(c)ts (Grigorianc, Kevorkianc, Harenc, Khachaturianc), -uni (Bagratuni, Rshtuni, Amatuni, Vahuni). Spelling was chaged since 1991 when Armenia become independent again and in new passports people got -yan endings (Possibly according to the spelling in Armenian). But it makes more dificult for foregners to read the last names, for example Harutyunyan is more dificult to read than Harutunian, right :D But upon request you can have -ian ending also.

Aistulf
Sunday, September 19th, 2004, 09:25 PM
Grown-up Iranians this time, from the National Iranian-American Council's gala.

Rudi Bakhtiar

http://www.niacouncil.org/images/iatc/rudi2.JPG
Wow! She look very European, indeed, and (thus) hot! :)


I'm usually very sceptical about this sort of stuff, but over time I've been convinced there are still quite some pure European-Iranians/Persians.

Unlike other nations, in the region, the only people who really seem to resent/hate islam are the Iranians.

Let's hope the USA, just because of the bad experience in Iraq, won't bomb the hell out of Iran. Just get rid of the islamist leaders and return zoroastranianism (sp?)

Dorian
Sunday, September 19th, 2004, 10:00 PM
I still say if it wasn't for Dravidian/Elamite as well Turanid visible mixture in Iranians they would look like Greeks and Armenians.

ScotchTape
Monday, September 20th, 2004, 07:19 AM
The girls on the magazine covers most likely have their eyes retouched(they even have makeup on) and why are so many light eyed girls chosen. Surely, not 75% of Iranian children have light eyes. Thats absurd.

ScotchTape
Monday, September 20th, 2004, 07:25 AM
Iranians of the Day(I picked the most recent ones)
http://www.iranian.com/PhotoDay/2004/September/Images/mon.jpg
http://www.iranian.com/PhotoDay/2004/September/Images/beh.jpg
http://www.iranian.com/PhotoDay/2004/September/Images/maria.jpg
http://www.iranian.com/PhotoDay/2004/September/Images/atoosa.jpg
http://www.iranian.com/PhotoDay/2004/September/Images/yoyo.jpg
http://www.iranian.com/PhotoDay/2004/September/Images/sam3.jpg

None of these look very Southern European.

rusalka
Monday, September 20th, 2004, 07:27 AM
The girls on the magazine covers most likely have their eyes retouched(they even have makeup on) Very lame excuse. The same could very well be said of western children's magazines.


And why are so many light eyed girls chosen. Surely, not 75% of Iranian children have light eyes. Thats absurd. Of course, 75% of Iranian children probably don't have light eyes, it was an example to show people that there are blue eyed individuals amongst Iranian people, however and I think as examples go it is a good example. There may be many reasons as to why blue-eyed children were chosen specifically, one of which may be that blue eyes are not too uncommon and thus would be more popular but it clearly shows that there are indeed green and blue eyed people within the Iranian population. And no, I do not think that the photos are "touched", at least not beyond print standards where they are always colour corrected, no matter what; because otherwise all the kids would have light eyes and hair and this is clearly not the case. Some of the children even have rather thick eyebrows for their age, I don't see any correction there.

rusalka
Monday, September 20th, 2004, 07:39 AM
Iranians of the Day(I picked the most recent ones)
Interesting. And when I make a random Google search I come up with these. ;)

http://www.mandana-naderian.de/foto/m-405.jpghttp://noandishan.org/photos/Iranian-women-omid-memarian.jpghttp://www.dailytimes.com.pk/images/25_1_2004_KHATIMI-Iranian-President.jpghttp://www3.estart.com/stores/media/adeli.jpg
http://www.csonline.com.cn/newspaper/cswb/a15/W020040302262567189524.jpg


Iranians do not consist of one single type that is extremely non-"European" as many people would like to believe. And besides, I have yet to meet an Iranian who would try to pass as "Southern European". All Iranians I have met were all very proud individuals.

Aistulf
Monday, September 20th, 2004, 09:57 AM
I used to be very sceptical about the "whiteness" of certain people, like the present-day Afghans, Berbers and especially Indians/Pakistani. But I'm quite positive towards Iranians/Persians! There are quite lot of pure Europid/Caucasoids among the population still, so it seems!

Not only do they seem to be racially closer to us, than anyone in the region, but also as far as their way of thinking goes and attitude. I hear a lot of Iranians resent/hate islam, hence the fact why their gov't oppresses them so...

It's a shame, the USA and Israel are about to bomb/nuke Iran to hell while they, instead of the dirty Iraqi's, truly deserve a "regime change." But it isn't in the interest of our ZOG leaders, I fear.

