Ask a persian.

[caketastydelish]

Unless I'm missing something, I'd say "Zoroastrian" is the neutral term for people that follow that religion. I mean, you certainly couldn't argue that Zoroastrian is derogatory. No one has heard of them outside of somewhat educated people, and those people tend not to think badly of them.

 

[TomYo689]

Cool 2010 thread is still alive.

Do you know of any etfs with weight in Iranian stocks?

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Never heard of the term before, so I can not say.

Unless I'm missing something, I'd say "Zoroastrian" is the neutral term for people that follow that religion. I mean, you certainly couldn't argue that Zoroastrian is derogatory. No one has heard of them outside of somewhat educated people, and those people tend not to think badly of them.

Have you heard of the Magi, the wise men out of the east who followed a star to find the infant Jesus in order to worship the one born King of the Jews and bring him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh? (Based on the account in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus was not still an infant but a child old enough to accept the gifts himself, probably close to two years old. It is still common to see them depicted in nativity scenes as being there along with the shepherds on the night of his birth though.)


Magus is the singular form of that word. Those are of course Latinized forms. In Greek the singular is μάγος and the plural is μάγοι.

The term seems to be derived from the name of the priestly caste of the Medes, which existed before Zoroaster converted them to his religion.

I don't think it ever applied to the Zoroastrian laity, only to the Zoroastrian priests and astronomers to whom the Greeks often ascribed rather fanciful magical powers.

 

[caketastydelish]

Have you heard of the Magi, the wise men out of the east who followed a star to find the infant Jesus in order to worship the one born King of the Jews and bring him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh? (Based on the account in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus was not still an infant but a child old enough to accept the gifts himself, probably close to two years old. It is still common to see them depicted in nativity scenes as being there along with the shepherds on the night of his birth though.)


Magus is the singular form of that word. Those are of course Latinized forms. In Greek the singular is μάγος and the plural is μάγοι.

The term seems to be derived from the name of the priestly caste of the Medes, which existed before Zoroaster converted them to his religion.

I don't think it ever applied to the Zoroastrian laity, only to the Zoroastrian priests and astronomers to whom the Greeks often ascribed rather fanciful magical powers.

Thanks.

Cool 2010 thread is still alive.

Do you know of any etfs with weight in Iranian stocks?

I personally don't but my dad actually might. I'll ask him for you when I have the chance.

 

[Graceheart the Leopard]

Unless I'm missing something, I'd say "Zoroastrian" is the neutral term for people that follow that religion. I mean, you certainly couldn't argue that Zoroastrian is derogatory. No one has heard of them outside of somewhat educated people, and those people tend not to think badly of them.

It was supposed to be for a fantasy story; I was going to use the term for the fantasy counterpart culture of the Persians, although they call themselves a different name (just like how Persians traditionally called themselves Iranians, but the rest of the world called them Persians).

 

[Mouthwash]

Well "Persia" was the golden age of my heritage (from my middle eastern side) and Present day Iran is filled with human rights injustices, poverty, and many other things I"m not exactly proud of. This is not to say that modern day Iranians are not great people. I have met many Iranians, and they seemed to be very pleasant people.

I personally don't really care if people call me Persian or Iranian, but I am more proud of the contributions of the Persian empire than I am Modern day Iran. Does that answer your question?

Are you ethnically Persian? Only half of Iranians actually are, the rest are Azerbaijanis and Arabs.

 

[caketastydelish]

Are you ethnically Persian? Only half of Iranians actually are, the rest are Azerbaijanis and Arabs.

Sorry... I honestly don't know. But my dad has always taught me persian history from a persian perspective, and would define "our ancestors" as those of the Persian empire (in particular, out of Iran and Afghanistan), not anywhere else. Of course, he could always be wrong. Are there physical characteristics that make it more likely you are Persian rather than Azerbaijanis or an Arab?

My dad comes from Tehran, btw.

 

[Mouthwash]

Sorry... I honestly don't know. But my dad has always taught me persian history from a persian perspective, and would define "our ancestors" as those of the Persian empire (in particular, out of Iran and Afghanistan), not anywhere else. Of course, he could always be wrong. Are there physical characteristics that make it more likely you are Persian rather than Azerbaijanis or an Arab?

Not really sure about that.

 

[Arwon]

What is the point of Persia?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

A platform game from 1989

 

[WindFish]

Will the Green movement return for the election?

