salacious
rsina
Does the word salacious have a negative conotation? Is it deragatory? I
always thought it meant sexually arousing, but someone tells me it also
means debased and lewd. Is that generally true or only in sexist societies?
Thnaks.
Sebastian Hew
I don't know about derogatory, but 'salacious' certainly has negative
connotation. It is generally used to mean lust-provoking or debauched.
Sebastian.
rsina
Well I am not sure if lust-provoking should necessarily be something
negative. But can a salacious woman become non-salacious by altering her
behavier? Is it something that she does that makes her salacious or
something that she possess? What is the difference between salacious and
lascivious?
Cheers,
Rsina
Dena Jo
> Does the word salacious have a negative conotation? Is it
> deragatory? I always thought it meant sexually arousing, but
> someone tells me it also means debased and lewd.
Debased and lewd are in the mind of the beholder. I could tell you
things about Peter Pan and the Wizard of Oz -- there's a dirty old
man[1]. No, really. I mean that. If sexual things offend a person,
chances are he'll spit the word out, imparting a negative connotation.
Here's how M-W defines it:
Main Entry: sa·la·cious
Pronunciation: s&-'lA-sh&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin salac-, salax, from salire to move spasmodically, leap
-- more at SALLY
Date: circa 1645
1 : arousing or appealing to sexual desire or imagination : LASCIVIOUS
2 : LECHEROUS, LUSTFUL
- sa·la·cious·ly adverb
- sa·la·cious·ness noun
[1] Sorry, guys. I couldn't resist.
--
Dena Jo
(Email: Replace TPUBGTH with denajo2)
MC
Dena Jo <TPU...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Debased and lewd are in the mind of the beholder.
Reminds me of of Mary Calderone's response when asked for a definition
of "promiscuous."
"That's easy," she said. "A promiscuous person is someone who's been to
bed with one more person than you have."
Martin Ambuhl
> Hi all,
>
> Does the word salacious have a negative conotation?
Yes. OUP means treating sexual matters in an indecent way and typically
conveying undue interest in or enjoyment of the subject. It has
extended meanings of lustful or lecherous.
Note the words 'indecent' and 'undue.' The word carries no implication
that there is anything wrong with treating sexual matters, or having
interest in them, or enjoying them.
> Is it deragatory?
The word is 'derogatory.' 'Salacious' expresses a judgement, generally
negative, so falls within a broad meaning of derogatory.
> I
> always thought it meant sexually arousing, but someone tells me it also
> means debased and lewd.
You were wrong.
>Is that generally true or only in sexist societies?
All societies are sexist, but that has nothing to do with the word.
meirman
<rsina-no...@earthlink.net> posted:
>Sebastian Hew wrote:
>
>> rsina wrote:
>>
>>> Does the word salacious have a negative conotation? Is it deragatory?
>>> I always thought it meant sexually arousing, but someone tells me it
>>> also means debased and lewd. Is that generally true or only in sexist
>>> societies?
Are there any societies not concerned with sex? If there are
societies which think no form of sex can possibly be viewed in a
debased or lewd way, then the prevalent meaning of the word
"salacious" has no use to them, but I don't think the word's meaning
is likely to change.
>> I don't know about derogatory, but 'salacious' certainly has negative
>> connotation. It is generally used to mean lust-provoking or debauched.
>>
>> Sebastian.
>
>
>Well I am not sure if lust-provoking should necessarily be something
>negative.
The way definitions work is that sometimes one applies and other times
others do. Sometimes more than one apply at the same time. OTOH, if
lust-provoking and negative were used as part of the same definition,
then lust-provoking negative situations are exactly those which the
definition refers to. And other situations aren't. So "if... should
necessarily..." really has nothing to do with it.
> But can a salacious woman become non-salacious by altering her
>behavier?
Sure.
>Is it something that she does that makes her salacious or
>something that she possess?
Either one.
> What is the difference between salacious and
>lascivious?
Don't know.
>Cheers,
>Rsina
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
Baltimore 17 years
rsina
>
>> But can a salacious woman become non-salacious by altering her
>>behavier?
>
> Sure.
>
>>Is it something that she does that makes her salacious or
>>something that she possess?
>
> Either one.
>
Then let me pose my question some other way. I guess I am loss for the word:
When we say a woman possesses beauty, we say it in a positive way. We are
not criticizing her. It is usually meant to be to her credit (all women
possess beauty, but for the sake of example let's ignore that for now).
Also, beauty is not a matter of choice. It is not something the society can
blame her for having it or not having it. Now suppose a woman possesses the
quality that provokes lust (or appeals to sexual desire or imagination;
which is the M-W definition of salacious, as pointed out by Dena). She
doesn't have to be doing anything wrong to have this quality, just like she
wouldn't be doing anything wrong to be beautiful. So if salacious is not
the appropriate word to describe a well-mannered sexually attractive woman,
what then is the right word?
BTW I don't mean to be sexist here. A man can be good looking and provoke
lust too. I just gave the above example to find a substitute word for
salacious, since from what I am hearing this word may be offensive.
rewboss
oaafa.15061$pK4.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Now suppose a woman possesses the
> quality that provokes lust (or appeals to sexual desire or imagination;
> which is the M-W definition of salacious, as pointed out by Dena). She
> doesn't have to be doing anything wrong to have this quality, just like
she
> wouldn't be doing anything wrong to be beautiful. So if salacious is not
> the appropriate word to describe a well-mannered sexually attractive
woman,
> what then is the right word?
"Sexy" is probably the obvious one. "Sexually attractive" will also do --
you use it yourself. "Alluring" may be a possibility but I'm sure if it's
terribly accurate, and it also echos the word "lurid" which is quite
definitely negative.
rsina
>> But can a salacious woman become non-salacious by altering her
>>behavier?
>
> Sure.
>
>>Is it something that she does that makes her salacious or
>>something that she possess?
>
> Either one.
>
But if it's something she possesses that makes her salacious (eg body
chemistry, etc.), then how can she become non-salacious by behaving
differently? She wouldn't have the option to chose. Either behavior is
essential to the definition of salacious or it is not.
rsina
Well OK. But I really don't see how the word sexy is any different than what
M-W defines for salacious (appealing to sexual desire or imagination).
But I appreaciate all your responses and accept them.
Thanks again and cheers,
Rsina
Dena Jo
> blame her for having it or not having it. Now suppose a woman
> possesses the quality that provokes lust (or appeals to sexual
> desire or imagination; which is the M-W definition of salacious,
> as pointed out by Dena). She doesn't have to be doing anything
> wrong to have this quality, just like she wouldn't be doing
> anything wrong to be beautiful. So if salacious is not the
> appropriate word to describe a well-mannered sexually attractive
> woman, what then is the right word?
The woman's sexy or has sex appeal.
Dena Jo
> or appeals to sexual desire or imagination;
> which is the M-W definition of salacious, as pointed out by Dena
Be that as it may, sometimes one of the usages of a certain word will
fall out of use, and that seems to be case with the nonjudgmental
meanings of salacious.
Alan Jones
> On 22 Mar 2003, rsina posted thus:
>
>> or appeals to sexual desire or imagination;
>> which is the M-W definition of salacious, as pointed out by Dena
>
> Be that as it may, sometimes one of the usages of a certain word will
> fall out of use, and that seems to be case with the nonjudgmental
> meanings of salacious.
Perhaps it should "calculated to appeal to sexual desire or imagination".
Alan Jones
rewboss
> Well OK. But I really don't see how the word sexy is any different than
what
> M-W defines for salacious (appealing to sexual desire or imagination).
There is a difference -- a very important one -- between "denotation" and
"connotation".
A word's "denotation" is what it "officially" means. Its "connotation" is
"hidden" meaning, if you like: all the extra stuff that audiences will
associate with the word (or indeed, with the phrase -- it's not just
individual words than can have connotations).