One thing is for sure, as a devoted WN, I support my white brethren in Iran!

Northern Paladin
Monday, September 20th, 2004, 04:38 PM
Very lame excuse. The same could very well be said of western children's magazines.

Of course, 75% of Iranian children probably don't have light eyes, it was an example to show people that there are blue eyed individuals amongst Iranian people, however and I think as examples go it is a good example. There may be many reasons as to why blue-eyed children were chosen specifically, one of which may be that blue eyes are not too uncommon and thus would be more popular but it clearly shows that there are indeed green and blue eyed people within the Iranian population. And no, I do not think that the photos are "touched", at least not beyond print standards where they are always colour corrected, no matter what; because otherwise all the kids would have light eyes and hair and this is clearly not the case. Some of the children even have rather thick eyebrows for their age, I don't see any correction there.

The fact is the girls on the those Iranian magazine covers are one in a million(Some aren't even pure Iranian). They don't reflect the average Iranian phenotype.

rusalka
Monday, September 20th, 2004, 10:03 PM
The fact is the girls on the those Iranian magazine covers are one in a million(Some aren't even pure Iranian). They don't reflect the average Iranian phenotype.
I take it that you have been to Iran numerous times and examined the local situation closely. Of course, with your grasp of the language itself you were also able to read the magazines themselves and made it out that those girls were, in fact, not pure Iranians anyhow. Sure, there are a lot of foreigners living in Iran. All the blue-eyed ones must be Swedish half-breeds. It's also a great feat of the publishers of the magazine to find almost every single girl who is fair haired and blue eyed in a country with 69 million people; they must have worked pretty hard, depending on your impeccable theory of one in a million. I'm sure many of them also dye their hair, including the boys, in order to look more Nordic. You must have spotted it, with no problem. ;)

Razmig
Tuesday, September 21st, 2004, 08:15 PM
Having -IAN at the end of your surname does not necessarily mean you are Armenian. I myself have -IAN at the end of mine but I am not Armenian to the best of my knowledge (although my father's family is said to have come from the Caucasus a couple of centuries back). Indeed, the surname endings -IAN and -ADZE have their origins in Iran not Armenia or Georgia (as do the foreign name of both those countries).
In fact IAN is of Latin extraction. The Aryan prefix for belonging was STANI or INA...ADZE is an Armenian word, also Greek ATZI etc which parallels IAN. Remember the Persians did not come before the IE's in Anatolia, which in turn migrated to Europe and remained there.

The GEORGE in GEORGIA has to do with the liturgical seperation of Georgia from mainland ARMENIA due to PERSIAN MUSLIM INVASION. Just like Greece and Cyprus, Armenia and Artsakhes. In ancient Grabar Armenian, the word for that region was Sekaravelos (now Sakartavelos), and Armenia was Aravelos. In Armenian, AREV means son, and EL is a verb descriptive. They were called COLCHIS AND IBERIA by the WEST. In ancient times the Argaunats called the entire region of the Caucus, Orontos (Orient) which has similar derrivitives as the ancient Anatolian.

During the absorbtions of Armenians into Iran (10,000 wives were taken by the Turkish sultanate controlling Iran at the time) many leading class Iranians (Turks who became Iranians) took on Armenian surnames as it was an honour especially when it came to business sense, instead of traditional Iranian names. There were also 10,000 Armenians who were forced to leave by the Baghdad Iranian sultanate....but that was in a different era. Another historical incident is when Persia, in its moments of desporation, forced Armenians and took them to a city he built just for Armenians called New Julfa...they were Architects, Doctors, etc.


Ah, thanks for the information. All the Armenians in Turkey have -yan at the end of their surnames, which means "son of" as far as I know, and it has been the case with the Armenians I've met here in the US too; so I thought those two people might be Armenians as well, albeit from Iran. I remember Razmig having a post about this, explaining the intricacies between Armenian and Georgian last names but I can't seem to locate it.

Speaking of the Caucasus, not exactly related per se, but do you think you might find pictures of Gilakis? There isn't much on Google and I'm assuming that there might be more under Persian websites, which of course, I cannot search.
Incorrect, about 50% of Armenians in Turkey have the suffix IAN. Many Armenians in Bulgaria, Romania and other nations of the Turkish diaspora still have their traditional Armenian names. Usually in the west of Cilicia, an Armenian the son of a priest would have ICH at the end of their names. Derderich (Priest-ich) Der der which means priest. Or Der Haygazian for all Armenians. ETC

The thing is, Armenians only began using IAN for recognition under the Roman army and only a select families used it. Although Armenian and Latin is close in more words than you can imagine, it was not a common ending. In Armenian, "of" would translate to -OV (ROMANOV) and not IAN. ADZE is the Georgian pronounciation of what was in Armenian ATZI. At the time ATZI was a suffic given to higher ranked individuals in a time when Georgia did not exist as a nation. examples: Nerses Lambronatzi, Partoghomios Vastastzi.

