t. Tajik but knows zero things about Tajikistan
One thing I am curious about is how similar the culture of Tajikistan is to Afghanistan and Iran. These three countries make up the Persianate branch of the Middle East/Central and South Asia. Because of this, the history and culture surrounding them is fascinating.
>I am curious about is how similar the culture of Tajikistan is to Afghanistan
You introduced pederasty into my culture and then later wiped it away from your own so we're known as kid fuckers world wide thanks a lot.
My dad was the son of an Afghan UN diplomat who fled to Paris with just his family and the clothes he had on two weeks before the 40th army's arrival (you know, back when Afghans weren't animals) soooooo it wasn't us hon
I'd love to learn about your culture though. Care to share?
I don't how to explain culture online desu.
You (probably) eat Afghan food so there's one thing. The clothes can vary on which state you go to but it's very similar.
It also goes without saying that Islam plays a large role too...
If you don't know about Tajikistan chances are nobody here does.
refer to this and try again, thanks for the food info though I didn't know that
The president of Tajikistan used democracy that the country obtained after they broke away from the Soviet Union to effectively rule for life. I kid you not: Emomali Rahmon is his name. The parliament approved the idea, people voted - including himself - and now he is president for life. His entire presidency has been one massive push against Islam and Islamic influence within Tajikistan. For example, beards are defined heavily in public law. Too large or too flowing and you risk police intervention. Got an Arabic name? Better change that shit, Ahmed or get out. Hijabs? Those are no longer legal to import into the country.
Can't blame him really: look at Afghanistan and Iran. The more Islam creeps into politics and society the more the nation as a whole suffers. It is not the religion's fault itself, but those who take portions of it and use it to forge societies set in times long past.
Anyway, Tajikistan learned a lot under Soviet rule. When they lost an overlord that the majority of the population did not mind having it left a vacuum. Rather than allow Islamists to snag control, politicians acted. I think the max amount of Islamic party candidates is capped at 35% in parliament. Secular parties are given effectively 65% control of a country with a majority Muslim population. That creates tension
>that shriveled Aral sea
Holy fuck, the place is a giant salt bog
Holy shit, that sounds incredible. God bless this man.
I have a MA in Russian history so all I know is:
>Russia defeats several Islamic Central Asian powers (Persia, Kokland, Bukhara) in the 1850s-70s and acquires modern Tajikistan
>When the Russian Empire collapses in 1917, most of Tajikistan ends up being controlled by the Bashmachi (Pan-Turkish/Islamic movement)
>Bolsheviks overrun area with Ataturk's support in the early 1920s, Cheka kills tens of thousands of Basmachi leaders/intellectuals/priests
>Tajikistan is a quiet uneventful little corner of the USSR until 1991
>Tajikistan was one of the most reluctant states to withdraw from the USSR and basically did it only after everyone else did
>Basically the day after Tajikistan is independent a civil war breaks out between the communist old guard backed by Russia and the neo-basmachi nationalists who eventually radicalize into full Islamist They recieve aid from Chechen Islamists, Al Qaeda, Pakistan, Iran, and eventually the Taliban
>100,000 die before russian-backed regime emerges victorious
>Tajikistan largely quiet since then, has become friendly to the West and is increasingly dependent on China economically as Russia is replaced as the main patron in central asia
The sad part to me is misguided "benevolent" westerners would probably try to overthrow that guy for "subverting democracy" and then immediately after the country would become another Islamist shithole.
Which is exactly what has happened in Iraq, Libya and is currently happening in Syria. Good thing nobody gives a flying fuck about Tajikistan or else Rahmon would already be Rahgone.
Democracy is the best system for sure, but some nations function just fine without it/without the truest form of it. And that's perfectly OK.
To add to this, or give it background really, the Tajiks and Kyrgyz people have a very proud history of resisting invaders. Lucky for them their lands are far enough from massively populated areas and ports. This isolation gave their culture enough influence from the outside world without the existing peoples there being uprooted or killed. Tajikistan is honestly 80% mountains so their economy has some raw resources that can be pulled out of the ground. Larger economies like Russia and China love to buy them from countries like Tajikistan because their quiet, docile setting in both domestic and international media mean massive quantities can be acquired without upsetting some Western power. "Hey... that copper you bought supports the Islamic United Front of Muslims!" or whatever sandpeople tribe who controls the region. Being Tajik is to be Persian... at least until the 20th century. Bolshevism and Soviet culture really gave Tajiks an identity all their own. An identity that, at least I feel, put them on the path of progress
>Rahgone
Nice
This user sums it very well OP
>the Tajiks and Kyrgyz people have a very proud history of resisting invaders.
