Where Did Turks Come From?

[Gino]

OKAY, then show me encyclopedia maps that include Artsakh as part of historical Azerbaijan.

Why?

[hagopn]

And one more thing. I prefer to use encyclopedia rather than rely on some dubious analysise. For you only language defines a nation, and that is completely inaccurate.

Ironically, the anomaly of "depending on language" seems to be the fault of "Azeris" with their pro-Turkish stance on all issues Armenian, and Turkish Republican leaders whose stance on everything in the region is anti-Armenian and pro-Azeri.

 

You are slowly yielding to one reality, that "The culture" (but which culture?) "evolved on that land." Fine, so did the Talesh, the Uti, are they all of the sudden "not Azeri?" Why not? Why is the "Azeri State" a "Turkic" state?

[Teutonic Knight]

I never said anything of this.

Seems like you don't know what you're saying. What are you saying again?

Once again, there was never an Azerbaijani state or "people" prior to the 19th century.

[Gino]

I prefer that you do not use quotation marks in the word Azeri. First of all that is an insult. Secondly, they are offically called like that and refer to themselves like that. "I know the truth is hard to swallow, but you have to do it sometimes."

///Why is the "Azeri State" a "Turkic" state? ///

Azerbaijan is a state with a majority of Turkic-speaking population. Why is Iran a Persian state, although Azeris are 24% of its population, not counting Kurds, Baluchis, Turkmen, Lurs and Bakhtiars?

Edited January 18, 2004 by Gino

[Gino]

///Seems like you don't know what you're saying. ///

Seems like you are reading what others say.

I never claimed Azeris are straight descendents of peoples of Atropatene. And I won't give any answer to you until you learn how to spell Azeri properly.

[Teutonic Knight]

///Seems like you don't know what you're saying. ///

Seems like you are reading what others say.

I never claimed Azeris are straight descendents of peoples of Atropatene. And I won't give any answer to you until you learn how to spell Azeri properly.

But there are no such peoples as "Azeri" how can you spell something which does not exist properly?

 

AzVeris are the reult of the Soviet-Turko love affair.

 

It's not just the mythical "Azeris", the same mythical creatures appeared in Central Asia.

 

Historically Iranian-speaking, Zoroastrian Indo-Europeans occupied all Central Asia up to the borders with Siberia and Altay, where turks dwelled.

 

By mid-centuries Indo-European Zoroastrian civilizations of Central Asia were first converted to Islam by Arab Khalifs and then physically destroyed through series of genocides (favorite mean) by invading turks. Remeber the high towers built of human skulls in Khiva, Bukhara, Samarkand, Mashad? The masterpice of turkish art by Genghis-Khan and Lengh-Timur.

 

The only Indo-European, iranian-speaking muslim nation of Central Asia, that still remains, are Tajiks.

 

The long-standing soviet(jew)-turk love affair resulted in Tajiks not having their separate republic in USSR until 1930s. They were just an autonomous province of Uzbekistan, just like autonomous republic of Artsax in Soviet Azerbaijan.

 

Uzbeks themselves are, again, the typical children of Soviet-Turkish marriage. Before 1920s they did not have such a nick as Uzbeks. They, just like Azeris, were merely called by Russians as "turks" or "tatars" or "turkomans" - all words indicating the same racial origin. In this respect, Uzbeks and Turkmens (residents of Central Asian state of Turkmenistan) are the same nation, artificially separated by Soviets.

 

Another Soviet experiment in Central Asia was the creation of Kyrgiz nation and Kyrgis SSR (todays Kyrgizstan). What Kyrgizs really were is just a different linguistic dialect of Kazakhs.

 

Therefore, as a result of experimentation, 5 different nations were created by Soviets in central Asia in order to control the area and multiply the turkish presence versus Indo-European heritage - TURKIK: Kazakhs, Kyrgizs (this two are same), Uzbeks, Turkmens (this two are also same), and INDO-EUROPEAn: Tajiks, as the only remnants of old Indo-Aryan civilization. Noteworthy, in Pamir, where mountain altitude reaches 4-5 thousand meters above the sea with no turkish historical presence recorded, Tajiks are almost all shaten or blonde with brown or blue eyes.

