I’m sorry, but to ignore the separate ethnic groups inside Iran strikes me as optimistic at best, unrealistic at worst. To do so can create a distorted view of the situation. Imagine trying to understand the status on the ground in Turkey, while pretending that Kurds were Turks. Or the complexities of Afghanistan, while ignoring the heavy regional differences and just assuming that Afghanis were all Pashtuns.
Iran may have held territories in the west and east for centuries, may consider these lands to be an integral part of the nation, but often the decrees of governments and feelings of majority ethnic groups are ignored by the residents of such regions. Russia held what is now the modern Ukraine since the 1600s, but that didn’t stop separatist movements, even armed ones, from arising. And today, the Ukraine is now an independent country. Bulgaria was once considered a part of the heartland of the Ottoman Empire, and had been held for centuries. And yet again, we see various separatist groups eventually gaining strength, and leading armed revolts, before gaining independence (though only through the intervention of a foreign power).
My point is, just because territory has been held for long periods of time, does not mean that the people residing there will see themselves as being a part of the government of the nation or people they are now a part of. The ever changing map of much of the world bears ample testament to this fact. There are significant Kurdish and Baloch ethnic minorities inside Iran, and these groups are not fully satisfied with being a part of Iran. Widespread armed separatist movements have been ongoing for years (decades even) in these regions, and they have a significant amount of popular support.
As for your example, I think that it doesn’t work on several levels - first, “American”, no matter how many people may wish it, isn’t an ethnic group. Second, the United States is not founded on the concept of ethnic nationalism like most nations. And while the modern Iranian state, growing from historic Persia, wasn’t explicitly a country founded on that notion either, the sense that Iran is seen as the country of the Iranian people has pervaded it. Persianization efforts have existed since the early 1900s under the Shahs. And third, there are no major, violent separatist movements in the US that exist across ethnic lines. I don’t know of many Scotch-Irish running around the mountains, planting roadside bombs, and advocating for an independent Republic of Appalachia, or Inuit blowing up Air Force radar stations and calling for a Free Inuit state for their brothers across the border in Canada to join.
>>>”I’m sorry, but to ignore the separate ethnic groups inside Iran strikes me as optimistic at best, unrealistic at worst. To do so can create a distorted view of the situation.”<<<
I am not being optimistic. You are being unrealistic - am sorry.
>>>”Imagine trying to understand the status on the ground in Turkey, while pretending that Kurds were Turks. Or the complexities of Afghanistan, while ignoring the heavy regional differences and just assuming that Afghanis were all Pashtuns.”<<<
Turkey, Afghanistan, et al, are not comparable to Iran, historically, or to present day. That’s your uninformed, theoretical opinion. Am sorry.
>>>” Russia held what is now the modern Ukraine since the 1600s, but that didn’t stop separatist movements, even armed ones, from arising. And today, the Ukraine is now an independent country. Bulgaria was once considered a part of the heartland of the Ottoman Empire, and had been held for centuries. And yet again, we see various separatist groups eventually gaining strength, and leading armed revolts, before gaining independence (though only through the intervention of a foreign power).”<<<
Again, no comparison between Iran, Russia, Ukraine, and the so-called “Eastern Bloc”. In many respects. Nor Ottoman Empire.
The people who think in a similar fashion as you do, regarding Iran, are dime a dozen - don’t take it personally.
I presume you are an Anglo-Celtic American, who reads so-called history, online or in books, and draws conclusions, based on theory & what is disseminated? Perhaps you have a few Iranian “friends”, or spent some time on the field?
I repeat no comparison between the countries & cultures you mentioned in the quotes above, and Iran.
>>>”My point is, just because territory has been held for long periods of time, does not mean that the people residing there will see themselves as being a part of the government of the nation or people they are now a part of.”M<<<
Your point is taken. No, Many “People” do Not see themselves as part of the “government” in the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI), including Balouchi, Kurd, or Azaris etc...
And, there are a few separatist movements in Iran that the US likes to feed, every now & then, since well before the Khonmeinist regime in 1979.
