In order to understand how immigrants are perceived and how these perceptions affect them, let's examine the difference between a Persian and an Iranian. Is there really any difference at all? To put it simply, being "Iranian" is a nationality— where one is from —while being "Persian" is an ethnicity. The relationship between these two, however, are entwined in complex way throughout history. Iran, for example, was once referred to as Persia.
Persians were the inhabitants of Persis, the southern province of Pars. As time passed however, their language and identity were dispersed throughout Iran, precipitating cultural exchanges that have resulted in the diverse culture of Iran today. Persians are today defined as the people who speak Persian as their native language, but Iran has a diverse array of dialects, not just Persian. Similarly, while Iranian is the generic term for Iranian nationality or descent, this term doesn't take into account the diverse ethnic cultures within Iran, such as Persians, Baloch, Talysh, and Tat. After the revolution of 1979, Iranian citizens were no longer called Persian, which is now considered an old term. However, the term still has cultural value and relevance.
While Persians make up about 50% of the Iran's population, there are many other ethnic backgrounds and languages within the diverse country. To be Iranian does not necessarily mean to be Persian. As such the concept of "Iranian" vs "Persian" is a complex introspection of self-identity and its conflicts with assimilation.
At times, the misinformed differences between Persians can become rather silly, as in this comical depiction by comedian Maz Jobrani, where "Iranian" is received in a negative manner by Western society, whereas "Persian" seems more friendly and welcoming. This problem stems from the manner in which society has generally made it easy to label "groups of inherently similar people". These criteria for forming groups are often based on religion, ethnicity, or country of origin, and often exacerbates detrimental issues of self-identity. For instance, someone identifying oneself as Persian when their heritage leans towards Iranian is similar to discrediting history and ancestry; and even worse, discrediting identity. On the other hand, and to varying degrees, assimilation is often necessary for an immigrant to survive and thrive in their new homeland. As such, many complex questions arise. Is it possible to assimilate while still maintaining traditions? What must be compromised?
Your blog post seems to try its hardest to find differences between these two terms, but I would argue that these terms, when used by immigrants from Iran, are meant to be the same denotatively, but different connotatively. I believe you missed a crucial detail that plays a role in people, especially those in the United States, from using the term “Iranian”: the Iranian hostage crisis. This event strongly hurt relations between the U.S. and Iran, not just politically, but also racially. Thus, the use of the term “Iranian” leads many U.S. citizens to think of “terrorists,” which is hugely problematic to future generations of Iranians, who have no connection to the crisis. This is where using the term “Persian”…