"Salacious" denotes "appealing to sexual desire or imagination". So does
"sexy". But they have different connotations -- "salacious" a negative
connotation, "sexy" (usually) positive.
Another example. When the coalition forces launched their surprise attack on
Baghdad in an apparent attempt to take out Hussein and his cronies early on,
the Americans were talking of a "decapitation strike", while the Iraqis
called it an "assassination attempt". Both phrases denote the same thing --
the removal of the top man in the hope of bringing about a change in the
leadership. But the word "assassination" carries with it connotations of
treachery, subterfuge and illegitimacy, while "decapitation" connotes a
clinical and legally justified act.
Or again, what's the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter?
Nothing at all, except that a terrorist is your enemy, while a freedom
fighter is on your side. Ask Dubya who the world's biggest terrorist is, and
he will give you one answer. Ask Saddam the same question, and he'll give
you a totally different answer.
And so it is with sexy vs salacious. And lots and lots of other words. There
is a sort of linguistic joke that holds there are far more irregular verbs
in the English language than are listed in the dictionary, for example: I am
unorthodox, you are eccentric, he is completely round the twist.
Professor Redwine
"Sebastian Hew" <rada...@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3e7c6d81$0$5551$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
And why is that negative? I only half jest here. Now "debauched"
is a very judgemental sounding word. "Salacious", to me, is not.
It has alliterative connotations of savoury and salivating,
purely from the sound.
--
Redwine
Germany
Professor Redwine
"rewboss" <rew...@hotmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:b5k63j$2afufa$2...@ID-185204.news.dfncis.de...
Funny... I find "sexy" the least acceptable in polite company (of
course, as you know Rewboss, I eschew polite company). And
"alluring" has to me absolutely no negative connotations or
associations whatsoever.
--
Redwine
Germany
Dr Robin Bignall
wrote:
'Alluring' has gone out of fashion. If I were a woman I'd prefer to be
alluring than lots of other things. Marilyn Monroe was alluring: so was
Jane Russell, but today you can hardly tell the males from the females,
sometimes even when they're naked.
I blame the feminist movement, myself.
--
wrmst rgrds
Robin Bignall
Remote Hertfordshire
England
Dena Jo
> 'Alluring' has gone out of fashion. If I were a woman I'd prefer
> to be alluring than lots of other things. Marilyn Monroe was
> alluring: so was Jane Russell, but today you can hardly tell the
> males from the females, sometimes even when they're naked.
>
> I blame the feminist movement, myself.
That's interesting. I don't who to blame. I always assumed men's
taste in women had changed, that whereas men once found curvaceous,
voluptuous women attractive, they now preferred really thin women. Is
that not the case?
Odysseus
>
> But if it's something she possesses that makes her salacious (eg body
> chemistry, etc.), then how can she become non-salacious by behaving
> differently? She wouldn't have the option to chose. Either behavior is
> essential to the definition of salacious or it is not.
Beside not illustrating a word's connotations, basic dictionaries
don't always identify its 'field of operation'. In the case of
"salacious" I find its application to a person unusual: I might so
identify a *description* of a woman that calls attention to her
sexiness, perhaps in more detail than would be considered in good
taste by some. The term is also applied to specific acts or even a
person's habitual behaviour, as you recognize, but not so much to
inherent qualities.
Although "salacious" is certainly derogatory in its connotations, I
don't think it's as disdainful as "prurient", which seems to incline
further towards implying perversion or voyeurism. On the other hand
"voluptuous" can include sensuality with only a small component of
lust and is thus more neutral in its application to character; its
usage is complicated by an implication of Rubenesque curvaceousness
when applied to a woman's physique.
--Odysseus
frank green
rsina wrote:
Remarks are salcacious, not women. A woman can be lascivious, not a
remark. Dictionary definitions have divfficultymaking these distinctions.
That's why you want to avoid a descriptive dictionary--it describes how
words are used by the masses, which is always going to be less that good
usage.
Robert Lieblich
>
> rsina wrote:
>
> > Sebastian Hew wrote:
> >
> > > rsina wrote:
> > >
> > >> Does the word salacious have a negative conotation? Is it deragatory?
> > >> I always thought it meant sexually arousing, but someone tells me it
> > >> also means debased and lewd. Is that generally true or only in sexist
> > >> societies?
> > >
> > > I don't know about derogatory, but 'salacious' certainly has negative
> > > connotation. It is generally used to mean lust-provoking or debauched.
> > >
> > > Sebastian.
> >
> > Well I am not sure if lust-provoking should necessarily be something
> > negative. But can a salacious woman become non-salacious by altering her
> > behavier? Is it something that she does that makes her salacious or
> > something that she possess? What is the difference between salacious and
> > lascivious?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Rsina
>
> Remarks are salcacious, not women. A woman can be lascivious, not a
> remark.
Hey, frank, it's okay to snip the sig. I guess that because you
lack a sig you don't know what to do with others'.
Anyway, you are right but you are wrong. You keep forgetting about
things like transferred epithets, or whatever that Greek phrase is.
> Dictionary definitions have divfficultymaking these distinctions.
Dictionary definitions do not *make* distinctions. They point out
distinctions. Users of English make distinctions. Or was that a
transferred epithet?
> That's why you want to avoid a descriptive dictionary--it describes how
> words are used by the masses, which is always going to be less that good
> usage.
Well, you're consistent. Consistently full of it. (Guess the two
letters omitted.)
--
Bob Lieblich
Miss me while I was gone, frank?
Dena Jo
> Bob Lieblich
> Miss me while I was gone, frank?
Frank hasn't been around, Bobert. He's nothing without you...
--
Dena Jo
(And the Academy Awards are deadly dull this year.)
rewboss
3E7E6E04...@attbi.com...
> less that good
> usage.
I almost never comment on people's typos, unless they are particularly bad
or comical. And I wasn't going to comment, frank (why the small f?), about
your wonderful debating tactic of jumping on every little typo as if it
really mattered.
But seriously, frank. You pick up on somebody typing "your" for "you're", as
if to say: "This guy's illiterate, don't listen to him", and then you write
"that" for "than". It's not even as if the T and N keys are next to each
other on a standard QWERTY keyboard.
At least in this thread you've actually made a contribution. I disagree with
some of what you say, but it's a perfectly good and even valuable
contribution nonetheless. Let's have more of this, and less of the other.
Professor Redwine
Rewboss, I am disappointed. The only valuable thing Frank has
ever done in this group was to describe me as an honest man.
Sorry, Frank, but you make so many typos, and use so much
colloquial language, that your hypocracy has simply become too
much. Hence my hyperbole above. But just cut the crap, you are a
colloquialising and opinionated man who makes mistakes. Just like
me. So, as Rewboss suggests (I shall now proceed to paraphrase),
face up to it and get on with contributions of value.
--
Redwine
Germany
Professor Redwine
"Professor Redwine" <m...@privacy.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:b5mrot$2a60oq$1...@ID-48569.news.dfncis.de...
> colloquial language, that your hypocracy has simply become too
Ouch! Sorry, that must be one of the worst spelling errors I have
made in usenet. I was walking down the street half an hour later
and suddenly I thought "what on earth... why did I write
'hypocracy'?" So, just to prove that I know better: I am sick of
people being hippocrazy. Er, I mean, I am sick of hypocrisy...
--
Redwine
Germany
Dr Robin Bignall
<TPUBGTH.don't.use.this...@yahoo.com> wrote:
When I was still on the prowl and capable of being so, fat, thin, black,
white, curvy, boyish -- none of that mattered just so long as they could
talk to me.