Many shameful Armenians have turned Iranian and Turkish (absorbed into a muslim sespool), but that was 400 years ago. Many cities now are being inhabited by Iranian government which belong to Armenian historical ancestors, which are not being roamed by Azeri Turkmen. The Armenian nation is stripped of all of its honour and history and credited to other nations. Amongst those the 12,000 year old kingdom of Metsamor in the caves of ancient Armenia, and the birthplace OF the Aryans and the spread of the Indo-European language, smelting of Iron, metalrgy, horse chariots and successful cultivation of farm land which to this day is desert thanks to the incomparable intellelects of the Mohammedan sub-humans.

In my opinion, all of the select words have seperate and individual meanings: white, european, europid. White is obviously someone of a white nation such as England, Norway, Netherlands ETC. A European is someone who follows the European culture of semi-liberalism, anti-Islamic and pro-European traditions, Christianity, which Europeans have molded to their own image, is as much a European form of identity as the traditional pagan religions that were dominant in all of Europe. Europid, which is any person whos facial characteristics have FORMED or LOOK anything that is not Mongoloid or Negroid.

So, are Iranians Europeans? Hell no. Are they Europids? Sure, but so are Indians, Arabs (real Bedouins) etc. There are Iranians that look parallel to Europeans, there are Europeans that look brown as well. Everything is rather gradual untill it comes to cultural seperation like the case of the Armenians, or the Greeks, Serbs, Lebanese and ETC. Cultural distinction, pride, nationalist and different religions can make a big difference.

Razmig
Tuesday, September 21st, 2004, 08:21 PM
Nordid is not Europid! Noridsh is also not Europid!
There are enough aborigines with yellow hairs. So are they Europid?
With your arguments Greeks aren`t Europid!
Fact is that the Iranians belong to the highlander Aryan racetype(like Germans, southeast Europeans, Armenians). Slavs and Western European don`t belong to this racetype. So now a little homework for you.
Check the y-chromosomal tree and check out which groups are mostly in the Iranian genepool and the German. Then you will understand what I am saying the whole time! ;)
Do you really want me to post a Y-Chromosome test showing the similarity between Iranians, Iraqis and Turkmens?

Razmig
Tuesday, September 21st, 2004, 08:24 PM
Here is the Picture of my Grandfather with his elder brother; it’s from the 1930's, at the time the brother served in the Imperial Iranian Police (Supported by NS Germany) as a general AFAIK.



In my family it was common that only Iranians could be married and those both are really brothers, the difference between them is somewhat similar to the difference between me and my brother.



Since I followed the discussions here since a few days I must say that it is pretty funny how many here don’t know about the Aryan origin of the Iranian Tribes, it were us who first said that we belong to the Aryan race, the complete old Iranian culture is based on the Aryan one. I read here that only Slavs are Aryans and so on but it’s simply funny for me to hear that.



Also this thread sound funny, what is European please ? Only because some Aryan tribes moved to Europe it means that all Europeans are Aryans and it’s the centre of Aryans ? Iranians are no Europeans but mostly Aryan, no Aryan must be Europeans. At least the NS Germans did know to respect Iranians and the "Persian History" this seems to be forgotten these days and the word Aryan is put into Shi*t with these Neo(new) Nazis and their forums all around the internet, they don’t have even must common with the old Nazis but only let others think that someone who recognize races and differences is one of those Neo Nazis. But at least in this forum are some intelligent guys, that’s why I wrote here and I didn’t claim that anyone here is one of those Neo Nazis, at least for now.

The man on the right looks like a Turanid, and the one on the left an Indid. If I didn't know better I'd say they were Azeri's. Who are you to place upon the name Aryan whomever you'd like when the nation of Iran is one of the most mixed regions in the world? Slavs (sons of the Gauls and Goths, Romans and Illyrians) have different origins, and the Scythians were just another Indo-European nation. The Iranian nation fools itself. Because your name is IRAN does not make you the honourable decendants of any Aryans, whose origins lies in ANATOLIA, and not the subcontinent of India or in IRAN. So, I suggest that you and SHAPUR start doing some real historical reserach, and stop relying on Iranian American internet propoganda as sources of historical information.

