Iran and Arabs

While reading the Asian times,one columnist was remarking about the "axis of evil"comment,saying,not only does Iran share no comonality vis avis a poltical or economic alliance with the other two,Iraq is an arab state,whie Iran isn’t (presumably dating to Persia)

My question-what are the differences,racially/ethnically, other then political of these two?

Don’t what to sound like a racist here,since in a caucasian world,I can’t tell the difference between a Brit or a German (on first glance),unless they’d speak-further if the German was taught English by a Brit,it would completely baffle me most of the time.Sorta like English actors,from Geroge Sanders thru Laurence Olivier in the Marathon Man,who looked and spoke like a German (at least my impression of them)

Any good athropoligical/linguistics links out there?

Iraq - Primarily Arab ( Semitic linguistic group ). Secondarily Kurdish ( Indo-European linguistic group, related to Persian ). Religiously mixed - Sunni Muslim Arabs in the center, predominantly Sunni Muslim Kurds in the north, Shi’a Muslim Arabs in the south.

Iran - Largest ethnic group is Persian ( Indo-European linguistic group, language = Farsi in Iran, Dari towards central Asia ). Secondarily Turkish ( Altaic linguistic group ). These two are the big ones, have frequently mixed and have more or less been the co-dominant ethnicities in the country ( although the Persians have always been the largest demographic group, since medieval times a majority of the ruling dynasties have been Turkic, usually with a mostly Persian administrative class ). Smaller groups are the Kurds, Arabs ( mostly so-called “Marsh Arabs” in Khuzistan in the southwest ), Baluchis ( in the southest ), et al. Religion is overwhelmingly Shi’a Muslim, at least among the Persian, Turkic, and Arab populations.

So ethnically there is primarily overlap with the Kurds ( a marginalized population in both countries ) and Arabs ( the predominant group in Iraq, but small and marginalized in Iran ).

Religiously, southern Iraq shares a common faith with most of Iran, but a mostly different ethnicity.

  • Tamerlane

By the way, as should be obvious, I am basing ethnicity on language in the above example. An arguable tact to take, but in that corner of the world it simplifies things a bit.

  • Tamerlane

Tamerlane did an outstanding job of summarizing the Iraq/Iran differences (reasonable, since he conquered them both! ;))

My sentiment is that regarding Iran as “on the eastern edge of the Arab world” is about akin to referring to France as “the southwestern part of the German area of Europe.”

Here are links to the CIA factbooks:

For Iran ( note that Azeri and Tukmen = Turkic, Gilaki and Mazandarani = Indo-European, Persian related languages - Also, a prfereed by some synonym for “Persian” is Fars, also a name for a province and the original homeland of the Persians ):

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html

For Iraq: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html

For Iraq, by the way, I do believe the majority of Kurds are Sunni. But there are a number of followers of minority religions like Alawi and Yezidi. A smaller number are Shi’a.

It should also be noted that there are numerous other small minorities, both ethnic ( linguistic ) and religious ( like the Assyrians, for example ), in both countries.

  • Tamerlane

I would add that in my (very limited) experience, Iranians tend to be very proud of their “persianess” and can be rather racists toward arabs.
Also, someone make the comparison with Germany and France, but actually, Germanic and Latin people are much more closely related than Iranian and Arabs.

I would add that in my (very limited) experience, Iranians tend to be very proud of their “persianess” and can be rather racists toward arabs.
Also, someone make the comparison with Germany and France, but actually, Germanic and Latin people are much more closely related than Iranian and Arabs.

I can’t add to Tamerlane’s description of the ethnic differences between Iraqis and Iranians either, but I can tell you that the reason why Laurence Olivier sounded like a German in Marathon Man is because he was playing the part of a German.