But allure is a different matter. I only ever met one woman in my life who
could literally stop people in their tracks (women as well as men), and I
have met quite a lot of lovely women, and married two of them
(consecutively). It was not just that she was beautiful, she seemed to
smolder. She could be dressed in jeans and a scruffy sweater and heads
would turn.
She was Persian (NOT Iranian) and escaped from the Ayatollah by the skin of
her teeth. Her younger brother was shot dead as she and her family escaped
across the border, and died in her arms. The first time I took her to
dinner she turned up in what I suppose was a harem outfit. It consisted of
a tiny bolero top, showing a lot of lovely cleavage, and was covered with
pearls sewn on by hand, with diamonds and rubies running across the top and
bottom. They were real. She also had translucent harem pants of the type
that are tight at the waist and flare out below.
I learned after from other Iranians that she had paid me an enormous
compliment by dressing like that.
Her family had lost everything in their flight, and she was working as a
receptionist for about £7,000 per annum, which, even in 1985, was not a
lot. She lived in one room in a hostel for women in dire financial straits,
and all of the other inhabitants were 50 or more years older than she was.
We were friends from 1985 until late 1990, when I called her and got a
'number unobtainable' signal. I called at the hostel but nobody even knew
that she had left. Where she went / is I have no idea.
Dena Jo
> On 23 Mar 2003 22:01:53 GMT, Dena Jo
> <TPUBGTH.don't.use.this...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On 23 Mar 2003, Dr Robin Bignall posted thus:
>>
>>> 'Alluring' has gone out of fashion. If I were a woman I'd prefer
>>> to be alluring than lots of other things. Marilyn Monroe was
>>> alluring: so was Jane Russell, but today you can hardly tell the
>>> males from the females, sometimes even when they're naked.
>>>
>>> I blame the feminist movement, myself.
>>
>>That's interesting. I don't who to blame. I always assumed men's
>>taste in women had changed, that whereas men once found
>>curvaceous, voluptuous women attractive, they now preferred really
>>thin women. Is that not the case?
>
> When I was still on the prowl and capable of being so, fat, thin,
> black, white, curvy, boyish -- none of that mattered just so long
> as they could talk to me.
>
> But allure is a different matter. I only ever met one woman in my
> life who could literally stop people in their tracks (women as
> well as men), and I have met quite a lot of lovely women, and
> married two of them (consecutively). It was not just that she was
> beautiful, she seemed to smolder. She could be dressed in jeans
> and a scruffy sweater and heads would turn.
If she could be dressed in jeans and a scruffy sweater yet heads would
turn, then clearly allure is something that you either have or don't
have and can't have gone out of fashion.
Since you mentioned Marilyn Monroe, let me share this story with you.
It comes from another newsgroup, where people were discussing what
makes a person attractive. I'm quoting it because I'm too lazy to
retell it in my own words. I don't know how true the story is -- in
fact, it sounds apocryphal to me -- but apparently Marilyn could turn
it on and off. Here it is:
"Simple theories like big heads or symetrical features just aren't
enough to explain 'it,' especially in light of a famous Marilyn Monroe
story. Apparently she was on the street in NYC and bumped into a
friend, who remarked that no one was mobbing her. She replied 'that's
because I'm not doing it,' and proceeded to demonstrate - as they
walked further down the street, with no obvious change in her demeanor,
the passers-by started to notice her and approach her, and in short
order they were the center of a crowd."
<Message-ID: 8s2s3n$30es$1...@zook.lafn.org>
Dr Robin Bignall
<TPUBGTH.don't.use.this...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I don't know. I have not lost my eye for a gorgeous woman but I have not
seen an alluring one for years.
>Since you mentioned Marilyn Monroe, let me share this story with you.
>It comes from another newsgroup, where people were discussing what
>makes a person attractive. I'm quoting it because I'm too lazy to
>retell it in my own words. I don't know how true the story is -- in
>fact, it sounds apocryphal to me -- but apparently Marilyn could turn
>it on and off. Here it is:
>
>"Simple theories like big heads or symetrical features just aren't
>enough to explain 'it,' especially in light of a famous Marilyn Monroe
>story. Apparently she was on the street in NYC and bumped into a
>friend, who remarked that no one was mobbing her. She replied 'that's
>because I'm not doing it,' and proceeded to demonstrate - as they
>walked further down the street, with no obvious change in her demeanor,
>the passers-by started to notice her and approach her, and in short
>order they were the center of a crowd."
><Message-ID: 8s2s3n$30es$1...@zook.lafn.org>
Fascinating. Even when she was moping my friend could not turn it off. She
was continually pestered by blokes who were 'on the make' in that singles
club I mention on my website.
Unfortunately I do not have a photo.
--
wrmst rgrds
Peter Duncanson
wrote:
I'm speechless!
--
Peter Duncanson
UK
(posting from a.e.u)
Dr Robin Bignall
Her name was /is Mahboob Khamseherer. I think I have the spelling correct.
That should leave you even more bereft of words.
Peter Duncanson
frank green
rewboss wrote:
> frank green <fran...@attbi.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
> 3E7E6E04...@attbi.com...
> > less that good
> > usage.
>
> I almost never comment on people's typos, unless they are particularly bad
> or comical. And I wasn't going to comment, frank (why the small f?), about
> your wonderful debating tactic of jumping on every little typo as if it
> really mattered.
>
> But seriously, frank. You pick up on somebody typing "your" for "you're", as
> if to say: "This guy's illiterate, don't listen to him", and then you write
> "that" for "than". It's not even as if the T and N keys are next to each
> other on a standard QWERTY keyboard.
I know. Beats me. Looks bad for me, doesn't it?
>
>
> At least in this thread you've actually made a contribution. I disagree with
> some of what you say, but it's a perfectly good and even valuable
> contribution nonetheless. Let's have more of this, and less of the other.
Thanks.
As for "your" for "you're," I cannot see that as a typo. Same for "it's" for
"its." Typos abound as mechanical mistakes; illiteracy abounds as unsound
thinking and ignorance.
meirman
<rsina-no...@earthlink.net> posted:
>
>>
>>> But can a salacious woman become non-salacious by altering her
>>>behavier?
>>
>> Sure.
>>
>>>Is it something that she does that makes her salacious or
>>>something that she possess?
>>
>> Either one.
>>
>
>Then let me pose my question some other way. I guess I am loss for the word:
>
>When we say a woman possesses beauty, we say it in a positive way. We are
>not criticizing her. It is usually meant to be to her credit (all women
>possess beauty, but for the sake of example let's ignore that for now).
>Also, beauty is not a matter of choice.
My mother would disagree with you, although I was never sure I agreed
with my mother. She had one childhood or teenage friend who, when she
got a job and some money, spent it on her looks in various ways (but
not plastic surgery) and made a tremendous improvement. Unfortunately
I met her when she was over 50 and although she wasn't bad looking, I
never really pictured her as sexy.
OTOH, it occurs to me that looking salacious is definitely within the
control of most women, based on her clothes, her makeup, and even her
posture.
>It is not something the society can
>blame her for having it or not having it. Now suppose a woman possesses the
>quality that provokes lust (or appeals to sexual desire or imagination;
>which is the M-W definition of salacious, as pointed out by Dena). She
>doesn't have to be doing anything wrong to have this quality, just like she
I don't know about that. The better looking they are, the more that
some of them know how to dress down, at least for work for example.
If a woman knows she looks sexy when she dresses in a certain way and
she dresses that way to work, at most jobs at some point she's
dressing inappropriately.
>wouldn't be doing anything wrong to be beautiful. So if salacious is not
>the appropriate word to describe a well-mannered sexually attractive woman,
>what then is the right word?
Well, you could say well-mannered sexually attractive woman.