Razmig
Tuesday, September 21st, 2004, 08:27 PM
And for those people who think there's no way Iranians to have blue eyes, this one is for you kids:

http://www.ksabz.net/archive.asp

Check out the link, people. You'll see more pictures like these.

http://www.ksabz.net/images/cover/114.jpg http://www.ksabz.net/images/cover/115.jpghttp://www.ksabz.net/images/cover/117.jpghttp://www.ksabz.net/images/cover/108.jpg

http://www.ksabz.net/images/cover/109.jpghttp://www.ksabz.net/images/cover/110.jpghttp://www.ksabz.net/images/cover/102.jpghttp://www.ksabz.net/images/cover/104.jpghttp://www.ksabz.net/images/cover/91.jpghttp://www.ksabz.net/images/cover/67.jpg

No one can tell me all of these girl's eyes will darkening to brown when they grow up.


Now, our Iranian friends will correct me if I'm wrong but I take that these little girls are Iranians. I don't see any point in putting up photos of foreign child models on an Iranian magazine.
This post reminds of the one of that Afghan woman on National Geographic. Everyone made a big deal because she had light eyes! OMG! Then she grew up and looked like the daughter of a camals behind.

When it comes to dark groups like Iranians and Arabs, Ive noticed they have sick obsessions with light eyes and blonde hair. When me and my girlfriend visited Eastern Turkey and to Iran (then took a bus to Isfahan) all the locals (wrapped in garb and all) were staring at my g/f as if she was a God. The same goes for Mexico! So it's understandable they would put such types on a pedastle. IMO it's the muslim/backwards mentality.


[QUOTE=MegaSpathi][QUOTE=MegaSpathi]no, i don`t understand why they only put up irans only light blueeyed girls. As it is not the typical iranian, what are they trying to do?

I know i haven`t seen "that eyes can get darker within the years" , can they really do that?????????????????? its possible that maybe a child have lighter hair when its small and later turn to darker, but eyes?????=)
QUOTE]
Eyes change color only in the first few months. Hair is a different story. My eyes were bright blue like my fathers, but not theyre Green. It just depends on what genes you get. Of coarse, darker children will be born with dark eyes, but I know all of my family was born with blue. It just takes longer for the pigment to develop.

Razmig
Tuesday, September 21st, 2004, 08:32 PM
**

Razmig
Tuesday, September 21st, 2004, 08:35 PM
The fact is the girls on the those Iranian magazine covers are one in a million(Some aren't even pure Iranian). They don't reflect the average Iranian phenotype.
Whats a "pure Iranian?" Anyways, like I've said, in my visit to Iran I saw no blue eyed Iranians. These children could be Kurds, or even Azeris (Azeris make up a huge percent of Iran as do Kurds).

Razmig
Tuesday, September 21st, 2004, 08:38 PM
Since they removed, or replaced my first thread with the rules before i write this again:NO, iranians are not europid, and i don`t like this "Razmig" who write about almost all the time in his posts about greeks and other euros, when all is wrong.
I hope i didn`t write anything wrong now! i did not insult razmig or whatever, don`t understand what he has to do here in the first place though.
May I ask, what do you have to do here? Should I get started on brown skinned Greeks and how the majority of Northern Europeans call you Gyspies? Dont be so humble, Karahalios.

Razmig
Tuesday, September 21st, 2004, 09:16 PM
[QUOTE=rusalka]Ah, thanks for the information. All the Armenians in Turkey have -yan at the end of their surnames, which means "son of" as far as I know, and it has been the case with the Armenians I've met here in the US too; so I thought those two people might be Armenians as well, albeit from Iran. I remember Razmig having a post about this, explaining the intricacies between Armenian and Georgian last names but I can't seem to locate it.


It depends from were these Armenians were. If they are from Armenia, most of them they would have -yan last name. But most Armenians all of the world have -ian last name. There are some last names with with diferent endings -un(c)ts, on(c)ts (Akunc, Taronc, Tonunc, basicaly from Artsakh region), -ian(c)ts (Grigorianc, Kevorkianc, Harenc, Khachaturianc), -uni (Bagratuni, Rshtuni, Amatuni, Vahuni). Spelling was chaged since 1991 when Armenia become independent again and in new passports people got -yan endings (Possibly according to the spelling in Armenian). But it makes more dificult for foregners to read the last names, for example Harutyunyan is more dificult to read than Harutunian, right :D But upon request you can have -ian ending also.
Armenians in Turkey generally use the Y because when they first moved to America the depees (Soviet Armenian escapees) were using the Russian spelling to spell Armenian names in English. Example: In the Crylic language, you use the J as a Y, in Russian you would spell IAN JAN, and not with the Crylic I "N." However, in Traditional Armenian Alphabet, the IAN is spelled with an http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=20846&stc=1 which translates to an ENGLISH "I," because it does not have the elongated sound as the Armenian "YUH." In other words, the correct spelling and translation would be IAN.