 

In todays Uzbekistan in the encient oasises of Bukhara and Samarkand, where Zoroastrian civilization once flourished, half-assimilated Tajiks still dominate the population. But, as far as I am informed, their assimilation was the general course of old Soviet and today's Uzbek policy.

 

The following is taken from:

 

http://www.geocities.com/ethnics_of_central_asia/

 

<"For a variety of reasons the designers of the Soviet "national delimitation" in Central Asia discriminated against the Tajiks, having deprived the newly formed republic of Tajikistan of the two most important centers of Tajik urban culture, Bukhara and Samarkand , as well as regions of Fergana, Surhandarya and Khwrazm which were awarded to Uzbekistan. The majority of population in Uzbekistan are Tajiks. In the words of William Beeman, professor of anthropology at Brown University: "The Tajik situation in some ways resembles that of post-colonial Africa. Tajiks have been given an impossible piece of territory with disparate population and have been forced to make a nation out of it.

 

The majority of Tajiks live outside border of what is known as Tajikistan today.The largest number of Tajiks are living in Uzbekistan, where the majority of Tajiks are forced to be registered as Uzbeks (the Tajiks on the official Uzbeki data, make about 4% of the population of this republic), but the real number of Tajiks living in Uzbekistan believed to be over 50 percent (11-14 millions) of the population.">

 

 

Sounds familiar?

[Gino]

You have no right to insult the entire nation by those stupid words you create. If you do not understand this you're more like "zver" yourself.

[hagopn]

Nowadays the ethnic group of Qajars, where the dynasty originated from, is considered Azeri. Moreover, Qajars considered themselves as Qyzylbashis, which is the same thing as Azeri. See: http://www.ethnologue.com/show_iso639.asp?code=aze

 

This is mere recategorization in the modern sense. Qyzylbashi was an adjective, and was never used in reference to a specific cultural group.

 

I would say Armenians had no ethno-natinal characteristics because in 10th-11th century they had small kingdoms of Ani, Bagratuni, Zakaruni, Rubenuni, etc.

 

Of course they did have ethno-national characteristics. They referred to themselves as Armenians, and were of the Armenian community at large. Their political delineations were of no consequence and never did influence their self-identification as a national group.

 

What is "kingdom of Bagratuni, Ani, Zakaruni"? There have been isolated principalities due to the dire geopolitical situation in which Byzantine and later Ottoman interventionism played a major part, but no willingly "ethno-national" divisions occurred. The Armenians never ceased to identify with other Armenians as conatiionals.

 

In contrast, the Turkic traibal groups never even associated themselves or identified themselves with competing Turkic entities. The Ottomans are the best example, and they were considered the mortal enemies if the Shi'a Azeris, and I mean Azeri in reference to all the ethnicities that comprised the Shi'a community.

 

Then how come Kurds stayed Sunnis?

 

A large portion of the Kurds in the Kermanshah region in Iran are Shi'a, and the Kurds in the Caucasus were associated with the Ottoman Kurds due to their geographical proximity, and, having been pastoral nomads, the Sunni Kurds migrated to the Azerbaijan territory but retained their Sunni religious ties due to their exclusionist tribal customs. But the urbanized and pastoral Kurds in Kermanshah and Azerbaijan did assume the Shi'a religion.

 

I know, that's really sad. As for me, I think Turkey should still support Azerbaijan, but the support should not appear as assimilation.

 

Really? Why should the Sunni Turkey, whose "national identity" developed so very independently from that of Shi'a Azerbaijan support Azerbaijan? Why should it care? You repeatedly state that "Azeris are a distinct cultural identity that developed in Azerbaijan, and are a result of the total cultural legacy of that land"

 

Right, then why should Turkey care about Azerbaijan? Why should it make double-standards against Armenians?

 

It is not documented. And I can give you links to plenty of documents proving Dashnaks massacring civil Azeri population.

 

I am sure you can, friend, as Azeris have been manufacturing hsitory for a long time. Azeris claim that they have never had any participation in the Pan-Turkism of Ottoman fascists, but many prominent names in the Ittihad are of "Azeri" Turkic origins. The Musavat's utter zeal in arming the Turkic villages in Artsax and Zangezur is also well documented. The Musavat's cooperation with Kara-Bekir's forces in annihiliating Armenians in Baku and vicinity is also well documented. You are living in fantasyland, and you are increasingly being exposed as a mere Azeri fascist.