You could probably just say attractive. As long as your not trying to
talk from a woman's perspective about what is attractive, a man would
find sex-appeal in most attractive women. If you say specifically
"sexually attractive" you're definitely putting the focus on that,
rather than just giving a description of her. In fact, because
"attractive" alone conveys what I think you're looking for, "sexually
attractive" implies to me that she wears makeup and certain colors of
lipstick, somewhat shorter skirts, and opens one more button on her
blouse than others do. I'm not talking about looking like a tramp,
just heading in that direction. (In practice in the US a lot of
women's styles were first seen on prostitutes. At least in my
lifetime. I suppose at an earlier time, a couple of the same styles
didn't mean that.)
>BTW I don't mean to be sexist here. A man can be good looking and provoke
>lust too.
Let me check in the mirror.. Yes, you're right.
> I just gave the above example to find a substitute word for
>salacious, since from what I am hearing this word may be offensive.
Even if you don't find a one-word substitute, I wouldn't call a anyone
salacious.
BTW, I'm going to start a thread about proliferate. Watch for it, on
a news server near you.
s/ meirman If you are emailing me please
say if you are posting the same response.
Born west of Pittsburgh Pa. 10 years
Indianapolis, 7 years
Chicago, 6 years
Brooklyn NY 12 years
Baltimore 17 years
meirman
<rsina-no...@earthlink.net> posted:
It doesn't matter what the dictionary says. :) Sexy is definitely much
less negative than salacious. Sexy is only negative when used in
cases where the whole topic of sexual attractiveness is off topic.
P&M
You may have stopped reading the list. I'm emailing this too, but
there is another better answer on the group in the thread.
>But I appreaciate all your responses and accept them.
>Thanks again and cheers,
>Rsina
Yusuf B Gursey
>
> She was Persian (NOT Iranian) and escaped from the Ayatollah by the skin of
> her teeth. Her younger brother was shot dead as she and her family escaped
anyone from Iran or a citizen of Iran is "Iranian". "Persian" is
ethnic.
persian nationalists emphasize their ethnic origin, and frequently
feel that all Iranian citizens ought to identify themselves as
"persians" as well. in fact there are large groups in Iran that
identify themsleves ethnically as otherwise. the Shah was advocated
persian nationalism.
this is what is behind what your friend was trying to tell you.
otherwise, she was Iranian as well, from your description.
Dr Robin Bignall
>Dr Robin Bignall <docr...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<ct6u7vgcg8pb8eahv...@4ax.com>...
>>
>> She was Persian (NOT Iranian) and escaped from the Ayatollah by the skin of
>> her teeth. Her younger brother was shot dead as she and her family escaped
>
>anyone from Iran or a citizen of Iran is "Iranian". "Persian" is
>ethnic.
Are you old enough to remember the days before the Shah was ousted? I am
not talking about yesterday. She was born C. 1950, and was / is a Persian.
Yusuf B Gursey
> On 28 Mar 2003 19:13:45 -0800, y...@theworld.com (Yusuf B Gursey) wrote:
>
> >Dr Robin Bignall <docr...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<ct6u7vgcg8pb8eahv...@4ax.com>...
> >>
> >> She was Persian (NOT Iranian) and escaped from the Ayatollah by the skin of
> >> her teeth. Her younger brother was shot dead as she and her family escaped
> >
> >anyone from Iran or a citizen of Iran is "Iranian". "Persian" is
> >ethnic.
>
> Are you old enough to remember the days before the Shah was ousted? I am
> not talking about yesterday. She was born C. 1950, and was / is a Persian.
>
it was "Iran" before the Shah's overthrow and after.
the Shah's father (also a Shah) established use of "Iran" in diplomacy
during the 1930's. it is and always has been "Iran" in persian.
Harvey Van Sickle
-snip-
> anyone from Iran or a citizen of Iran is "Iranian". "Persian" is
> ethnic.
> persian nationalists emphasize their ethnic origin, and frequently
> feel that all Iranian citizens ought to identify themselves as
> "persians" as well. in fact there are large groups in Iran that
> identify themsleves ethnically as otherwise. the Shah was
> advocated persian nationalism.
>
> this is what is behind what your friend was trying to tell you.
> otherwise, she was Iranian as well, from your description.
I found this very interesting; thank you for this, and the later
comment about the Shah's father's use of "Iran" from the 1930s.
A request, meant politely. As this is a language usage group, could
you please start your sentences with upper-case letters?
I can't speak for others, but I'm not attuned to seeing lower-case-only
posts in here, and found I had to read your posts twice to pick up the
sentence breaks.
--
Cheers,
Harvey Van Sickle
For e-mail, harvey becomes whhvs.
Dr Robin Bignall
Interesting, but irrelevant. I was not talking about the country the lady
came from, but what she, her friends and her relations whom I met during
the years that I knew her, called themselves. They may have come from
'Iran', but they called themselves 'Persians'.
She swore at somebody who called her an 'Iranian' once, and one of her
Persian friends spat on the floor, which, as we were in an hotel bar at the
time, caused some consternation.
The year would be 1985 or 1986, and the (private) bar was on the first
floor of the Charing Cross Hotel, by the railway station of the same name
in London. The club that we all belonged to hired it every Friday evening.
You may be Iranian. So what? I know what I saw and heard, and I knew her
longer and infinitely better than I ever will know you, whoever you are.
She is totally unforgettable.
Dena Jo
> The year would be 1985 or 1986,
In the 1980s, I was friendly with many Persians, and that's what they
all called themselves -- Persians.
Yusuf B Gursey
: On 29 Mar 2003 13:23:20 -0800, y...@theworld.com (Yusuf B Gursey) wrote:
:>
:>it was "Iran" before the Shah's overthrow and after.
:>
:>the Shah's father (also a Shah) established use of "Iran" in diplomacy
:>during the 1930's. it is and always has been "Iran" in persian.
: Interesting, but irrelevant. I was not talking about the country the lady
: came from, but what she, her friends and her relations whom I met during
: the years that I knew her, called themselves. They may have come from
: 'Iran', but they called themselves 'Persians'.
I explained what is behind this in my previous post.
obviously they don't like being called "iranian", but they were what in
english is normally refered to as "iranian".
they also happened to be "persians" as well.
: She swore at somebody who called her an 'Iranian' once, and one of her
: Persian friends spat on the floor, which, as we were in an hotel bar at the
: time, caused some consternation.
: The year would be 1985 or 1986, and the (private) bar was on the first
: floor of the Charing Cross Hotel, by the railway station of the same name
: in London. The club that we all belonged to hired it every Friday evening.
: You may be Iranian. So what? I know what I saw and heard, and I knew her
who said so?
: longer and infinitely better than I ever will know you, whoever you are.
: She is totally unforgettable.
Dr Robin Bignall
wrote:
>In alt.english.usage Dr Robin Bignall <docr...@ntlworld.com> wrote in <th8c8vsge67nomqtr...@4ax.com>:
>: On 29 Mar 2003 13:23:20 -0800, y...@theworld.com (Yusuf B Gursey) wrote:
>
>:>
>:>it was "Iran" before the Shah's overthrow and after.
>:>
>:>the Shah's father (also a Shah) established use of "Iran" in diplomacy
>:>during the 1930's. it is and always has been "Iran" in persian.
>
>: Interesting, but irrelevant. I was not talking about the country the lady
>: came from, but what she, her friends and her relations whom I met during
>: the years that I knew her, called themselves. They may have come from
>: 'Iran', but they called themselves 'Persians'.
>
>I explained what is behind this in my previous post.
>
You did not "explain" anything. How can there be such a language as
'persian', as you call it. The Shah's father tried to change 'Persia' to
'Iran', as I understand your previous post. So what?
>obviously they don't like being called "iranian", but they were what in
>english is normally refered to as "iranian".
>
>they also happened to be "persians" as well.
>
>: She swore at somebody who called her an 'Iranian' once, and one of her
>: Persian friends spat on the floor, which, as we were in an hotel bar at the
>: time, caused some consternation.