Skyht
Tuesday, September 21st, 2004, 09:40 PM
@Razmig



" Who are you to place upon the name Aryan whomever you'd like when the nation of Iran is one of the most mixed regions in the world?"



I did clearly say that IF the elder brother WOULD be an real Aryan his brother would be one too, also if looking very different.



I as Iranian who's family is said to be from an old tribe can be pretty sure that I have something Aryan in me.



" The Iranian nation fools itself. Because your name is IRAN does not make you the honourable decendants of any Aryans, whose origins lies in ANATOLIA, and not the subcontinent of India or in IRAN."



Shapur also thinks that the origin lies in Anatolia for the known linguistic reasons, but for me it’s still not proven, I never said that the origins are in Iran or India, I tend to the region around the rather northern Caspian see, but that’s another story...



You are talking about Anatolia, in clear text Armenia, your country, you are calling Muslims in general backwards, so what’s about Christian Armenians they would also be backwards...



I personally after seeing Armenians tend to think that Armenians and Azeri’s have mainly black hairs, Iranians in the North/eastern regions, tribes and people in old city’s like Yazd are those which you should visit when searching for bright Iranians…

Northern Paladin
Tuesday, September 21st, 2004, 10:12 PM
Whats a "pure Iranian?" Anyways, like I've said, in my visit to Iran I saw no blue eyed Iranians. These children could be Kurds, or even Azeris (Azeris make up a huge percent of Iran as do Kurds).
What I meant was some could be of mixed heritage.

I don't know why folks are making a big deal about some Iranian children being blue eyed. Like you said most will turn out like that girl from National geographic. Dark as a [censored].

The term Europid should be reserved only for groups within Europes borders.

MegaSpathi
Tuesday, September 21st, 2004, 11:29 PM
Now why was my thread deleted again??!!! are the moderators armenian?! why don`t delete "razmigs" all posts on this board, they take up all the place, shit taking up all the place!

Skyht
Wednesday, September 22nd, 2004, 03:30 PM
@Northern_Paladin



Sorry but this new European identity is the most stupid way of thinking, Aryan don’t has to have anything to do with Europe, also white is stupid since it don’t has to be Aryan. But if you don’t call the "neo-Europeans" Aryans you can continue to count all Europeans as white people, that’s actually what I call stupid "neo-Nazi" ideology...

Razmig
Wednesday, September 22nd, 2004, 09:44 PM
I did clearly say that IF the elder brother WOULD be an real Aryan his brother would be one too, also if looking very different.



I as Iranian who's family is said to be from an old tribe can be pretty sure that I have something Aryan in me.
there is as munch chance an iranian to have original aryan blood as an indian from india...or pakistan


Shapur also thinks that the origin lies in Anatolia for the known linguistic reasons, but for me it’s still not proven, I never said that the origins are in Iran or India, I tend to the region around the rather northern Caspian see, but that’s another story...


You are talking about Anatolia, in clear text Armenia, your country, you are calling Muslims in general backwards, so what’s about Christian Armenians they would also be backwards...


I personally after seeing Armenians tend to think that Armenians and Azeri’s have mainly black hairs, Iranians in the North/eastern regions, tribes and people in old city’s like Yazd are those which you should visit when searching for bright Iranians…
Remember the north caspian was inhabited but not just Iranians (modern day Iranians) but up untill recently several tribes ranging from Armenians, Scythians and ancient Albanians, to modern day Turks. The Aryans never stepped foot in the north or even west of modern day Iran...either way that region is considered a greater extension of Anatolia. If you are reffering to Media that is.

Anatolia is not Armenia, its just that...Anatolia. It is said that in the Caucus region of Armenia is one of the earliest forms of IE, like the 10,000+ kingdoms of Metsamor, or the Kurganid Warlord Kingdoms. I don't doubt they existed but its hard to decipher which sparked the Metalrgy spreading into Europe thus creating the spread of Indo European language and so fourth. Sure Armenians are as much ancestraly connected to them as Iranians are to the ancient Aryans...that is they are not purely those same people, but they have claims to those lands more so than the Turks in Armenia or the Turkish Azeris in Iran, capiche?