 

Elcibey (1992-94) was the last president to support pan-Turkism as a national ideology. Aliyev was against it, that's why there weren't and aren't prerequisites for both countries to unite, and that's why Turks supported Elcibey more that they did to Aliyev. The period of pan-Turkism in Azerbaijan has passed, let's hope forever.

 

Right, Elcibey is the last fool to outwardly expose the actual fascist agenda of the so-called "Monolithic Turkic Azeri State," the Modus Operandi of proclaiming Turkic hegemony has never changed.

 

The period of Pan-Turkism in Azeribaijan will only pass once the Azeri Turks, not the Azeris in general, but the Azeri Turks begin to honestly examine their complete history without the pan-Turkist influenced anti-Armenian ideology that is still dominating their academic world, at least their historiography.

 

You are perfect proof of that. There is no shame in being a new nation, as the Azeris are, and there is no problem with having multi-ethnic and multi-cultural background as a state. When I state that fact, I don't mean that the state of Azerbaijan is null and void. I merely say that the Azeri Turks are being dishonest with themselves by pretending that only ONE culture sprouted in the totality of the region called Azerbaijan.

Edited January 18, 2004 by hagopn

[Gino]

///This is mere recategorization in the modern sense. Qyzylbashi was an adjective, and was never used in reference to a specific cultural group.///

That's a lie and I already explained why. You have no idea of who Qyzylbashis are but still want to prove something to me.

///Of course they did have ethno-national characteristics. They referred to themselves as Armenians, and were of the Armenian community at large.///

Most of the khans in 18th century (except for those who came from central Asia) also referred to them as Qyzylbashis.

///A large portion of the Kurds in the Kermanshah region in Iran are Shi'a, [...]. But the urbanized and pastoral Kurds in Kermanshah and Azerbaijan did assume the Shi'a religion.///

Shi'as are only those who live in Azerbaijan. Kurds of Armenia are Yezidis. The rest are Sunnies (probably what you're talking about is a small Shi'a community).

///Really? Why should the Sunni Turkey, whose "national identity" developed so very independently from that of Shi'a Azerbaijan support Azerbaijan? Why should it care? You repeatedly state that "Azeris are a distinct cultural identity that developed in Azerbaijan, and are a result of the total cultural legacy of that land"///

So you think, political unions and economical & military support should be based on smilar ethnogenesis and history? Then I'm not surprised why Armenia has never had any allies.

///The period of Pan-Turkism in Azeribaijan will only pass once the Azeri Turks///

Azeris are not Turks. "Azeri Turk" is not even a histocally-correct name (consists of two words that are not connected to each other). Azeri is a name of a separate nation which was formed in the 12th century according to all sources except for Armenian. It's time for the Armenian academy to stop making stereotypes of their enemies considering them all "turqer" (Turks, Azeris, Caucasian Kurds, Talyshis, etc.). "I know the truth is hard to swallow, but you have to do it sometimes."

Edited January 18, 2004 by Gino

[hagopn]

I prefer that you do not use quotation marks in the word Azeri. First of all that is an insult. Secondly, they are offically called like that and refer to themselves like that. "I know the truth is hard to swallow, but you have to do it sometimes."

///Why is the "Azeri State" a "Turkic" state? ///

Azerbaijan is a state with a majority of Turkic-speaking population. Why is Iran a Persian state, although Azeris are 24% of its population, not counting Kurds, Baluchis, Turkmen, Lurs and Bakhtiars?

Why is the "Azeri" Turkic identity supposed to supplant the totality of the Azeris that have lived in that land?

 

Iranians never made claims otherwise, and Iranians never make the claim of a "Persian state." They say that Turkic tribes, Turkish people, Kurds, Arabs, Mongols, Baluchi, Pasthu, Tajik, and so on live on their land. "Iranians" therefore rarely try to force upon their populations a single identity. The Azeri state is a genocidalist state on the same Turkish Republican mode where minority populations are denied the name Azeri, which is preposterous considering the fact that most have been there long before the Turkic tribes ever stepped foot on there.

 

The Armenians are case in point, as there had always been Armenians communities in all areas of Atropatene, but today Azeris deny that with all their revisionist might. Yes, the current Azeri cultural milieu has a large Armenian element to it, but you could not convince that to the modern Turko-fascist Turkic Azeri.