George Sanders wasn’t in Marathon Man, but he did play various nationalities during his lifetime. He was born in St Petersburg, Russia (of English parents), but he had a distinctively English accent unless he deliberately chose another one for a role. I can’t imagine what you mean by him “looking like a German”, unless by comparison with an Iraqi or an Iranian.

everton
By looking like a German in parentheses "my conception of them from the *roles * they played in the movies,LOs in MM in particular,and Sanders in a few WW2 movies,Ed G’s "Confessions of a Nazi Spy"among them.

Maybe I should have written ** Nazis ** as they where portrayed in film.Stern,authoritative and the accent just right to my ears of a German speaking American English.

And yes I know GS wasn’t in MM since his suicide was a few years earlier IIRC,and I realize they where just playing roles,but affecting the accent-to my ears-much better than today’s Jodie Foster or whomever trying a southern/regional accent.

Sorry for the sidetrack,and thanks for the info and links to Persian/Arab differences to all who responded.

I should add ( before someone like Jomo Mojo comes in and kicks my virtual ass over it :wink: ), that the Assyrians are both a religious ( Christian ) and a linguistic ( Neo-Aramaic ) minority ( add the Chaldeans too, the two groups are closely related and often subsumed under the same heading ).

  • Tamerlane

Tamerlane, as usual, you’ve beat me to the punch. So, I’ll have to say, “What he said.”
What he said.

Yeah, Tamerlane, you build mounds of thousands of skulls of your vanquished enemies and then talk about little ol’ me kicking your ass? :slight_smile:

The Assyrians, so-called (like Tariq ‘Aziz), are Christian Iraqi speakers of the eastern Aramaic or Syriac dialect. They have revived the name “Assyrian” in modern times to connect with the past empire of northern Mesopotamia after the name had been out of use for, oh, over 2,000 years? Their language is Semitic, closely related to both Hebrew and Arabic. In some respects it resembles Hebrew more, in other respects it resembles Arabic more. But it’s like comparing French, Italian, and Spanish.

Persia was the leading world power at one time, in the ancient world of the Achaemanid (Hakhaimana) dynasty. Their civilization was the rival of the Greeks and Indians, although far larger and more powerful than the Greeks, and the envy of all Central Asian and Middle Eastern peoples. They conquered Egypt, Yemen, and Asia Minor as well as Afghanistan, the Caucasus, and parts of Central Asia. They were the first civilization to establish religious tolerance across their empire. Once taken into the fold of Islam, Persian civilization quickly became the major cultural influence across most of the Islamic world, including Central Asia, Turkey, the Caucasus, the Balkans, Tatarstan, India, and beyond. They see themselves as culturally enriching the Arabs and all other Muslim peoples, and the Arabs as having been uncultured desert dwellers before contact with Persia. In fact, the science of the grammar of the Arabic language was developed entirely by Persian linguists. Therefore, they do not accept taking a back seat to the Arabs when it comes to pride of place. On the other hand, the Arabs believe the Muslim world revolves around them, and the Persians and everyone else ought to take a back seat to the Arabs. That’s why there is serious, deep ethnic prejudice between the two peoples.

Persian is related to English (but not to Arabic). Compare: mother=mâdar, father=pedar, daughter=dokhtar, brother=brâdar. Persian belongs to the Indo-Iranian branch of Indo-European, while Arabic belongs to the Semitic branch of Afro-Asiatic. Indo-European and Afro-Asiatic are two unrelated language families. Except in the Nostratic hypothesis, which joins Indo-European, Afro-Asiatic, Altaic, and other families into one “macrofamily.” This would cancel the anti-Semitic bigotry of Nazism, since Aryan and Hebrew are related!!! But the time depth of Nostratic is at least 10,000 years BP, and the linguistic connections have been much obscured over the passage of time.

In any event, the relationship of Arabs and Persians is complex. Racially, they have been mixing genetically for over a millennium. al-Husayn ibn ‘Alî, the Prophet Muhammad’s grandson and a major figure in Shi‘ism, married the last princess of the Persian Sassanid empire. Poetry often refers to the two peoples (‘Arab and ‘Ajam) in tandem to mean the whole world, or at least the whole Islamic world. ‘Ajam means ‘non-Arab’, but in poetry refers to Iran.