>
>: The year would be 1985 or 1986, and the (private) bar was on the first
>: floor of the Charing Cross Hotel, by the railway station of the same name
>: in London. The club that we all belonged to hired it every Friday evening.
>
>: You may be Iranian. So what? I know what I saw and heard, and I knew her
>
>who said so?
>
This remark is quite meaningless in this position.
>: longer and infinitely better than I ever will know you, whoever you are.
>: She is totally unforgettable.
rsina
Persian/Iranian, perhaps I should add that many of us in the United States
did not want to admit our Iranian heritage because of the hostage crisis
right after the Iranian revolution in 1979. There was a huge anti-Iranian
sentiment in the U.S. at the time, and many Iranians living in the States,
even in Europe, did not want to be associated with Iran for protection or
just out of embaressment. Many of my Iranian friends were beaten up in
schools for being Iranian; almost all of them had escaped from Iran few
months earlier with their families leaving most of their assets and
belongings behind. So the term "Persian" was used by the rest of
Iranian-American community in a euphemistic way. I myslef at one point
introduced myself as Afghani to a group I had joined for a weekend hiking
trip. This was early 1980s. It might have been childish but at the time the
atmosphere was very tense. I also know someone who was so scared, he
routinely used to introduce himself as Israeli (once it turned out that the
person he was introducing himself to was Syrian. They had a very polite and
friendly encounter nevertheless). I think that's all behind us and many
Iranians now call themselves Iranians, although some still don't. I suppose
some Iraqis living abroad might soon start calling themself "Mesapotamian".
BTW, that doesn't mean that your friends weren't comfortable with you or
didn't trust you. It probably was the case that they had originally called
themselves Persian to other people, and the name had stuck for them.
Some of the Iranian community living in exile like to think that "Persian"
is a pre-Islamic name of Iran (but that is not true). Since that was the
era where the Persian empire had its glory, and since they are ticked off
by the theocrasy of the current regime in Iran, they feel it is more
patriotic to call themsleves Persian. Yusuf Gursey is not an
Iranian/Persian name; but he is quite right about the history of
Iran/Persia.
Dena Jo
> trip. This was early 1980s. It might have been childish but at the
> time the atmosphere was very tense.
Nothing childish about it. When I was traveling in Europe, at some
point I started telling people I was Canadian. It was just easier and
less stressful. If I had to go to Europe now, I'd embroider maple
leaves on my luggage before I left.
Yusuf B Gursey
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2003 23:30:44 +0000 (UTC), Yusuf B Gursey <y...@TheWorld.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In alt.english.usage Dr Robin Bignall <docr...@ntlworld.com> wrote in <th8c8vsge67nomqtr...@4ax.com>:
> >: On 29 Mar 2003 13:23:20 -0800, y...@theworld.com (Yusuf B Gursey) wrote:
>
> >:>
> >:>it was "Iran" before the Shah's overthrow and after.
> >:>
> >:>the Shah's father (also a Shah) established use of "Iran" in diplomacy
> >:>during the 1930's. it is and always has been "Iran" in persian.
>
> >: Interesting, but irrelevant. I was not talking about the country the lady
> >: came from, but what she, her friends and her relations whom I met during
> >: the years that I knew her, called themselves. They may have come from
> >: 'Iran', but they called themselves 'Persians'.
> >
> >I explained what is behind this in my previous post.
> >
> You did not "explain" anything. How can there be such a language as
why shouldn't there be a language called "persian". obviously there
is. it is the official language of Iran and the language (and name) of
the dominant ethnic group there. but there is a considerable number of
other ethnic groups comprising a quite substantial portion of the
population of the country who are not "persian" and many don't speak
persian as a native language.
I know that "persian nationalists" (those who feel that the culture,
language and interests of ethnic persians should dominate the politics
and culture of Iran over those of other ethnic groups and they feel
all citizens / subjects of Iran should identify themsleves with this
ethnic group, shedding their current identification, culture, language
etc.) *currently* prefer and insist on calling themsleves "persians"
rather than "iranians." "Iranian" *in current usage* is a more ethnic
- neutral term which could be applied to anybody from Iran or to any
citizen / subject of that country. "persian nationalism" was an
ideology strongly promoted by the Shah. the current Islamic regime is
*less* concerned with an ideology based on ethnicity and much more
with religion (specifically Imami Shiite Islam). your friends, as you
describe them, exhibit behavior consistent with those of many "persian
nationalists." this does not mean that they were not "Iranians" in the
sense of having originated in Iran and of being at least onetime
citizens / subjects of Iran. obviously they chose to identify
themselves (and likey were) as having come from the "persian" ethnic
group in Iran (the main ethnic group).
> 'persian', as you call it. The Shah's father tried to change 'Persia' to
> 'Iran', as I understand your previous post. So what?
no. he insisted that the country be called "Iran" (as it has always
been called locally) rather than "Persia" *in european languages*. he
didn't change the name of the country in persian (the official
language of the country). I brought it up since you implied that a
name change occured after the islamic revolution there.
>
> >obviously they don't like being called "iranian", but they were what in
> >english is normally refered to as "iranian".
> >
> >they also happened to be "persians" as well.
> >
> >: She swore at somebody who called her an 'Iranian' once, and one of her
> >: Persian friends spat on the floor, which, as we were in an hotel bar at the
> >: time, caused some consternation.
>
> >: The year would be 1985 or 1986, and the (private) bar was on the first
> >: floor of the Charing Cross Hotel, by the railway station of the same name
> >: in London. The club that we all belonged to hired it every Friday evening.
>
> >: You may be Iranian. So what? I know what I saw and heard, and I knew her
> >
> >who said so?
> >
> This remark is quite meaningless in this position.
>
it means that there is no reason for you to conclude that I am
"Iranian".
Dr Robin Bignall
wrote:
Interesting, and thanks for that. This thread, and my erstwhile friendship
with Mahboob and the remains of her family, caused me to do a little
googling.
The last Shah's father was mentioned as the person who coined the term
'Iran' in the 1930s. Reza Khan Pahlevi was a general in 1921 when he
succeeded in a coup, aided by the British. He then went on to suppress
independent organisations of workers and peasants during the next decade or
so, and gave Persia the name 'Iran' to emphasise the superior Aryan race.
In this he sounds just like Adolph, and the fact that he is not so famous
is that he confined his murderous ways to Persia whereas Adolph involved
the whole world.
My friends were not rich, they were comfortable, but they could trace their
lineage back for many hundreds of years, so her uncle told me long ago in
the 1980s. To people such as they, Reza was an upstart, and anything he
said about any subject under the sun, including trying to change the
historical name of their country, was mere froth.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/sep2000/iran-s04.shtml
http://www.mazdapub.com/Iranian-Student.htm
are just two of the myriads of sites I found.
Dr Robin Bignall
See my most recent post.
>> 'persian', as you call it. The Shah's father tried to change 'Persia' to
>> 'Iran', as I understand your previous post. So what?
>
>no. he insisted that the country be called "Iran" (as it has always
>been called locally) rather than "Persia" *in european languages*. he
>didn't change the name of the country in persian (the official
>language of the country). I brought it up since you implied that a
>name change occured after the islamic revolution there.
>
If you inferred that from my post then you inferred incorrectly.
>>
>> >obviously they don't like being called "iranian", but they were what in
>> >english is normally refered to as "iranian".
>> >
>> >they also happened to be "persians" as well.
>> >
>> >: She swore at somebody who called her an 'Iranian' once, and one of her
>> >: Persian friends spat on the floor, which, as we were in an hotel bar at the
>> >: time, caused some consternation.
