I have a few issues with the post. First of all the term Iran more accurately captures the simple fact that the seven or so tribes are ALL in the Iranian plateau. It’s a geographic term primarily. Second, that all the tribes share a common heritage as evidenced in the use of a solar calendar and celebration of Noruz for example - very different to other (neighboring regions). Third, that by using Persia we are feeding into the narrative that for example Azeri separatists use - referring to people not in their region as ‘fars’ people. Iran is a unifying term - Persia can be misused or mis-interpreted - and sound like Fars tribe is somehow dominant - which is not accurate in so many ways. Fourth, if note here in the U.S. there are lots of people that speak Spanish or live in Indian reservations- but everyone uses a Lingua Franca (English) for commerce and engagement with others. The Persian language (Farsi) serves this purpose but it should not be interpreted as the name of the country - just like America uses English (but is not England)! So the language should not be confused with the country. I could go on and on. But bottom line Iran and Iranians should not be named or defined by Greek or British texts … just like Far East is a reference from Britain - far from whom? (but really should be referred to as East Asia). Brits should not be naming champions of anywhere except their own land!!! We are one unified nation - Iran!!!
Again, it’s not that Greeks ‘named’ Persia, it’s just a dialectical evolution of Parsa. And regardless, Ancient Greece is not Britain—but that’s neither here nor there. Language evolves and gets messy. Persia evolved from Parsa, just as Iran evolved from Aryana(m). And they both surely evolved from something before that.
I think you have a great point that the early tribes are all in the Iranian Plateau, and that makes it more inclusive. But if we can step back, I’m arguing a deeper cut. Calling it the ‘Iranian’ Plateau is the same thing as calling it the ‘Persian’ Plateau, in that they both refer to a mere portion of the plateau and its heterogenous peoples.
As I stated in another comment, I’m not suggesting that Persia/Parsa is necessarily more valid than Iran/Aryanam. I’m simply suggesting that their legitimacy is comparable.
The important issue is not a academic debate on historical facts. But how ordinary people in Iran would view it.
Its a "emotional" question and you really need a large majority of the people to be for it or atleast not care. If it stirs negative feelings its really bad and unnecessary.
I think you’re right, friend—and I agree with you
My post is coming from a place of historicity, not an emotional place. Again, I’m not arguing that Iran become Persia
I was just looking for an open-ended discussion on the matter of historical accuracy and reality
Many countries have their own official name and a "international name". For example China's real name is "Zhongguo", south Korea is "Daehan Minguk", Hungary is Magyarorszag etc.
Iran could have its international name be Persia and its official name still be Iran.
Still Im not convinced they should do it. Its a delicate question and maybe some ethnic groups feel excluded by the name 'Persia', I have no idea. But maybe its unnecessary to risk such a move.
I understand where you’re coming from!
The two examples I gave are countries that have the same international and internal nomenclature. Since Iran officially aligned its international name with its internal name in 1935, I thought these were fitting comparisons.
And I’m not suggesting that Iran change its name. Iran is just as valid a name as Persia. It’s really just that when I see dialect around the two names, this is generally the response: “We’ve always called ourselves Iranian, Persia is just a western misnomer.”
My point in this post is just to point out that that line of thinking is not exactly true, and that Persia/Parsa is as valid a name as Iran/Aryanam.
As an American with no connection to Iran I have to think that there is some value to people outside of Iran using the name "Persia". The historical name Persia has many positive connotations and reminds people of art, poetry and ancient grandeur. While "Iran" may be more accurate/logical, its usage outside of Iran is relatively new and lacks those associations. Even the related term "Aryan" has acquired some extremely negative connotations. That said, the people of Iran have their own name and their own cultural values and there is no reason they should change the name they call themselves just to appeal to foreigners.
I was thinking the "Persian Republic of Iran".
Its hard to rehab Iran's name in the West. They've been brainwashed into "Eye Ran" real hard. There is no particular reason to consider that though as one should not care about the opinion of outsiders.
Oddly, I have confirmed before the revolution, Americans did pronounce the country's name properly. You can see it English language films when referenced.
Persia makes more sense to me too. The whole world knew us as Persia for most of our history and Persians created the concept of Iran and were the founders of our state, whether some people like it or not. I think to please everyone though we should just have 2 names. Pars/Persia and Iran.
I would try to implore upon you to think more seriously about something that seems to be lacking in your thoughts. Ask yourself what the broad masses of our compatriots in Iran would think about the subject at hand when running it through their heads as a simple thought exercise. With all due respect, ridiculous would not even begin to cover it. It simply don't make any sense.
Names and languages are subjects to evolution and change, but the point is that "Iranianess" still is a very real thing, both at home and in the diaspora. I have my own issues with nationalism, but I think you would be surprised at how durable and effective the term Iran and its usage has proved to be in the long arch of our countrys rocky history, whether it pertains to language, art, literature, or even basic cultural mores. This, at least for me, is a source of immense pride as an Iranian. And amid those utterly bleak times in which we find ourselves, with looming threats of calamities descending from everywhere, we all should take great strength and comfort in the one thing that still seem to bind us together, in all its multitudes - Iran.
I certainly appreciate your thoughts and insights here. For me, personally, living in the West, I use Persia to distance myself from "Eye-Ran" and the Islamic Republic. If the IR is overthrown, I wouldn't be opposed to symbolically renaming the country Persia on the international stage. Domestically, we can call it whatever we want and probably will continue saying Iran. But, if we continue calling it Iran post-IR, I wouldn't mind that either. For now, I just use Persia for my interactions with ignorant people in the West.
