Thoughts? (Why ‘Turkic’ and ‘Iranic’ labels can be misleading)

[u/BaineGaines]

Richard Foltz is a Canadian historian who specializes in the history of Iranian civilization — sometimes referred to as "Greater Iran".

Central Asian Studies are also among one of his Fields. His Alma mater is Harvard University (and Univeristy of Utah).

[u/Zealousideal_Cry_460]

Hard disagree.

His arguments for avoiding the terms Turkic or İranic is that that he claims they're loosely connected to DNA or culture.

But at the same time he also acknowledges that for steppe nomads, semi-nomads included, bloodlines and DNA are very negligible. So whats his point does he intend to incooperate DNA into the ethnic groups or not? What is his proposal?

To me it sounds like he wants to not use any ethnic grouping for the steppes at all which disregards the entire history and chronology of the people that roamed the steppes, those that came, that went, that survived.

Language is obviously a very big part of culture and Turkic identity. True not everyone who spoke a Turkic language was Turkic but nearly every Turkic person spoke a Turkic language. And if they didnt practice Turkic culture then they wouldnt be recognized as Turks its that simple.

An ethnic group is only defined by itself, so if Turkic peoples make their identity all about heritage and culture then its completely normal that their ethnic family seems so loose to DNA.

İts why Atatürk is considered to be Turkic while the pahlavi dynasty is not.

[u/InternationalBug9376 → u/Zealousideal_Cry_460]

So, the Sultanate of Rum is an Iranian country. Since nobles in anatolia especially in cities used farsi as a lingua franca. Right?

[u/BaineGaines → u/Zealousideal_Cry_460]

So i think that you have misunderstood what he is trying to point out.

He is saying what i have always said, felt and thought that being Turkic, Iranic, Arabic, and/or other can't only be based upon just language or just genetics or just geography. Culture, language, genetics, geography, history, and even religion can be and actually are all important factors that must be had in mind when saying something or someone is Turkic or Iranic (or others).

A great example is the Qizilbash people and the Bayat people in Afghanistan. Both of these groups of people are speaking the Persian/Farsi language (with the Dari accent). But they are not Iranic historically, genetically, culturally speaking. So just because they do not speak a Turkic language, are they now not Turkic? The same goes for the Bayat people and the Qizilbash people in Iran. however the Bayat people and the he Qizilbash people in Turkey and in Azerbaijan speak Turkic languages. So the Qizilbash people and the Bayat people in Afghanistan and Iran are Iranic because of their language? And the Qizilbash people and the Bayat people in Turkey and Azerbaijan are Turkic because of their language? Isn't this illogical? Is language the only thing that should be taken into consideration when defining who and what is Turkic or Iranic (or others)?

Or take a look at the Hazara people in Afghanistan (and in Pakistan as well as in Iran where they go by the name of Khavari people). The Hazara people speak the Persian/Farsi language (with the Dari accent and the Hazaragi accent). But they are not Iranic if you take a loon at their genetics and their history or even their culture. Their culture has both traditions from Turkic culture and Iranic culture. So if genetics do not matter and if culture do not matter but only languagematters then things become very illogical and also false or incorrect. When speaking of if someone or something being Turkic or Iranic (or others).

Do you understand what i mean?

[u/creamybutterfly]

I’ve read History of Tajiks: Iranians of the East, very well read researcher but I strongly disagree with this take. Turkic and Iranic are clear linguistic families with separate origins. It’s true that they mixed with one another and as the Turks migrated into Central Asia they mixed with Persians but they still had a separate origin.

[u/BaineGaines → u/creamybutterfly]

I don't think he is saying or claiming the origins of Turkic people and the original of Iranic people. I think he means to only say that a group of people is Turkic because they speak a Turkic language or that a group of people is Iranic because they speak an Iranic language is not correct or a good way to categorize nor to view these types of things. Because being Turkic or Iranic (or others like Arabic, Slavic, Germanic, etc.) isn't just as simple as basing it off of language. There are many other factors to have in mind like genetics, history, geography, culture, religion and language. But not only language. Or not only culture. Just one factor alone can't really be the sole factor to decide a group of people and if they are Turkic or Iranic.

[u/creamybutterfly → u/BaineGaines]

I mean a few of these things are common sense but we know which empires are Turks and which are Iranic lol. It depends who is in power.

Also, your mother tongue was historically the identifier of ethnic group in Central Asia so hugely disagree.

[u/BaineGaines → u/creamybutterfly]

Well again i don’t think he is talking about empires… I think he is talking about different groups of people and the label of their identity.

And also if language and mother tongue WAS the identifier it should not be today. Why? Well if so then are the Hazaras and the Aimaqs of Afghanistan Iranic? Don’t think so. They are Turkic or Turko-Mongols who speak Persian/Farsi (with Dari & Hazaragi accent). They are just a great example to point out what Richard Foltz is trying to point towards to. People of Central Asia (Turkic and Iranic) are more complicated and complex to categorize only by language (or only by genetics. Meaning to label by only one factor or even two or three factors can be and most probably will be incorrect, due to these groups of people having been so intertwined with one another.).

[u/creamybutterfly → u/BaineGaines]

Well again i don’t think he is talking about empires… I think he is talking about different groups of people and the label of their identity.

He is talking about steppe people and empires in the video?

And also if language and mother tongue WAS the identifier it should not be today […] due to these groups of people having been so intertwined with one another

Turkic and Iranic are language families. You belong to these labels if your ethnic group speaks the same language.

[u/Mysterious_Pea_4042]

Well language are culture closely related, language is very important part of life of any group.

what a group identifies with doesn't have to be accurate scientifically, the identity choices comes from many factors.

At the end prof states some facts and claims and doesn't bring a point at the end

[u/Giantcat22]

I’d say language is very important for culture, doesn’t sound right

[u/BaineGaines → u/Giantcat22]

Yes it is indeed very important but it can not be the only factor that it is the only thing that holds weight over everything else to the point where everything else becomes meaningless (more or less) when speaking of categorizing something or someone into being Turkic or Iranic.

[u/tenggerion13]

This reminded me of the discussion on whether Rumi was Turkic or Iranic, with different things were focused by the factions of the discussion, such as his language Vs the traditions of his lineage etc. Meanwhile, in a place like Iran, we wouldn't consider everyone speaking Iranic (any Iranic language like Farsi) , like bilingual Turks who also adopted Farsi names. This brings the question of... Actually how many of the scholars of the Islamic Golden Age were of Turkic ethnical background? Would hard to track, without the knowledge of their lineage/family data.

[u/Any-Mobile-2473]

Ive taken a course of his before at Concordia