 

Armenians were thrown out of the country due to their national identity, but their citizenship was irrelevant. They were butchered and set aflame. The other minorities also suffer the same fate. Iranian authorities do impose a state language of Farsi, but there has not been any documented proof of ethnic cleansing in Iran.

[Gino]

///They say that Turkic tribes, Turkish people, Kurds, Arabs, Mongols, Baluchi, Pasthu, Tajik, and so on live on their land. ///

That is what you say, not the Persians. In all official census papers the word "Azeri" or "Azerbaijani" always appered and still does whatsoever. Turkic tribes... ha-ha.

And the thing that they do not allow neither Azeris, nor Kurds study in their own language - isn't that a linguo-cultural genocide? But do not tell me, that Azeris do not want to do so, I will be laughing for a long time if you say that.

///The other minorities also suffer the same fate. ///

That's another lie. Armenians synthetically create and puff up the never taken place problems of "poor Talyshis", "poor Lezgis", "poor Tats", etc. in order to prove "the existence of fascism" in Azerbaijan, whereas unlike Armenia Azerbaijan and its people have always been tolerant towards people of other origins, race, languages, or religions. And everyone knows that the pogroms in Sumgait and Baku started because of Armenian SSR's motiveless claims on Nagorno-Artsax and not because Armenians were so good and Azeris were so bad to start torturing them with no reason.

Edited January 18, 2004 by Gino

[Vigil]

Hagopn thank you for your insight

 

It still does not explain why the historians create a double standard for Armenian History? Why must we prove beyond a resonable doubt that we are Urartu in origin?

Edited May 31, 2004 by Vigil

[Gino]

You do not have to prove what has already been proven. And what has been proven is that Urartians were not of Turkic origin.

[hagopn]

///This is mere recategorization in the modern sense. Qyzylbashi was an adjective, and was never used in reference to a specific cultural group.///

That's a lie and I already explained why. You have no idea of who Qyzylbashis are but still want to prove something to me.

 

No, it's a fact.

 

///Of course they did have ethno-national characteristics. They referred to themselves as Armenians, and were of the Armenian community at large.///

Most of the khans in 18th century (except for those who came from central Asia) also refered to them as Qyzylbashis.

 

Most of what Khans referred to whom as "Qyzylbashi?" There were some tribes that were loosely named "Qyzylbashi" due to the red caps or headsets that they wore, but they hardly had anything to do with the sedentary (or pastoral) Turkic peoples of Azerbaijan. They did not even have similar language to the present day Azeri. Jivanshir Shah, the Afghan who had brief rule in Iran, and his exploits involving the mercenary role of the various Qyzybashi tribes was recorded only by the Armenian chronicler Movses Kaghnakatvetsi. Kaghankatvetsi goes into grueling and unemtional detail on the chronology of Turkifcation of the various cultures that were in that land. He goes into more detail about the other non-Turkic tribes and how they were used to displace the Albanians and Armenians of the region, but that is not a matter of debate as of yet. I just wanted to illustrate that there are historical sources that describe in detail what happened in that era

 

///A large portion of the Kurds in the Kermanshah region in Iran are Shi'a, [...]. But the urbanized and pastoral Kurds in Kermanshah and Azerbaijan did assume the Shi'a religion.///

Shi'as are only those who live in Azerbaijan. Kurds of Armenia are Yezidis.

 

The Yezidi never thought of themselves as Kurds either until the last decade. The question is about Kurds and Shi'a religion. You evaded it, but the reality is that Kurds, Turkic tribes, Georgians (in Iran), and many others are Shi'a and have always been Shi'a. The "Azeri" identity en totale is not Turkic in root. Only the recent fascistic nonsense made it so.

 

///Really? Why should the Sunni Turkey, whose "national identity" developed so very independently from that of Shi'a Azerbaijan support Azerbaijan? Why should it care? You repeatedly state that "Azeris are a distinct cultural identity that developed in Azerbaijan, and are a result of the total cultural legacy of that land"///

So you think, political unions and economical & military support should be based on smilar ethnogenesis and history? Then I'm not surprised why Armenia has never had any allies.