Im not quite sure, I only visited north Iran and Isfahan, and every Iranian I saw had hyperbracheocephalic OR dolichocephalic (nothing in the middle which was strange!) had rather round noses and thick dark hairs with dark skin. Most Azeris in the north and Kurds resembled Armenians if anything more than the most Iranians, and many Iranian women did not seem anything like Armenian women, but some of the younger girls had basic mediterranean features found in darker Armenians. The Armenians in Iran I know are much darker than mainland Armenians (turkey, diasporan). Some, even lighter than most Armenians in Armenia who are not Kara-Kovkas mixed like Jerevan Armenians. By light I dont just mean hair colour, but facial deffinnition and refinement which IMO no Iranians I saw had. I have met some Iranians in America who are Jewish and look more like Armenians (more tendency for hazel eyes and clear body hair and bears etc, hairier and deeper set eyes).

Like I said before Iranians are still Europid, as much as an Armenian, ranging to a Basque to an Irishman, to a Bulgarian to an Arab. Europid is not only reffering to blonde haired, pink skinned long faced Englishman or Nordic or Dutch folk. That is white, Europid has a definnition, European another!


Now why was my thread deleted again??!!! are the moderators armenian?! why don`t delete "razmigs" all posts on this board, they take up all the place, shit taking up all the place!
maybe because your posts make less sense than my babbling?


Sorry but this new European identity is the most stupid way of thinking, Aryan don’t has to have anything to do with Europe, also white is stupid since it don’t has to be Aryan. But if you don’t call the "neo-Europeans" Aryans you can continue to count all Europeans as white people, that’s actually what I call stupid "neo-Nazi" ideology...
The formation of a European Identity is to protect from foreign ideology, mainly Arabic (which is now formed as the ideology of other Islamic nations such as Turkey, Algeria and Iran). Theres a reason why the Armenians faught and died against the Persians, the Turks and so fourth. And also the Spaniards...because some people just dont feel the same connection that others do with one another. Some people are isolated such as the Serbs, some are converted and so fourth. Although Europe meant something different during the 1800's, today it means the unification of "indo-european speakers" who are of christian identity. Iranians are not. So, since there are tribes in Europe with Aryan ancestry, and Iran is considered a basterdized nation to the European one. What with Islam being such a heavy influence in modern day Iran, and in some aspects Iran has influenced the Arabs (such as the spices brought from Asia into the Middle East through Iran, or the Indian hookah and Persian conquest spreading to Egypt and the Lute: Oud). Do you understand the mentality now?

Being an intelligent individual is not knowing hard facts and reading a lot of school texts. Its about waking up to the reality of the world around you, the mindsets of different people and why people do what they do. Instead of becoming angry, understanding the differences between you and your brothers around the world, and still being proud of who you are ethnically, personally, moraly ETC. That is why Nationalism is a very important tool for self motivation as well as regional succession, and why globalism is an evil scheme that every government and invidual is opposed to, although it will happen anyway!

Razmig
Wednesday, September 22nd, 2004, 10:08 PM
What I meant was some could be of mixed heritage.

I don't know why folks are making a big deal about some Iranian children being blue eyed. Like you said most will turn out like that girl from National geographic. Dark as a [censored].

The term Europid should be reserved only for groups within Europes borders.
Like I've mentioned before, Europid is a term that refers to skelatal/cranial development and not pigmentation. Just like that womans pigmentation did not changed, however her features became very "dark." Europid and European are two different things. Caucasoid as well. And again, White is another. The scale can be broken down as EUROPID/EUROPEAN/WHITE, or in other words CAUCASIAN/EUROPEAN/ENGLISHMAN...

ScotchTape
Thursday, September 23rd, 2004, 06:20 AM
Yes, I have been to Iran and it wasnt very common for the kids to have light eyes. Of course it existed and wasnt even that rare actually, but my point is that the children on those magazine covers have been chosen for their fair coloring and the eyes have been brightened with special lighting. They even do that in American magazines in case you were wondering.