New Persian (since the 9th century AD) has absorbed thousands of Arabic loanwords; Arabic is the main source of learned, legal, and technical vocabulary in Persian as are Latin, Greek, and French for English.

Arabic in its turn has taken on many Persian loanwords, including some of the basic terminology of the Islamic religion, like dîn ‘religion’. The formula of the Qur’ân “In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Merciful” closely resembles a similar formula used in the ancient Zoroastrian faith, and the Islamic concept of the bridge sirât to the afterlife (which becomes wide and easy to cross for the righteous, narrow like a razor’s edge for the wicked) is exactly that of the Zoroastrian bridge chinvat.

The Persians and the Arabs have a long history together going back thousands of years; ancient Persia colonized several Arab lands in its empire, including Iraq (remember the Book of Esther?), Yemen, and Egypt. When Islam arose it rapidly extinguished the decrepit Sassanid empire of Persia and took the ascendant, but ultimately the whole Islamic world was vastly enriched by the fusion of Arab Islam and Persian civilization. I think this is the much more positive side of their complex relationship, and is ultimately more important than the petty ethnic and nationalistic rivalry between them in today’s headlines.

Oh, and no discussion of Iraq and Iran would be complete without noting that Mesopotamia was part of the Persian Empire for about a thousand years. From Cyrus (530 BC) until Alexander (331 BC) and again from Parthian rule (141 BC) until the Arabs arrived (AD 635) — that’s 975 years total (except that Rome held it for 2 years, from AD 115-117). So Iraq was under Iranian rule for more than 4 times as long as the United States has existed, to give it some perspective. Continuing throughout the Islamic period, Persian culture has influenced Iraq more than any other part of the Arab world. The ‘Abbasid Caliphate at Baghdad was considered to be a state built on a Persian model of governance that had previously been unknown in the Arab world. The Persian empire had also maintained Arabian client states on the periphery since ancient times.

I didn’t ask the question but I am most grateful for the answer.

What is Iran’s non-Arabness even relevant? GWB has been careful not to condemn Arab nations but (so-called) evil nations.

I’m just curious what point the original journalist was trying to make. That not all evil people (according to GWB) are Arabic? Duh.

Why is Iran called that, rather than some variant on Persia or Farsi?

It’s relevant because Iran was included with Iraq in that asinine “axis of evil” nonsense, and Iran points out that it has nothing in common with either nation. While Iran and Iraq are both dominated by Islam, Iran wants to emphasize that Iranians are not Arabs (as if it matters).

Short answer is post-colonial politics, long answer is that it is more accurate.

Persia is a Greek corruption of Fars, the southwestern quarter of modern Iran which was the “original” ( i.e. once they had settled in the region ) homeland of the tribe or tribal confederation that became, specifically, the Achaemenid-ruled Persians. So the Persians were the people of Persia in that strict sense of the province of Fars. But “Persian” became conflated with the much larger area of the core of the Persian Empire and a wider group of related Indo-Iranian language-speaking peoples, which in classical times had been considered separate, like the Medes ( province = Media Atropatene in Seleucid times, today’s Azerbaijan ). Rightfully so ( if perhaps very technically inaccurate ), really, as the “Persians” eventually culturally and politically amalgamated with/absorbed, at least partially so, those related peoples.

Iran, on the other hand, derives from the same root as the word Aryan ( Iran, I believe = ‘land of the Aryans’ ) and more accurately describes the wider ethno-geographic region. Iran was the word in use by the actual inhabitants of the region from the Achaemenid period on.

The name change came about in the 1930’s for political reasons, in part as an assertion of national pride and independance from the west ( Persia, though technically never colonized, had been reduced to a near-dependancy of Britain and Russia ).

  • Tamerlane