 

[caketastydelish]

Will the Green movement return for the election?

I don't know. I doubt it though, I think their government is too oppressive to allow such things. However, I can't honestly say I want them back. This is because the leader of the "green movement" would have to be someone the Mullahs "approve of", as it happened last time. Iran needs a through cleansing, and someone from within the theocracy isn't going to manage it. Many Iranians (at least the one's I've met here in America) say "Iran needs our own George Washington".

I don't think they've got it right. George Washington is too tolerant for things that need to be shattered. Iran needs an Attaturk. Someone to throughly cleanse it of Islamic theocracy. Someone to modernize the country, and perhaps bring it culturally closer to the west.

What is the point of Persia?

To make money, regardless of any historical accuracy there may be. They'll alter existing history often based on casual western stereotypes, and they also make up things out of thin air. That said, they're far less degrading than "300".

edit: nvm, read Ziggy stardust's post and thought you were asking about that...

What is the point of Persia? What is the point of Spain? What is the point of Captain Falcon?

 

[ace99]

I don't think they've got it right. George Washington is too tolerant for things that need to be shattered. Iran needs an Attaturk. Someone to throughly cleanse it of Islamic theocracy. Someone to modernize the country, and perhaps bring it culturally closer to the west.

You're just asking for another Reza Shah Pahlavi, that's not particularly helpful.

 

[caketastydelish]

Whoever he was, he didn't get a tenth of stuff done that Attaturk did, so obviously we're not talking about the same kind of person.

No, we need someone to remove islamic theocracy entirely from the Iranian state, to keep the church and state separate.

Women should be able to do all of the things men can do (which is impossible in such a theocracy).

No one should be beaten or stoned to death just because of a kangaroo court or an unjust law.

Unless you're disagreeing with me here, suit yourself.

 

[ace99]

You're trading one dictator for another. Whatever else he may have been Ataturk and Reza Shah were both dictators. Their suppression of religion, their enchantment with the West ultimately resulted in consequences down the road. Secularist dictators in Turkey, Iran, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Syria learned and are learning that.

Also you're Iranian and don't know who Reza Shah was? Former Persian Cossack Bridge officer. Overthrew Ahmad Shah Qajar, founded the Pahlavi Dynasty. Father of Mohammed Reza Shah. Modernized Iran, modeled his rule on Ataturk, implemented various reforms. Got overthrown by the British and Soviet Union during World War II. You know that guy....not that's he's important in Iranian history or anything.

 

[caketastydelish]

This is not always the case.

First of all, Iran was better off with the Shah than with the current Regime. Many things I do not like about the Shah, but at least the shah did not have women stoned to death for "cheating" on their husbands, nor did he force them to wear a veil in public.

Second, Turkey for example, now has separation of church and state. They are better off now than they were before.

 

[ace99]

This is not always the case.

First of all, Iran was better off with the Shah than with the current Regime. Many things I do not like about the Shah, but at least the shah did not have women stoned to death for "cheating" on their husbands, nor did he force them to wear a veil in public.

Second, Turkey for example, now has separation of church and state. They are better off now than they were before.

Even Turkey has Islamists in power now.

No you weren't stoned. Instead your wife, husband, brother, sister, mother and father might never come home because they were disappeared by SAVAK. Or you son or daughter might get gunned down by security forces in the street. Glorifying a past dictator because you don't like the current one isn't really going to get you what yo want.

 

[caketastydelish]

Even Turkey has Islamists in power now.

No you weren't stoned. Instead your wife, husband, brother, sister, mother and father might never come home because they were disappeared by SAVAK. Or you son or daughter might get gunned down by security forces in the street. Glorifying a past dictator because you don't like the current one isn't really going to get you what yo want.

Turkey has more freedoms now than they used to, and they certainly have more than Iran.

The Shah allowed more freedoms than the current regime. Democracy is best, but we need an iron fist to get it on the right track first.

 

[ace99]

The Shah allowed more freedoms than the current regime. Democracy is best, but we need an iron fist to get it on the right track first.

I'm not going to play the Shah was better than the Islamic Republic game. But I wonder how many people through history have said that and wondered why they ended up with a new dictator.

But good luck with all that I suppose. I've already seen this movie.

 

[caketastydelish]

The Shah did Iran a lot of good. He was not perfect, but easily better than the IR.

My dad has lived under both and even he knows this.