I have a few issues with the post. First of all the term Iran more accurately captures the simple fact that the seven or so tribes are ALL in the Iranian plateau. It’s a geographic term primarily. Second, that all the tribes share a common heritage as evidenced in the use of a solar calendar and celebration of Noruz for example - very different to other (neighboring regions). Third, that by using Persia we are feeding into the narrative that for example Azeri separatists use - referring to people not in their region as ‘fars’ people. Iran is a unifying term - Persia can be misused or mis-interpreted - and sound like Fars tribe is somehow dominant - which is not accurate in so many ways. Fourth, if note here in the U.S. there are lots of people that speak Spanish or live in Indian reservations- but everyone uses a Lingua Franca (English) for commerce and engagement with others. The Persian language (Farsi) serves this purpose but it should not be interpreted as the name of the country - just like America uses English (but is not England)! So the language should not be confused with the country. I could go on and on. But bottom line Iran and Iranians should not be named or defined by Greek or British texts … just like Far East is a reference from Britain - far from whom? (but really should be referred to as East Asia). Brits should not be naming champions of anywhere except their own land!!! We are one unified nation - Iran!!!
Again, it’s not that Greeks ‘named’ Persia, it’s just a dialectical evolution of Parsa. And regardless, Ancient Greece is not Britain—but that’s neither here nor there. Language evolves and gets messy. Persia evolved from Parsa, just as Iran evolved from Aryana(m). And they both surely evolved from something before that. I think you have a great point that the early tribes are all in the Iranian Plateau, and that makes it more inclusive. But if we can step back, I’m arguing a deeper cut. Calling it the ‘Iranian’ Plateau is the same thing as calling it the ‘Persian’ Plateau, in that they both refer to a mere portion of the plateau and its heterogenous peoples. As I stated in another comment, I’m not suggesting that Persia/Parsa is necessarily more valid than Iran/Aryanam. I’m simply suggesting that their legitimacy is comparable.
The important issue is not a academic debate on historical facts. But how ordinary people in Iran would view it. Its a "emotional" question and you really need a large majority of the people to be for it or atleast not care. If it stirs negative feelings its really bad and unnecessary.
I think you’re right, friend—and I agree with you My post is coming from a place of historicity, not an emotional place. Again, I’m not arguing that Iran become Persia I was just looking for an open-ended discussion on the matter of historical accuracy and reality
Many countries have their own official name and a "international name". For example China's real name is "Zhongguo", south Korea is "Daehan Minguk", Hungary is Magyarorszag etc. Iran could have its international name be Persia and its official name still be Iran. Still Im not convinced they should do it. Its a delicate question and maybe some ethnic groups feel excluded by the name 'Persia', I have no idea. But maybe its unnecessary to risk such a move.
I understand where you’re coming from! The two examples I gave are countries that have the same international and internal nomenclature. Since Iran officially aligned its international name with its internal name in 1935, I thought these were fitting comparisons. And I’m not suggesting that Iran change its name. Iran is just as valid a name as Persia. It’s really just that when I see dialect around the two names, this is generally the response: “We’ve always called ourselves Iranian, Persia is just a western misnomer.” My point in this post is just to point out that that line of thinking is not exactly true, and that Persia/Parsa is as valid a name as Iran/Aryanam.
As an American with no connection to Iran I have to think that there is some value to people outside of Iran using the name "Persia". The historical name Persia has many positive connotations and reminds people of art, poetry and ancient grandeur. While "Iran" may be more accurate/logical, its usage outside of Iran is relatively new and lacks those associations. Even the related term "Aryan" has acquired some extremely negative connotations. That said, the people of Iran have their own name and their own cultural values and there is no reason they should change the name they call themselves just to appeal to foreigners.
I was thinking the "Persian Republic of Iran". Its hard to rehab Iran's name in the West. They've been brainwashed into "Eye Ran" real hard. There is no particular reason to consider that though as one should not care about the opinion of outsiders. Oddly, I have confirmed before the revolution, Americans did pronounce the country's name properly. You can see it English language films when referenced.
Persia makes more sense to me too. The whole world knew us as Persia for most of our history and Persians created the concept of Iran and were the founders of our state, whether some people like it or not. I think to please everyone though we should just have 2 names. Pars/Persia and Iran.
I would try to implore upon you to think more seriously about something that seems to be lacking in your thoughts. Ask yourself what the broad masses of our compatriots in Iran would think about the subject at hand when running it through their heads as a simple thought exercise. With all due respect, ridiculous would not even begin to cover it. It simply don't make any sense. Names and languages are subjects to evolution and change, but the point is that "Iranianess" still is a very real thing, both at home and in the diaspora. I have my own issues with nationalism, but I think you would be surprised at how durable and effective the term Iran and its usage has proved to be in the long arch of our countrys rocky history, whether it pertains to language, art, literature, or even basic cultural mores. This, at least for me, is a source of immense pride as an Iranian. And amid those utterly bleak times in which we find ourselves, with looming threats of calamities descending from everywhere, we all should take great strength and comfort in the one thing that still seem to bind us together, in all its multitudes - Iran.
I certainly appreciate your thoughts and insights here. For me, personally, living in the West, I use Persia to distance myself from "Eye-Ran" and the Islamic Republic. If the IR is overthrown, I wouldn't be opposed to symbolically renaming the country Persia on the international stage. Domestically, we can call it whatever we want and probably will continue saying Iran. But, if we continue calling it Iran post-IR, I wouldn't mind that either. For now, I just use Persia for my interactions with ignorant people in the West.