 

Turks make the claim of "alliance due to similarity in ethnogenesis," not Armenians. Azeris make the double claim of "distinct identity," and yet they make claims of "Turkic brotherhood." It is absolute hypocritical nonsense, but you are donig your best to avoid that by making the most inane arguments.

 

Armenians have alliances with Arab states, Russians, Turkmen, Khazakhs, and so on. Turks have alliances in the same old Pan-Turkist mold: Azeri Turks are their "brothers," and that the "Brothers" must protect each other. This sort of rhetoric has been repeated ad nauseam by Turks and Azeri Turks alike, and the Azeri state's anti-Armenian stance is entirely due to this phenomenon.

 

The fact is that it is none of Turkey's business to meddle in other's affairs, but Turkey's pan-Turkist agenda makes it their business.

 

///The period of Pan-Turkism in Azeribaijan will only pass once the Azeri Turks///

Azeris are not Turks. "Azeri Turk" is not even a histocally-correct name (consists of two words that are not connected to each other). Azeri is a name of a separate nation which was formed in the 12th century according to all sources except for Armenian. It's time for the Armenian academy to stop making stereotypes of their enemies considering them all "turqer" (Turks, Azeris, Caucasian Kurds, Talyshis, etc.). "I know the truth is hard to swallow, but you have to do it sometimes."

 

No one considers the state of Azerbaijan as "a turkish one" except Azeri Turks themselves. Armenians are always surprised to hear that, and always, as I am, ask about the ethnic diversity that seems to be regularly ignored by the Azeri authorities. Aliyev himself is thought to be of Tat descent, which is in no way Turkic!

 

No, not all Azeris are Turkic in origin, but the majority are Turkic speaking. That is something we agree on, but I suspect that most Azeri Turks identify, after the fascistic Pan-Turkist nonsense came about, on their "Turkish" identity. Vafa Gulizade publically stated it. Elcibey did, but the smarter politician in Alyev prevented him from making a mockery of their own "distinct identity" claims by not adopting a pan-Turkist rhetoric openly. However, Turkey's stance is unchanged with regards to the region, and the Turks have on occasion made the "fascistic slips" and have made blanket comments.

Edited January 18, 2004 by hagopn

[Vigil]

So if we say that Armenians came from the west would that mean that we can claim that we are Greek in origin like some Turks say they are Asian in origin? Where do we draw the line?

 

Ok so if Turkic tribes came from Asia then why does Turkey try to intrigrate its history into Europes? What reason does it have for joining the European Union? If its not historically tied?

 

The puzzle does not fit...when its convinient Turks are Asian in origin when it is not they are European?

 

Do you see how the puzzle does not fit?

Edited May 31, 2004 by Vigil

[hagopn]

///They say that Turkic tribes, Turkish people, Kurds, Arabs, Mongols, Baluchi, Pasthu, Tajik, and so on live on their land. ///

That is what you say, not the Persians. In all official census papers the word "Azeri" or "Azerbaijani" always appered and still does whatsoever. Turkic tribes... ha-ha.

 

And the thing that they do not allow neither Azeris, nor Kurds study in their own language - isn't that a linguo-cultural genocide? But do not tell me, that Azeris do not want to do so, I will be laughing for a long time if you say that.

 

The onus is on them for their oppressive tactics, as it is on "Azeri" Turks for trying to ignore the multicultural diversity of historic Azerbaijan. They always attempt to create monolithic entities, but that is not accruate and is not conducive to maturation as a legitimate state. Perhaps The Iranian Persians have their reasons, since Turkic tribes have tended to take over power, as you have mentioned on many occasions. Perhaps they have their own phobias against Turkic people. That does not change our topic.

 

Our Topic remains that, and you have yielded enough to negate your own original assestion, of whether or not a nation called "Azeri" had existed prior to the pan-Turkist construction of this entity in the 1890's. Clearly the answer is that it never did. There has never been an "Azeri" identity as a ethno-linguistic grouping, but there has always been a geogrpahical reference of Azerbaijan that encompassed Armenian, Albanian, Persian, Uti, and much later Tat, Lezghi, and so on groups.