However, the issue is the present day Islamic government in Iran, not Iran or the Iranians.
Am sorry, but the majority of the above mentioned Ethnic Groups see themselves as IRANIANS, regardless of the Mullahs’ Regime.
>>>”Widespread armed separatist movements have been ongoing for years (decades even) in these regions, and they have a significant amount of popular support.”<<<
“Widespread armed *separatist* movements” is INCORRECT - CATEGORICALLY.
However, you may wish it to be - note the distinctions. Do tell where you get your information from?!
>>>”first, “American”, no matter how many people may wish it, isn’t an ethnic group. Second, the United States is not founded on the concept of ethnic nationalism like most nations.”<<<
The USA is a country comprising of multitude of ETHNIC GROUPS. The USA constitution is, am afraid, somewhat irrelevant in this context.
And, the USA constitution is most relevant as it stood back in 1776, when the USA was breaking away from its colonial heritage i.e. Britain & Monarchy.
Like it or not, Ethnic Grps, since 1776, make up the cultural makeup of the USA. It is a fact. IOW, the USA exceptionalism is becoming increasingly today & irrelevant in this context.
Take a good look at the USA. That’s why the USA had so many problems with the ETHNIC Indians - Blacks, imported from other parts of the world (Africa to begin with), over the years; Hispanics, etc.. and then there were the Japs (Japanese) the USA monitored during WW2, even those born in the USA.
>>>”And while the modern Iranian state, growing from historic Persia, wasn’t explicitly a country founded on that notion either, the sense that Iran is seen as the country of the Iranian people has pervaded it. Persianization efforts have existed since the early 1900s under the Shahs.”<<<
Really?! Sorry, but you ought to read history, THOROUGHLY - both American & Iranian (Persia included) more accurately, and not be so selective about your assertions.
“Since 1900s, since the Shahs” & Persianization, is absolutely ludicrous. The so-called ‘Persianization’ came about more than 2000 years ago, in Iran. The USA did not exist then.
>>>”And third, there are no major, violent separatist movements in the US that exist across ethnic lines. I don’t know of many Scotch-Irish running around the mountains, planting roadside bombs, and advocating for an independent Republic of Appalachia, or Inuit blowing up Air Force radar stations and calling for a Free Inuit state for their brothers across the border in Canada to join.”<<<
As I said, the USA has only a history of just over 200 years ago. As it stands, it has gotten worse in the last several yrs in the USA, itself.
To be obvious, I didn’t see any major world-events in Iran in the previous decade, for your point.
BUT, in 2001, we all saw a terrible event: the attack on the USA, NY (major hub of financial and otherwise location) in the USA.
You may not regard the above as a “violent, separatist movement in the US”. However, it was a major violent and Yes, in a sense, a separatist movement.
And, am not so sure, it was purely an “Islamic event”.
At any rate, there are more than ever “Islamic movements” in the USA since.
Just because there hasn’t been one more catastrophic event since then in the USA itself, as was so widely disseminated in 2001, don’t think there won’t be one.
hmmm... I agree with Jersey’s first paragaph of not ignoring the separate ethnic groups. however, JE, note that most of those ethnic groups (except the Armenians, Georgians, Arabs and Turks) consider themselves Irani (but not Persian). I don’t think the Persians are a majority either.
That's not true for any of the groups except the Arabs. the Baluchis somewhat, but there is no deep ignorance of them as opposed to what the Punjabis do to the Baluchis in Pakistan controlled Baluchistan.
In fact the two are different from each other. ukraine contains the cradle of Eastern Slavic civilisation, the Kievan Rus states which also spread over what is now Belarus and western Russia. Muscowy (which became Russia) claimed to re-gather the Rus lands after the Mongol invasion. However, while Muscowy was doing that, the Lithuanians conquered western Ukraine and Belarus and then lithuania joined with Poland, hence setting the stage for the Muscowy-Polish feud.
Bulgaria was conquered by the Ottomans, who no longer exist. Bulgaria is a successor state almost as much as modern day Turkey is.