rusalka, theres no way in hell you can know that the people on google were even iranian. They could be visitors or something. Anyways, here are the latest pictures from Iranian.com(randomly selected)
http://www.iranian.com/PhotoDay/2004/September/Images/por.jpg
http://www.iranian.com/PhotoDay/2004/September/Images/sat.jpg
http://www.iranian.com/PhotoDay/2004/September/Images/mah.jpg
http://www.iranian.com/PhotoDay/2004/September/Images/maz.jpg
Azerihttp://www.iranian.com/PhotoDay/2004/September/Images/day.jpg
http://www.iranian.com/PhotoDay/2004/September/Images/fp.jpg
http://www.iranian.com/PhotoDay/2004/September/Images/taxi.jpg
http://www.iranian.com/PhotoDay/2004/September/Images/shir.jpg
http://www.iranian.com/PhotoDay/2004/September/Images/pd.jpg
http://www.iranian.com/PhotoDay/2004/September/Images/parisa.jpg

rusalka
Thursday, September 23rd, 2004, 06:30 AM
Yes, I have been to Iran and it wasnt very common for the kids to have light eyes. Of course it existed and wasnt even that rare actually, but my point is that the children on those magazine covers have been chosen for their fair coloring and the eyes have been brightened with special lighting. They even do that in American magazines in case you were wondering. I wasn't wondering. Since I happen to do editorial work I know very well what sort of lighting, make-up and touch up is applied to any photograph that is to be printed. This includes all the "white" fashion models too, of course.


rusalka, theres no way in hell you can know that the people on google were even iranian. They could be visitors or something. Visitors? Haha, yeah sure. That was the lamest excuse I have heard to so far. :rotfl

Most of them had names. Iranian.


Anyways, here are the latest pictures from Iranian.com(randomly selected) I could say the same thing for your examples. Besides, I used an exclusively Iranian website myself.




http://www.iranian.com/PhotoDay/2004/September/Images/sat.jpg
I met Ms. Marjane Satrapi very recently by the way. Great artist, and she was a pleasure to talk to.

Anyhow, it's really pointless to be debating this as I will hold on to my beliefs and apparently you to yours, which is fine by me. I cannot get too excited over a pseudo-anthropological term being discussed on an internet forum. ;)

ScotchTape
Thursday, September 23rd, 2004, 06:55 AM
Well, I was just trying to show pictures of random Iranians and I understand why you posted light eyed children; some people on racialist websites dont believe middleeastern people can have blue eyes. Its all good :)

ScotchTape
Thursday, September 23rd, 2004, 06:59 AM
Interesting. And when I make a random Google search I come up with these. ;)

http://www.mandana-naderian.de/foto/m-405.jpghttp://noandishan.org/photos/Iranian-women-omid-memarian.jpghttp://www.dailytimes.com.pk/images/25_1_2004_KHATIMI-Iranian-President.jpghttp://www3.estart.com/stores/media/adeli.jpg
http://www.csonline.com.cn/newspaper/cswb/a15/W020040302262567189524.jpg


Iranians do not consist of one single type that is extremely non-"European" as many people would like to believe. And besides, I have yet to meet an Iranian who would try to pass as "Southern European". All Iranians I have met were all very proud individuals.

The first girl Mandana Naderian is mentioned as having an Iranian father. I'm guessing she's part German.

Renegade
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004, 06:50 PM
Grown-up Iranians this time, from the National Iranian-American Council's gala.

Rudi Bakhtiar

http://www.niacouncil.org/images/iatc/rudi2.JPG

Amina Semlali and Gori Ameri

http://www.niacouncil.org/images/iatc/goli.JPG

Fardad Zabetian and Dokhi Fassihian (Iranian Armenians?)

http://www.niacouncil.org/images/iatc/pub4.JPG


Look at the staff page, their names and their pictures: http://www.niacouncil.org/staff.asp

Except of one Sean Murphy I don't see any non-Iranian names there. Are you telling me that all of these people would stick out in European countries?



No, just over half of them would.

I did a quick count. Out of 29 people:
11 White
12 non-white
6 Borderline

Mac Seafraidh
Wednesday, September 29th, 2004, 12:39 AM
I have a whole different aspect on this thread now. When I was thinking of Iran, my lack of education got the best of me. There are Europid Iranians, in fact. I totally bashed them earlier in this and I apoligize for my stupidity. I was partially right we all do know there are nasty Semetic Iranians now which own the land of Iran unfortunately :(

Gil
Wednesday, September 29th, 2004, 05:11 PM
Well, I think the question shouldn't be if there are Europid Iranians... the non-arab iranians (unless mixed) are Caucasoid Iranians.

Well, it makes sense that there are "europoid" iranians since iran was (according to some theories, of course) the birthplace of the proto-indo-europeans. (yeap, I don't buy the russian steppe theory...) and caucasoid have the so-called europoid traits.

Cheers mates ;)

Razmig
Wednesday, September 29th, 2004, 06:46 PM
No, just over half of them would.