 

///The other minorities also suffer the same fate. ///

That's another lie. Armenians synthetically create and puff up the never taken place problems of "poor Talyshis", "poor Lezgis", "poor Tats", etc. in order to prove "the existence of fascism" in Azerbaijan, whereas unlike Armenia Azerbaijan and its people have always been tolerant towards people of other origins, race, languages, or religions. And everyone knows that the pogroms in Sumgait and Baku started because of Armenian SSR's motiveless claims on Nagorno-Artsax and not because Armenians were so good and Azeris were so bad to start torturing them with no reason.

 

But, earlier you were accusing Armenians of making blanket statements and calling all the ethnicities "Turker." Are you now forgetting your own words?

 

Armeians don't synthetically create the fact that the Azeri state is an attempt to create a monolithic Turkic state out of what had always been a region of multi-cultural legacy. Also, it is widely known that the Yezidi and Assyrians had their academic curriculum and media apparatus first developed and financed by the Armenian SSR. The first Yezidi Kurmanji language newspaper and radio program were in Armenia.

 

Now that all we have left is politicized propaganda fluff, we are finally showing our Azeri Fascist face in complete red. OK, friend, that is all I wanted to do, to expose you beyond your "Gino" pseudonym.

 

The rest is not that important really for the moment, and our politicians will have to mete out the fat and grease on that topic. Historians and recorded history will be written on this forum, and your propagandists allegations shall be proven wrong, over and over again. Such is life in the Information Highway

 

Good luck

Edited January 18, 2004 by hagopn

[Gino]

///No, it's a fact.///

No, it's not. It is what you've been taught by Armenian schola. Qyzylbashis were Shi'a and Turkic speaking population of the Safavid Empire.

///only by the Armenian chronicler Movses Kaghnakatvetsi. ///

Moses of Kalankatu was an Albanian historian who died 700 before the word "Qyzylbashi" started to be used.

///Turks make the claim of "alliance due to similarity in ethnogenesis"///

Doesn't Turkey have an alliance with Israel?

///No one considers the state of Azerbaijan as "a turkish one" except Azeri Turks themselves. ///

There is not such a nation like "Azeri Turks". There are Azeris and that's it. And that means there is no need of playing the fool and describing what you desire as what really is. If Armenian academics declared Azeris "a wild Tatar tribe which was formed in mid-20th century" it doesn't become a fact no matter what.

[Anonymouse]

///They say that Turkic tribes, Turkish people, Kurds, Arabs, Mongols, Baluchi, Pasthu, Tajik, and so on live on their land. ///

That is what you say, not the Persians. In all official census papers the word "Azeri" or "Azerbaijani" always appered and still does whatsoever. Turkic tribes... ha-ha.

 

And the thing that they do not allow neither Azeris, nor Kurds study in their own language - isn't that a linguo-cultural genocide? But do not tell me, that Azeris do not want to do so, I will be laughing for a long time if you say that.

 

The onus is on them for their oppressive tactics, as it is on "Azeri" Turks for trying to ignore the multicultural diversity of historic Azerbaijan. They always attempt to create monolithic entities, but that is not accruate and is not conducive to maturation as a legitimate state. Perhaps The Iranian Persians have their reasons, since Turkic tribes have tended to take over power, as you have mentioned on many occasions. Perhaps they have their own phobias against Turkic people. That does not change our topic.

 

Our Topic remains that, and you have yielded enough to negate your own original assestion, of whether or not a nation called "Azeri" had existed prior to the pan-Turkist construction of this entity in the 1890's. Clearly the answer is that it never did. There has never been an "Azeri" identity as a ethno-linguistic grouping, but there has always been a geogrpahical reference of Azerbaijan that encompassed Armenian, Albanian, Persian, Uti, and much later Tat, Lezghi, and so on groups.

 

///The other minorities also suffer the same fate. ///

That's another lie. Armenians synthetically create and puff up the never taken place problems of "poor Talyshis", "poor Lezgis", "poor Tats", etc. in order to prove "the existence of fascism" in Azerbaijan, whereas unlike Armenia Azerbaijan and its people have always been tolerant towards people of other origins, race, languages, or religions. And everyone knows that the pogroms in Sumgait and Baku started because of Armenian SSR's motiveless claims on Nagorno-Artsax and not because Armenians were so good and Azeris were so bad to start torturing them with no reason.