Persia was occupied by Turks/Arabs for literally more than half a millennia. What are you on about?
I didn't say they had a proud history of Independence. Resistance is not the same
this p much
Tajikistan also has a huge issue with spousal abuse.
>Persia was occupied by Turks (sic) for more then half a millennia
Turkic states were largely short-lived even if continuous lines of dynasties followed the fall of the Abbasid Caliphate until the rise of the Iranian Safavid dynasty.
>Arabs
Not even close. Even after the fall of the Sassanid dynasty in 651 AD, most of eastern Persia remained nominally "vassals" or client-states to the Arab Caliphates but were never directly conquered, administrated, or ruled by them. Also remember, the Iranian Intermezzo is what broke the Abbasids power permanently in the first place, and that was a period of Iranian/Persian cultural revival that lasted nearly 300 years.
>most of eastern Persia remained nominally "vassals" or client-states to the Arab Caliphates but were never directly conquered, administrated, or ruled by them.
>"China wasn't occupied by Western powers and Japan. It just had to do whatever they said ,open their ports and had no choice in whatever they wanted but they were never occupied!"
>Turkic states were largely short-lived even if continuous lines of dynasties followed the fall of the Abbasid Caliphate until the rise of the Iranian Safavid dynasty.
A few Iranian dynasties may have came to power under the Arab/Turkic domain but it was only under the Safavid's that the majority of Iran was under Iranian rule thus the first "Iranian" empire in nearly a millennia.
>that lasted nearly 300 years.
I thought it was 200? Safavid empire started in 16th century and ceased to exist in the 18th.
>A few Iranian dynasties may have come to power under the Arab
The Abbasids literally had no power because of the Iranian Intermezzo period. They were almost entirely reliant in the latter half of their "empire" entirely on Iranian states for their military power, which is lead to further Iranian independence from the Caliph. On top of which, the main reason why the Turkic tribes were able to establish themselves was due to the Iranians heavily weakening the Abassids and inter fighting made it easy for them to take over.
>a few
There were many in that period.
>I thought it was 200?
I was talking about the Iranian Intermezzo period, not the Safavid dynasty. And last I checked even they lasted over 230 years.
>The Abbasids literally had no power because of the Iranian Intermezzo period. They were almost entirely reliant in the latter half of their "empire" entirely on Iranian states for their military power, which is lead to further Iranian independence from the Caliph.
Yes I know this but they they were parts and parts. The Iranian's had to go with the whims of whatever the Arab's wanted. They were still somewhat independent but had no choice to secure their interests.
And not to mention it was only under the Buyid dynasty, that all of Persia finally fell under independent rule which lasted barely over a century before it fell apart again. Iran, (like China) was a centralized state for most it's history, unlike it's tribal neighbors, so it being balkanized was a slight against it.
Then the Turk's came a few decades later and the rest is history.
>On top of which, the main reason why the Turkic tribes were able to establish themselves was due to the Iranians heavily weakening the Abassids and inter fighting made it easy for them to take over.
I know. But the end result remains the same.
>There were many in that period.
Only 6
>I was talking about the Iranian Intermezzo period, not the Safavid dynasty. And last I checked even they lasted over 230 years.
So not eight centuries but five. Okay.
He is corrupt as fuck though. Tajikistan would be better off if it would be ruled by radical Islamists because they are the only people who can solve Tajikistan's number one problem: corruption.
>but the were parts and parts
No. Because it was complete. dependence on Turkic and Iranian soldiers via vis-à-vis through Iranian emirs, governors, and states that provided the entire military forces for the Abbasids, who had no capacity to really enforce their rule beyond Baghdad.
>The Iranian's had to go with the whims of whatever the Arab's wanted.
Not really. The Tahrids stated this by already breaking away from Abbasid direct control very early in the first years of the 9th century. So you are incorrect there.
>no choice but to secure their interests
Not following you. After the fall of the Umayyad Caliphate/dynasty and the establishment of the Abbasids, the Iranian states not only continue to reduce their status as client and puppet states but further reverse this to make the Abbasids completely reliant on them for military, economic, and diplomatic purposes.
>it was only under the Buyid dynasty
No, independence and full on refusal to play as client states to the Abbasids started with the Tahrids. Also coincides with the rise of the Shia and Kharjites in places like Syria which also broke away from the Abbasid Caliphate's control.
>Iran was a centralized state for most of it's history
>like China
Sorta at best.
>Only 6
Tahrids
Saffarids
Samanids
Ziyraids
Buyids
Banuillyas
Sallarids
Sajids
Marwanids
Shirvanids/Shahs of Shirvan