>>
>> >: The year would be 1985 or 1986, and the (private) bar was on the first
>> >: floor of the Charing Cross Hotel, by the railway station of the same name
>> >: in London. The club that we all belonged to hired it every Friday evening.
>>
>> >: You may be Iranian. So what? I know what I saw and heard, and I knew her
>> >
>> >who said so?
>> >
I inferred so because you speak with authority. This time I inferred
incorrectly.
>> This remark is quite meaningless in this position.
>>
>
>it means that there is no reason for you to conclude that I am
>"Iranian".
>
As I said above. I had no reason other than your knowledge of the subject
under discussion.
Yusuf B Gursey
> On 29 Mar 2003, Dr Robin Bignall posted thus:
>
> > The year would be 1985 or 1986,
>
> In the 1980s, I was friendly with many Persians, and that's what they
> all called themselves -- Persians.
that's normal. likely, that's what they are. insisting that they are
*not* iranians raises my eyebrows.
If a Brit introduced himself as "English" I would understand it, and
assume he is from England (proper), at least originally. If he
insisted on NOT being called "British" OTOH, I would say he had a
serious "atitude problem" with Scots, Welsh, Irish etc.
Yusuf B Gursey
: As the original poster to this thread, who happens in fact to be
: did not want to admit our Iranian heritage because of the hostage crisis
: right after the Iranian revolution in 1979. There was a huge anti-Iranian
: sentiment in the U.S. at the time, and many Iranians living in the States,
: even in Europe, did not want to be associated with Iran for protection or
: just out of embaressment. Many of my Iranian friends were beaten up in
: schools for being Iranian; almost all of them had escaped from Iran few
: months earlier with their families leaving most of their assets and
: belongings behind. So the term "Persian" was used by the rest of
this is understandable. emphatically denying "Iranian" raises my eyebrows.
: Iranian-American community in a euphemistic way. I myslef at one point
: introduced myself as Afghani to a group I had joined for a weekend hiking
: trip. This was early 1980s. It might have been childish but at the time the
: atmosphere was very tense. I also know someone who was so scared, he
: routinely used to introduce himself as Israeli (once it turned out that the
: person he was introducing himself to was Syrian. They had a very polite and
: friendly encounter nevertheless). I think that's all behind us and many
: Iranians now call themselves Iranians, although some still don't. I suppose
: some Iraqis living abroad might soon start calling themself "Mesapotamian".
this is more extreme, as there is no ethnic group known as "Mesopotamian".
but there is a persian language and persian people.
: BTW, that doesn't mean that your friends weren't comfortable with you or
: didn't trust you. It probably was the case that they had originally called
: themselves Persian to other people, and the name had stuck for them.
they probably were "persian", as opposed to Azeri, Kurd, Lur etc.
: Some of the Iranian community living in exile like to think that "Persian"
: is a pre-Islamic name of Iran (but that is not true). Since that was the
: era where the Persian empire had its glory, and since they are ticked off
: by the theocrasy of the current regime in Iran, they feel it is more
this is what I call "persian nationalist", athough the outlook was present
before the islamic regime and not merely a reaction against it.
: patriotic to call themsleves Persian. Yusuf Gursey is not an
: Iranian/Persian name; but he is quite right about the history of
: Iran/Persia.
yes. I am neither "persian" nor from "Iran", although I am familiar to
a certain extent with the culture, history and languages of the place.
: Dena Jo wrote:
:>
Yusuf B Gursey
: Interesting, and thanks for that. This thread, and my erstwhile friendship
: with Mahboob and the remains of her family, caused me to do a little
: googling.
: The last Shah's father was mentioned as the person who coined the term
: 'Iran' in the 1930s. Reza Khan Pahlevi was a general in 1921 when he
he didn't coin the name "Iran", he insisted that henceforth it be used in
all languages in diplomatic and other matters. in the native and official
language of the country, it was "Iran". the language is called "Farsi" (in
persian), which is an arabization of "Pars" (hence greek Persis).
cureently "Fars" is a central province of Iran, which is more or less the
persian speaking heartland and near where the first Persian Empire of
antiquity (the glorification of which the last Shah revived) originated.
the people then had called "Arya's" and specifically form the region and
dialect of "parsuwa" (Greek Persis). this dialect dominated the literary
language that was then born and evolved through the ages. In the early
medieval (pre-islamic) and late classical empir eof teh Sasanids the
empire was known in (medieval) persian as (the country of) Iran". as a
persian speaking political entity emerged in roughly the same area of the
heart of that in early modern times, it cam eot be known as "Iran" as
well (the name had continued as a regional name meanwhile).
he was pro-Axis. his ambassador to Berlin caught on the fact that "Iran"
is etymologically identical to "Aryan" which was at the forefront of Nazi
discourse. Hitler read of the historical Arya's and their subjugation of
the native population of India (another branch conquered whatis now Iran)
through war. Hitler also read about the linguistic and for him the
"racial" relationsship with German and Germans. thus, "Aryan" was adopted
by Hitler as the name of his so-called "master race". the Iranian
ambassador with strong Nazi sympathies wrote to his ruler, the Shah, with
simialr sympathies, who inaugurated the diplomatic use of "Iran" in
Europe simultaneaously with Hitler declaring hinself "Fuehrer".
neverthless, much of this is a historical footenote. much of the ethnic
association of "Iran" is not popularly known (in zoroastrian tradition,
carried over into the islamic era, it was the land of the Forces of Good).
"persian" is known as strictly ethnic. use of "iran" is regarded as
deference to the multi-ethnic character of present day Iran.
: succeeded in a coup, aided by the British. He then went on to suppress
: independent organisations of workers and peasants during the next decade or
: so, and gave Persia the name 'Iran' to emphasise the superior Aryan race.
he insisted on the use of "Iran" *abroad* *as well*
locally, "Persia" (Fars) suggests just a province of the persian speaking
heartland (which formed the nucleus of the original empire in antiquity).
: In this he sounds just like Adolph, and the fact that he is not so famous
: is that he confined his murderous ways to Persia whereas Adolph involved
: the whole world.
: My friends were not rich, they were comfortable, but they could trace their
: lineage back for many hundreds of years, so her uncle told me long ago in
: the 1980s. To people such as they, Reza was an upstart, and anything he
: said about any subject under the sun, including trying to change the
: historical name of their country, was mere froth.
*in current usage* contempt for "Iranian" sounds unkind to fellow
countrymen who are not ethnic Persians, like Azeris, Kurds, Tukmens, Lurs
etc.. It is as if an Englishman expressed contempt for "British", thus
denigrating, Scotsmen, Welsh, Irish etc.. I cannot go into the minds of
your friends, but that is the impression they make.
the regime of the Shah was supressing the ethnic, cultural and linguistic
expressions of non-persians (in fact utterly fictitious theories were put
forth at the time that they were all speaking variants of persian!). the
islamic government is less interested in this, though some are at odds
with the islamic government over sectarian matters. they are also
sometimes at odds with the islamic government for not doing *enough* to
specifically address the matter of ethnic minorities either (since the
government concentrates on religious matters instead).
: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/sep2000/iran-s04.shtml
Yusuf B Gursey
> On 30 Mar 2003 10:49:09 -0800, y...@theworld.com (Yusuf B Gursey) wrote:
> >I know that "persian nationalists" (those who feel that the culture,
> >language and interests of ethnic persians should dominate the politics
> >and culture of Iran over those of other ethnic groups and they feel
> >all citizens / subjects of Iran should identify themsleves with this
> >ethnic group, shedding their current identification, culture, language
> >etc.) *currently* prefer and insist on calling themsleves "persians"
> >rather than "iranians." "Iranian" *in current usage* is a more ethnic
> >- neutral term which could be applied to anybody from Iran or to any
> >citizen / subject of that country. "persian nationalism" was an
> >ideology strongly promoted by the Shah. the current Islamic regime is
> >*less* concerned with an ideology based on ethnicity and much more
> >with religion (specifically Imami Shiite Islam). your friends, as you
> >describe them, exhibit behavior consistent with those of many "persian
> >nationalists." this does not mean that they were not "Iranians" in the
> >sense of having originated in Iran and of being at least onetime
> >citizens / subjects of Iran. obviously they chose to identify
> >themselves (and likey were) as having come from the "persian" ethnic
> >group in Iran (the main ethnic group).