 

But, earlier you were accusing Armenians of making blanket statements and calling all the ethnicities "Turker." Are you now forgetting your own words?

 

Armeians don't synthetically create the fact that the Azeri state is an attempt to create a monolithic Turkic state out of what had always been a region of multi-cultural legacy. Also, it is widely known that the Yezidi and Assyrians had their academic curriculum and media apparatus first developed and financed by the Armenian SSR. The first Yezidi Kurmanji language newspaper and radio program were in Armenia.

 

Now that all we have left is politicized propaganda fluff, we are finally showing our Azeri Fascist face in complete red. OK, friend, that is all I wanted to do, to expose you beyond your "Gino" pseudonym.

 

The rest is not that important really for the moment, and our politicians will have to mete out the fat and grease on that topic. Historians and recorded history will be written on this forum, and your propagandists allegations shall be proven wrong, over and over again. Such is life in the Information Highway

 

Good luck

Can't disagree here. Nicely thought out. Signed, sealed, delivered.

[Gino]

You last posting made me laugh. Of course, I'm a fascist-faced devil who came here to assimilate you all.

You were the one who started proposing pseudo-historical ideas and theories, calling Azeri nation "a tribe" and insultingly putting the word Azeri in quotation marks; claiming that Azersi have no formed religion, culture, language, state; fabricating theories about some a-la-Germany-1939 regime supposedly existing in Azerbaijan (sic!); and finally trying to prove me that I do not follow my own words. Of course, some big words and knowledge of Latin phrases can "prove" your opponet's yielding and screaming in pre-death agony and admitting his being wrong. But what you drew as a conclusion is a complete nonsence. I bet you did not understand yourself what you said in your last paragraphs. But that's not important for you. What is important is that you stopped the discussion on the most interesting moment, accused your opponent in yielding and being a fascist in a bold script and made everyone think that I have nothing to tell and got confused in my own ideas. I think you're not the one for a civilized discussion because from the very beginning you incited to yourself that no one but you is right. That is why you don't accept any facts that can argue with what you're saying (for ex, saying "No, it's a fact" with no proof). I think this clownade should be over.

Good luck to you as well.

Edited January 18, 2004 by Gino

[hagopn]

///No, it's a fact.///

No, it's not. It is what you've been taught by Armenian schola. Qyzylbashis were Shi'a and Turkic speaking population of the Safavid Empire.

///only by the Armenian chronicler Movses Kaghnakatvetsi. ///

Moses of Kalankatu was an Albanian historian who died 700 before the word "Qyzylbashi" started to be used.

///Turks make the claim of "alliance due to similarity in ethnogenesis"///

Doesn't Turkey have an alliance with Israel?

///No one considers the state of Azerbaijan as "a turkish one" except Azeri Turks themselves. ///

There is not such a nation like "Azeri Turks". There are Azeris and that's it. And that means there is no need of playing the fool and describing what you desire as what really is. If Armenian academics declared Azeris "a wild Tatar tribe which was formed in mid-20th century" it doesn't become a fact no matter what.

1. Ah, I always get the two Movses (both Armenian) Movses Daskhurantsi and Movses Kaghnakatvetsi confused.

 

2. The Kyzylbashi is merely an adjective and does rarely mean to identify a specific tribe. These were merely nomadic mercenaries used by Jivanshir and other dynasties to do their bidding. The Qajars were a specific tribe, also not closely related to the Turkic Azeris of today linguistically or otherwise, who took over Persian court.

 

3. Turkey has an alliance with Israel, and that alliance is that of geopolitical necessity mostly on the part of Israel. Armenia has no particular anti-Israeli agenda, but the Israelis are adopting an anti-Armenian stance to please the Turks. It seems to be a prerequisite of a sort: i.e. In order for you to be in alliance with Turkey, you first have to hate Armenians.

 

Turkish "alliance" with Azerbaijan has a clear pan-Turkist record behind it.

 

4. Armenians do not make claims that Azeri Turks were formed as a culture in the mid 20th century. They do accurately claim that the national identity was concocted as such in the late 19th. The usage of the name "Azeri" to denote ONLY the Turkic (with heavy Persian influence) speaking peoples of the land is very bad historiography and a sure sign of ugly fascistic politics. "Azeris" are the people of Azerbaijan, no matter what they ethnicity, and they have always been known, before the Turks came in, as the people who dwell in Azerbaijan/Atropatene. It has always been only in reference to a goegraphical location, and the individual nations on that land have been remembered as having been distinct nations: the Albanians, yes the Armenians, the Utik, and so on. There has never been a monolithic identity associated with the land of Azerbaijan, and there never can be, unless genocide and ethnic cleansing is done: and much of that has been done.