I did a quick count. Out of 29 people:
11 White
12 non-white
6 Borderline

Let me just include a few reasons why those examples are completely irrelevant to this topic.

1. Tandica Ghajar "the daughter of an Iranian father and Anglo-American mother"
2. REZA BREAKSTONE?
3. Jahon Jamali "Having an Iranian father and an American mother"
4. The internet is not a valid insight into the racial makeup of ethnic groups. It is limited in sources and can give a wrongful impression. Unfortunately, there are those who forget this fact. This same ideal applies to pictures of models whome people would like to "label" in their favour. Knowing the truth is knowing that these people are often times mixed herritage, mixed race or just unclassifyable by anthropological standards.
Aside from that, there will never be any whites in Iran. White is a label used to classify NORDICS of North Western Europe, so get your facts straight. Another fact that people seem to be abusing is that Caucasoid means the same as Europid, it does not describe someones "whiteness" , lighter pigmentation or parallel identity to North Western Europeans/Anglo-Americans. Caucasoid is a name given to the people of a non-Mongoloid non-Congoid facial structure. Europid, is the name given to Caucasoids by anthropologists (whose writings are often times disregarded in the scientific aspect of racial distribution and development).

Northern Paladin
Wednesday, September 29th, 2004, 10:56 PM
Let me just include a few reasons why those examples are completely irrelevant to this topic.

1. Tandica Ghajar "the daughter of an Iranian father and Anglo-American mother"
2. REZA BREAKSTONE?
3. Jahon Jamali "Having an Iranian father and an American mother"
4. The internet is not a valid insight into the racial makeup of ethnic groups. It is limited in sources and can give a wrongful impression. Unfortunately, there are those who forget this fact. This same ideal applies to pictures of models whome people would like to "label" in their favour. Knowing the truth is knowing that these people are often times mixed herritage, mixed race or just unclassifyable by anthropological standards.
Aside from that, there will never be any whites in Iran. White is a label used to classify NORDICS of North Western Europe, so get your facts straight. Another fact that people seem to be abusing is that Caucasoid means the same as Europid, it does not describe someones "whiteness" , lighter pigmentation or parallel identity to North Western Europeans/Anglo-Americans. Caucasoid is a name given to the people of a non-Mongoloid non-Congoid facial structure. Europid, is the name given to Caucasoids by anthropologists (whose writings are often times disregarded in the scientific aspect of racial distribution and development).

The term White has been broadened to include Southern and Eastern Europeans.

Aistulf
Wednesday, September 29th, 2004, 11:33 PM
The term White has been broadened to include Southern and Eastern Europeans.?!

Northern Paladin
Wednesday, September 29th, 2004, 11:46 PM
?!

What I mean is in the past. Only Americans of NW European Origin were regarded as "White". Today the term has been broadened.

Awar
Thursday, September 30th, 2004, 01:26 AM
In the past only Americans of NW European origin were regarded as 'white' by other Americans on NW European origin.

At times even the Irish were regarded as non-whites, or catholics etc.

I know that Southern and Eastern Europeans never thought of themselves as
anything else, and I doubt that blacks or amerindians could tell
if someone is a white anglo-saxon protestant, or a non-white ( as considered by WASP's ) Russian, Italian or Irish.

Aistulf
Thursday, September 30th, 2004, 08:48 AM
In the past only Americans of NW European origin were regarded as 'white' by other Americans on NW European origin.

At times even the Irish were regarded as non-whites, or catholics etc.

I know that Southern and Eastern Europeans never thought of themselves as
anything else, and I doubt that blacks or amerindians could tell
if someone is a white anglo-saxon protestant, or a non-white ( as considered by WASP's ) Russian, Italian or Irish."Italians"? That's quite a broad term. In the USA there are mostly Southern Italians, Northern Italians tend to look quite different and there are quite some of them who'd like to become independent.

I'm all for an independent north: Padania, with Venice as it's capital.

Razmig
Friday, October 1st, 2004, 08:11 PM
Very good point Awar...

but Batavier, you do know that Italies genetic make-up spans from Etruscans from Anatolia (the North Western Italians) to the Phoenicians and Greeks in Sicily/Southern Italy, to the Normands in Sicily, to the Germanics in Milano provinces. So even in the North there is a broad range of different racial types, and in todays modern Italy it will be more common to see a huge range in all regions of Italy. But what good would further seperating the Italian nation when all of it besides the boots Island speaks the same language?

What I do not understand is why a mixed race American is considered a "non white non American" in the eyes of most Nordicists, but in an Aryan nation like Iran, a mixed race, or even partially semetic person is still considered a racial representation of that nation?