> >
> See my most recent post.
my response to it should appear shortly.
as I said in it, nobody changed the name from Persia to Iran, except
for promoting the use of the native name in European languages.
Although the original purpose of this was less than noble (pandering
to Hitler), the name stuck because it was native usage and because the
ethnic connotation is only historic and not so popularly known. Thus,
"Iranian" refers to coming from a country and "Persian" from an ethnic
group.
In antiquity, a particular group of Aryans, the Persians - coming from
"Persia" proper, not far from the present province of Fars and its
neighbors (teh persian speaking heartland) conquered other kingdoms,
some speaking related languages, and fouunded an empire and a literary
language based on their dialect. thus historically "Iran" is somewhat
more general and "persian" (and a as provincial name Fars / "Persia
proper") more partcular.
>
> >> 'persian', as you call it. The Shah's father tried to change 'Persia' to
> >> 'Iran', as I understand your previous post. So what?
> >
> >no. he insisted that the country be called "Iran" (as it has always
> >been called locally) rather than "Persia" *in european languages*. he
> >didn't change the name of the country in persian (the official
> >language of the country). I brought it up since you implied that a
> >name change occured after the islamic revolution there.
> >
> If you inferred that from my post then you inferred incorrectly.
then I am baffled at what you implied.
> >>
> >> >obviously they don't like being called "iranian", but they were what in
> >> >english is normally refered to as "iranian".
>
> >> >: You may be Iranian. So what? I know what I saw and heard, and I knew her
> >> >
> >> >who said so?
> >> >
> I inferred so because you speak with authority. This time I inferred
> incorrectly.
well, I do know a lot about these things, but I wanted to underline
that I am not speaking out of ethnic or political bias.
>
> >> This remark is quite meaningless in this position.
> >>
> >
> >it means that there is no reason for you to conclude that I am
> >"Iranian".
> >
> As I said above. I had no reason other than your knowledge of the subject
> under discussion.
no problem.
Peter Duncanson
wrote:
>
>: Iranian-American community in a euphemistic way. I myslef at one point
>: introduced myself as Afghani to a group I had joined for a weekend hiking
>: trip. This was early 1980s. It might have been childish but at the time the
>: atmosphere was very tense. I also know someone who was so scared, he
>: routinely used to introduce himself as Israeli (once it turned out that the
>: person he was introducing himself to was Syrian. They had a very polite and
>: friendly encounter nevertheless). I think that's all behind us and many
>: Iranians now call themselves Iranians, although some still don't. I suppose
>: some Iraqis living abroad might soon start calling themself "Mesapotamian".
>
>this is more extreme, as there is no ethnic group known as "Mesopotamian".
>but there is a persian language and persian people.
Why is that extreme?
And why should people give themselves ethnic labels?
To me it seems perfectly reasonable for people to choose a geographical
label rather than an ethnic one. In fact, ethnic labels can lead all too
easily to racism and other forms of discrimination.
Yusuf B Gursey
> On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 22:36:21 +0000 (UTC), Yusuf B Gursey <y...@TheWorld.com>
> wrote:
>
> >: person he was introducing himself to was Syrian. They had a very polite > > >: and
> >: friendly encounter nevertheless). I think that's all behind us and many
> >: Iranians now call themselves Iranians, although some still don't. I
> >: suppose
> >: some Iraqis living abroad might soon start calling themself "Mesapotamian".
> >
> >this is more extreme, as there is no ethnic group known as "Mesopotamian".
> >but there is a persian language and persian people.
>
> Why is that extreme?
OK. that's subjective.
> And why should people give themselves ethnic labels?
people sometimes do. among other things it's a way of finding people
with a similar language and culture. sometimes they might find more in
common with someone from a farther location that they share a langauge
than someone closer by with whom they don't.
>
> To me it seems perfectly reasonable for people to choose a geographical
> label rather than an ethnic one. In fact, ethnic labels can lead all too
> easily to racism and other forms of discrimination.
people ought ot be free to call themsleves whatever they want without
adverse consequences.
Peter Duncanson
That is OK so long as what they call themselves does not imply something
adverse about other people.
I, for example, was born in England. I call myself English. That is a purely
geographical name as the boundaries of England are long established.
If some people were to call themselves "Real English", on the basis that all
their ancestors for the last 500 years were English born, it would be
offensive because it would imply that other English people were not really
English.
Dr Robin Bignall
wrote:
[snipped the detail]
I have responded to this absolutely fascinating post privately to Yusuf
because it is getting a bit OT.
Dr Robin Bignall
>Dena Jo <TPUBGTH.don't.use.this...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<Xns934D9D5C...@130.133.1.4>...
>
>> On 29 Mar 2003, Dr Robin Bignall posted thus:
>>
>> > The year would be 1985 or 1986,
>>
>> In the 1980s, I was friendly with many Persians, and that's what they
>> all called themselves -- Persians.
>
>that's normal. likely, that's what they are. insisting that they are
>*not* iranians raises my eyebrows.
>
Both Dena Jo and I are talking about the mid-1980s, Yusuf. This was not
long after the Ayatollah took over, and people in the west were just as
scared then as they are now about religious fundamentalists, particularly
Muslim ones. It may be an unpalatable fact if you're a Muslim, but it
doesn't make it any less true.
Even apart from the fact that Persian families with lineages which could be
traced over centuries thought that the Shah's father was a mere, recent
upstart, western people just didn't want to hear the word 'Iran' back then.
It has nothing to do with 'English' versus 'Real English' and similar
theories.
Dr Robin Bignall
>Dr Robin Bignall <docr...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:<9nle8v4pp8b1gj055...@4ax.com>...
>> On 30 Mar 2003 10:49:09 -0800, y...@theworld.com (Yusuf B Gursey) wrote:
>
>> >I know that "persian nationalists" (those who feel that the culture,
>> >language and interests of ethnic persians should dominate the politics
>> >and culture of Iran over those of other ethnic groups and they feel
>> >all citizens / subjects of Iran should identify themsleves with this
>> >ethnic group, shedding their current identification, culture, language
>> >etc.) *currently* prefer and insist on calling themsleves "persians"
>> >rather than "iranians." "Iranian" *in current usage* is a more ethnic
>> >- neutral term which could be applied to anybody from Iran or to any
>> >citizen / subject of that country. "persian nationalism" was an
>> >ideology strongly promoted by the Shah. the current Islamic regime is
>> >*less* concerned with an ideology based on ethnicity and much more
>> >with religion (specifically Imami Shiite Islam). your friends, as you
>> >describe them, exhibit behavior consistent with those of many "persian
>> >nationalists." this does not mean that they were not "Iranians" in the
>> >sense of having originated in Iran and of being at least onetime
>> >citizens / subjects of Iran. obviously they chose to identify
>> >themselves (and likey were) as having come from the "persian" ethnic
>> >group in Iran (the main ethnic group).
>> >
>> See my most recent post.
>
>my response to it should appear shortly.
>
I have responded to you privately.
>as I said in it, nobody changed the name from Persia to Iran, except
>for promoting the use of the native name in European languages.
>Although the original purpose of this was less than noble (pandering
>to Hitler), the name stuck because it was native usage and because the
>ethnic connotation is only historic and not so popularly known. Thus,
>"Iranian" refers to coming from a country and "Persian" from an ethnic
>group.