[Gino]

///Ah, I always get the two Movses (both Armenian)///

You wish. Why would an "Armenian" historian be know only for his "History of Albania" book?

[hagopn]

///Ah, I always get the two Movses (both Armenian)///

You wish. Why would an "Armenian" historian be know only for his "History of Albania" book?

Because the Albanians were considered to be under the Armenian Orthodox Church, and the majority of the Chroniclers about Albania were in fact Armenians.

[Gino]

Albanians joined Armenian Orthodox Church in 705 when their church was abolished by Arabs after some Armenian priest's slander.

The majority of Albanian chroniclers were Greek and Roman: Strabon, Plinius, Julius Solinus, Dionus Cassius, etc. Koriun and Movses Khorenatsi were the only Armenians who actually described Albania.

Edited January 18, 2004 by Gino

[hagopn]

Albanians joined Armenian Orthodox Church in 705 when their church was abolished by Arabs after some Armenian priest's slander.

The majority of Albanian chroniclers were Greek and Roman: Strabon, Plinius, Julius Solinus, Dionus Cassius, etc. Koriun and Movses Khorenatsi were the only Armenians who actually described Albania.

That's probably not true, although it has been debated. The Armenian/Albanian relations go back to the 4th century, and the Albanian language and its development has Armenian ties as far back as the 5th century. This is indicative the same administrative relations between the Albanian and Armenian churches as there was between the Georgian and Armenian. They were all under the Armenian Orthodox umbrella. Ah, Movses Kaghnakatvetsi also proves that point, and clearly he was Armenian. Well, he wrote in the Armenian language!

[hagopn]

Gino, exhausted and tired after a hard day's work, wrote,

 

You last posting made me laugh. Of course, I'm a fascist-faced devil who came here to assimilate you all.

 

You are showing clear signs of taking this matter so personally and to the extreme pro-Azeri level I have only seen among Azeri propagandists on the Internet. You have been identified as such.

 

You were the one who started proposing pseudo-historical ideas and theories, calling Azeri nation "a tribe" and insultingly putting the word Azeri in quotation marks; claiming that Azersi have no formed religion, culture, language, state;

 

Like I said, you are taking this too personally to be one who is objective and detached. Theories are theories, and the facts and analysis that I bring forth have to be responded with reasonable and logical coutnerarguments, not propaganda. If you feel that logic and reason have no place in this argument, then perhaps you have better forums on which you can vent your pro-Azeri fascistic frustrations and wishes.

 

fabricating theories about some a-la-Germany-1939 regime supposedly existing in Azerbaijan (sic!); and finally trying to prove me that I do not follow my own words.

 

In fact, such a regime does exist, and since its foundation, the Azeri state has done mothing but attempt to clear its land of non-Turkic inhabitants. The Armenains were the first victims of the last era, but the "Albanians' that the Azeri Turks try to coopt as their "predecessors," where are they? In other words, when were they forcibly assimilated into the Shi'a muslim quasi-Turkic landscape? Ah, but this is another pandora's box that you wil have the myriad answers to in the typical statecraft fashion.

 

Of course, some big words and knowledge of Latin phrases can "prove" your opponet's yielding and screaming in pre-death agony and admitting his being wrong. But what you drew as a conclusion is a complete nonsence. I bet you did

 

OK, prove it.

 

not understand yourself what you said in your last paragraphs. But that's not important for you. What is important is that you stopped the discussion on the most interesting moment, accused your opponent in yielding and being a fascist in a bold script and made everyone think that I have nothing to tell and got confused in my own ideas. I think you're not the one for a civilized discussion because from the very beginning you incited to yourself that no one but you is right. That is why you don't accept any facts that can argue with what you're saying (for ex, saying "No, it's a fact" with no proof). I think this clownade should be over.

Good luck to you as well.

 

In saying "not important" I was referring to your typical Azero-fascist propaganda package.