I know many of you are dying to hear my opinion on current events, well, your wish is granted. I post over at Nation Building about the current conflict in the Middle East (sort of). I am only tangentially interested in this topic because I'm not ignorant and I am of the opinion that most Americans are, otherwise sentences like this wouldn't be published in a major opinion magazine:
Iran's diverse population should be fertile ground for a covert operation. Iran is only 51 percent Persian. Azerbaijanis and Kurds comprise nearly 35 percent of the population. Seventy percent are under 30, and the jobless rate hovers near 20 percent.
The current Supreme Leader of Iran is an ethnic Azeri. Azeris are prominent in the military and in business. They are likely overrepresented in the clerical caste. The original capital of the Safavids, the dynasty which created the modern Shia identity of Iran 500 years ago, was in Tabriz, in the heart of Azeri country. The rulers of Iran up until the 20th century were usually Turkic, and could be argued to have been Azeri. I will admit I don't know much about the details right now, but when I see blatantly implausible contentions being thrown out there, I smell something rotten....
(see Sons of the Conquerors: The Rise of the Turkic World, for a general sense of how well integrated Azeris are into Iranian life today)
- Log in to post comments
i'll just plug "Canfield's Turko-Persia in Historical Perspective" again. As late as the Eighteenth Century the whole belt from the Ottaman Empire through Persia and Central Asia down to Mughal India was dominated by the Turko-Persian political culture. Persian was the prestige language but was always a living language, and Turkish was often the language both of the commoners and the rulers. Bilingualism was widespread, as was intermarriage, but neither language disappeared (though Turkish gained somewhat against Persian over a 1500-year period.
The XIXc idea of nation or race was based on one-language one-people, but this principle is impossible to apply in an area of widespread bilingualism and biculturalism. The divisions in this area have mostly been between political-military units dominated by clans whose "nationality" is often incertain.
in the mughal empire the turkic influence was military. but the bureaucrats were often persian. and yes, persian was the court language. persian wuz 2 turkish as french wuz 2 german in the court of frederick the great.
Last I heard, thirty percent of Scots want out of the United Kingdom. (This, by the way, is about the percent of English who want the Scots out of the United Kingdom). Plenty of Quebecers want an independent Quebec. Given massive transfer payments from the central governement, in both cases independence would be economically lousy. Scots and Quebecers also hold disproportionate political influence over their respective nations.
Provoking Azeris against Persians (or Persians against Azeris -- look at how they are hogging the best jobs!) may be difficult, but I guess I attach a higher barrier to "implausible" than you do. Kurds and Arabs offer better opportunities.
There is a lot of wishful thinking going around. Hard to blame people, since all likely options are so awful.
It's dated, but I thought that Graham Fuller's 'The "Center of the Universe": The Geopolitics of Iran' was kind of fun.
in the mughal empire the turkic influence was military. but the bureaucrats were often persian.
What about all those things I read about Rajput princes as generals and Brahmins as ministers?
Provoking Azeris against Persians (or Persians against Azeris -- look at how they are hogging the best jobs!) may be difficult, but I guess I attach a higher barrier to "implausible" than you do. Kurds and Arabs offer better opportunities.
you analogies are very unapt. scots had a long period of independence as a separate nation, and the act of union was not uncontroversial. as for quebec, 1) there is no great surprise there is resentment given the history of discrimination that they suffered 2) i'm pretty sure you are wrong about 'balance of payments' in the case of quebec. it is the anglophone altantic provinces and to a lesser extent the prarries provinces which suck up federal revenue from what i recall. in the scottish case union was obviously pretty beneficial for a variety of reasons for the economic classes. in quebec, the francophones had no choice, they were a conquered people.
now, let's compare the situation to the azeris
1) there is a small azeri nation next door, which is poorer than they are (3 times as many azeris live in iran as in the nation-state with that name).
2) the azeris dominate the military, the current de facto head of state is an azeri ethnically, as is the head of the revolutionary guards.
3) historically azeris and their affinal turks dominated the temporal posts in the state, and it can be argued that they founded the modern nation of iran bounded with its current geography united by a shia religion.
as john noted, the concept of ethnicity in this case is also rather fuzzy (though one could say this of the scots, and the quebecois, like the afrikaners, actually assimilated many elements). but let's ignore that, you say: "but I guess I attach a higher barrier to "implausible" than you do." well, let me ask you, do you really know much about the history of iran to make an analogy between scotland and quebec, or are you going off your superficial knowledge of names to get to a general perception of what the barrier of "implausible" is? now, i'm not actually that interested in foreign policy, my main inclination is that we spend as little money as possible, but as long as science gets funded i don't care that much, but, i am offering that i suspect i know enough that this 'azeri' ploy is a bullshit move. you express skepticism...my own impression is that you've read my blog (the other one) long enough to know that i generally am cautious about making assertions if i haven't done some homework on it. but, you obviously weigh your own opinion highly and make an equvalence. this is fundamentally part of the problem, no one needs to know anything, just a few hand-waving arguments at historical analogies based on the perceptions funneled through names (e.g., azeris are an ethnicity, scots are an ethnicity, ergo). i'm making the assumption you aren't very well versed in iranian history (i'm not either, bu compared to most people who feel like they can offer an opinion in the blogosphere i dont' think i'm that bad off), if i'm wrong, that's fine, let's have a discussion, i'm willing to be convinced. otherwise, i think you've proven my overall point, there is no point in having knowledge, the post modernists are right, everything is opinion.
What about all those things I read about Rajput princes as generals and Brahmins as ministers?
more important later. the quota for rajputs in the military was slowly raised from 20% on up. but the majority were still turks and "pashtuns" (i think the latter is a catchall for non-turkic muslims in the military of foreign origin).
but the majority were still turks
In Karnataka, all Urdu speaking muslims were collectively known as Turks(Turuka). But the ruling class (Bahmani and later Shahi) were Persians. Did Azeris once they move out of Persia/Iran identify themselves as Turks?
Did Azeris once they move out of Persia/Iran identify themselves as Turks?
ethnic divisions for turkish peoples in the way we have them now are rather new. e.g., the soviets created a lot of the divisions you see now in central asia. my understanding is that 'turki' is mutually intelligible from turkey to xinjiang.
so they probably didn't identify themselves as azeri, but by tribe or provenance.
The neo-con spin here is the exact opposite of the non-admittance of ethnic and sectarian issues in the buildup to the war in Iraq, a country with little history as a nation, unlike Iran\Persia. Faced with a country which is far more robust and uniform they are convinced ( or "convinced") that it will fall apart like so much dust ( besides the "ethnic" issue they latch onto - with childlike glee - any possible evidence of dissent; a minor bus strike here, a student protest here. All these goups will rally behind their country in time of war).
Of course, even if Scotland had a long history as an independent nation the Scots would side with England in any invasion of the Island of Great Britain.Cant see the Azeris breaking ranks.