>
>In antiquity, a particular group of Aryans, the Persians - coming from
>"Persia" proper, not far from the present province of Fars and its
>neighbors (teh persian speaking heartland) conquered other kingdoms,
>some speaking related languages, and fouunded an empire and a literary
>language based on their dialect. thus historically "Iran" is somewhat
>more general and "persian" (and a as provincial name Fars / "Persia
>proper") more partcular.
>
I propose that you are forgetting that many Persian families can trace
their ancestry back to your 'antiquity'. Anything that happened in the 20th
century may simply have been considered as a temporary blip on Persia's
long history. It was, after all, an advanced civilisation when we Brits
were running around in woad.
Yusuf B Gursey
In alt.english.usage Dr Robin Bignall <docr...@ntlworld.com> wrote in <mudh8vo6mn91eklb7...@4ax.com>:
: On 30 Mar 2003 14:48:17 -0800, y...@theworld.com (Yusuf B Gursey) wrote:
:>Dena Jo <TPUBGTH.don't.use.this...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<Xns934D9D5C...@130.133.1.4>...
:>
:>> On 29 Mar 2003, Dr Robin Bignall posted thus:
:>>
:>> > The year would be 1985 or 1986,
:>>
:>> In the 1980s, I was friendly with many Persians, and that's what they
:>> all called themselves -- Persians.
:>
:>that's normal. likely, that's what they are. insisting that they are
:>*not* iranians raises my eyebrows.
:>
: Both Dena Jo and I are talking about the mid-1980s, Yusuf. This was not
I realize that. I am also saying that the designation "persian" is
perfectly normal - for actual persians (not of the other ethnic groups).
a strong *possibility* for the *rejection* of "iranian" is irritation over
use of a more ethnic - neutral term and preference for an ethnic -
specific term. these people just didn't avoid using "Iranian", they made a
specific point against it.
I am familiar with people who *insist* on using ethnic names and make a
fuss against the usage of *country origin* names because it dilutes ethnic
nationalism from other (but not too dissimilar to Iran) and the
possibility exists that the people so described are nationailists.
: long after the Ayatollah took over, and people in the west were just as
: scared then as they are now about religious fundamentalists, particularly
: Muslim ones. It may be an unpalatable fact if you're a Muslim, but it
: doesn't make it any less true.
it's not what I was talking about.
: Even apart from the fact that Persian families with lineages which could be
: traced over centuries thought that the Shah's father was a mere, recent
: upstart, western people just didn't want to hear the word 'Iran' back then.
you missed the point that the Shah's father *didn't* change the name of
the country as far as Persian, Arabic and Turkish speakers are concerned.
Iran is and was the name of the country (or at least the larger
geographical unit) and Fars (i.e. Persia) is and was a central province of
the previously mnetioned unit.
the "change" in the country's name concerned speakers of European
languages. If you said that a native English speaker of conservative
background resented the changeover from "Persia" to "Iran" it would make
more sense.
now for the second point: people may not have wanted to hear the word
"Iran" back then. OK. but your friend's reaction just attracted undue
attention. if that was the only thing then just pass it over in silence.
I still strongly suspect that there was soemthing more going on.
I don't find anything unusual in using "persian" instead of "iranian",
reacting *against* "iranian" is another matter.
: It has nothing to do with 'English' versus 'Real English' and similar
I said "British" vs. "English" and the analogy is quite close.
just as Europeans are getting use to "Iran" instead of "Persia",
middleasterners are now getting used to "Britain" instead of "England"
(except when that is all that is intended).
: theories.
Yusuf B Gursey
:>as I said in it, nobody changed the name from Persia to Iran, except
:>for promoting the use of the native name in European languages.
:>Although the original purpose of this was less than noble (pandering
:>to Hitler), the name stuck because it was native usage and because the
:>ethnic connotation is only historic and not so popularly known. Thus,
:>"Iranian" refers to coming from a country and "Persian" from an ethnic
:>group.
:>
:>In antiquity, a particular group of Aryans, the Persians - coming from
:>"Persia" proper, not far from the present province of Fars and its
:>neighbors (teh persian speaking heartland) conquered other kingdoms,
:>some speaking related languages, and fouunded an empire and a literary
:>language based on their dialect. thus historically "Iran" is somewhat
:>more general and "persian" (and a as provincial name Fars / "Persia
:>proper") more partcular.
:>
: I propose that you are forgetting that many Persian families can trace
that's not the issue.
: their ancestry back to your 'antiquity'. Anything that happened in the 20th
(as a footnote: that's a tall order)
: century may simply have been considered as a temporary blip on Persia's
I repeat: as far as the Persian language is concerned there was no change
of name of the country. and no change of the name of the ethnic group
(Persians) either in Persian or in European languages.
that's not my point.
: long history. It was, after all, an advanced civilisation when we Brits
: were running around in woad.
actually the Shah was constantly repeating such things.
Yusuf B Gursey
: On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 20:46:05 +0000 (UTC), Yusuf B Gursey <y...@TheWorld.com>
: wrote:
: [snipped the detail]
: I have responded to this absolutely fascinating post privately to Yusuf
: because it is getting a bit OT.
this is quite arguabely about english usage. in fact, I have had a lengthy
argument over "Persia" vs. "Iran" in alt.usage.english ("the sister
group").
Dr Robin Bignall
wrote:
>In alt.english.usage Dr Robin Bignall <docr...@ntlworld.com> wrote in <nadh8voiu1pkfac3u...@4ax.com>:
>: On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 20:46:05 +0000 (UTC), Yusuf B Gursey <y...@TheWorld.com>
>: wrote:
>
>: [snipped the detail]
>
>: I have responded to this absolutely fascinating post privately to Yusuf
>: because it is getting a bit OT.
>
>this is quite arguabely about english usage. in fact, I have had a lengthy
>argument over "Persia" vs. "Iran" in alt.usage.english ("the sister
>group").
I think that some of us in AEU think of AUE as more of a mother-in-law than
a sister!
Dr Robin Bignall
wrote:
[..]
>I said "British" vs. "English" and the analogy is quite close.
>
>just as Europeans are getting use to "Iran" instead of "Persia",
>middleasterners are now getting used to "Britain" instead of "England"
>(except when that is all that is intended).
>
It is interesting to me that my passport (and the passports of Welsh,
Scottish and northern Irish) says that I am British. This is an empty term
as far as I am concerned. During the last census questions were asked about
one's ethnic background, and they included just about every category you
can think of except English, which caused a great many people (millions) to
write it in.
Peter Duncanson
wrote:
>On Tue, 1 Apr 2003 06:01:31 +0000 (UTC), Yusuf B Gursey <y...@TheWorld.com>
>wrote:
>
>[..]
>>I said "British" vs. "English" and the analogy is quite close.
>>
>>just as Europeans are getting use to "Iran" instead of "Persia",
>>middleasterners are now getting used to "Britain" instead of "England"
>>(except when that is all that is intended).
>>
>It is interesting to me that my passport (and the passports of Welsh,
>Scottish and northern Irish) says that I am British. This is an empty term
>as far as I am concerned. During the last census questions were asked about
>one's ethnic background, and they included just about every category you
>can think of except English, which caused a great many people (millions) to
>write it in.
Fair enough.
The passport states your citzenship, rather than your ethnicity.
Alec Owen
"rsina" <rsina-no...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3_Zea.14165$pK4.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Hi all,
>
> Does the word salacious have a negative conotation? Is it
deragatory? I
> always thought it meant sexually arousing, but someone tells me it
also
> means debased and lewd. Is that generally true or only in sexist
societies?
>
> Thnaks.
Probably from the French word "sale" which
means "dirty". Obviously it is used subjectively
and derogatively.
What one person regards as salacious another might
think was beautiful.
A Owen