Breaking the Stereotypes of Persia and Iran

by RICK ZAND

12 Mar 2010 22:0828 Comments

The Green Movement: Breaking the Stereotypes of Persia and Iran.

[ comment ] The West has constructed the dual identities of Persia and Iran as alter egos, the former the ancient civilization, the latter the modern one. Persia is rendered now as a precious artifact, and Iran as a terrorist state. It has been difficult for many in the West to see beyond these identities perpetrated by politicians, the news media, and popular culture. Over the past eight months, however, the Green Movement has done much to dismantle this façade. Protests, demonstrations, and the price paid by many Iranians in liberty and life has broken through the cultural barrier and allowed, or perhaps forced, Westerners to peer past the romanticized Persia and the vilified Iran to see the humanity of the country's people. If the movement perseveres, it may provide the opportunity for Iran to redefine itself to the West.

In her essay "How Can One Be Persian?", Persepolis author and illustrator Marjane Satrapi explores the linguistic symbolism of two terms that serve conflicting representations: Persia, the Greek-named, romanticized land of Persis and its people; and Iran, the native name of the same land, which has assumed new meaning in contemporary society. The two names define very different identities according to the Western perspective. The study of Persia as an Oriental culture is drawn from aesthetics and the exotic, as Satrapi describes in her essay: "By way of flattery, we are told that we are Persians and that Persia was a great empire.... The Persians are in Montesquieu's writings, in Delacroix's paintings, and they smoke opium with Victor Hugo."

Iran, by contrast, has become demonized by a Western media and polity through the use of epithets similar to those employed against Japan during World War II. George W. Bush's declaration that Iran was part of an "axis of evil" specifically evoked Ronald Reagan's reference to the Soviet Union as "the evil empire." Such language is essential to creating what scholars of propaganda refer to as the "mask of the enemy." Meanwhile, the West ignored friendly gestures during Iran's reform movement of the late 1990s and early 2000s, when then-president Khatami reached out to the United States, only to be snubbed. However, the spontaneous protests following the June election and the solidarity subsequently demonstrated by the Green Movement have not been so easily ignored by the Western press. The world has awakened to the Iran that always existed beneath the Western-manufactured veneer.

The relations between the United States and Iran continually reaffirm the Western construct of Iran as the aggressive manifestation of Persia, its evil twin. If Persia represents the feminine--rosewater and wine, the poetry of Hafiz and Rumi, the stories of Scheherazade--then Iran represents the masculine--rebellion and revolution, threat and terror; in short, those things which must be aggressively subdued. These contrasting images are reflected in the respective responses: historically, the West subjugated Persia through economic and cultural exploitation, while today the West deals with Iran in terms of threats, confrontation, and violence. Obama claims that if Iran unclenches its fist, an open hand is prepared to receive it, but this statement falsely presupposes that the United States has had an open hand all along, and not a clenched fist of its own.

Satrapi notes the art-and-opium-induced exoticism of the Persian Orient, portrayed through the eyes of the West, particularly the French during the eras of Enlightenment and Romanticism. Persia was studied, interpreted, and allegorized by European artists in order to construct an image of a culture that required domination by an imperialist, Western power. Montesquieu's Letters depicted Oriental impressions of Persian society. Delacroix, similarly, created impressions of Persia by freely imitating miniatures, so that the art of the East became Oriental art as reflected back by the West. European annexation of Oriental culture continued as curators confiscated artifacts from Persia. The Golden Age of Persian art is most fully represented in the British Museum in London, not in the historical art institutions of Tehran.

Satrapi demonstrates how the portrayal of Persian culture exemplifies the ways in which Western power creates Eastern identity. Persia is an easily available metaphor, sustaining persistent depictions of the Orient through literature, art, theory, and travel guides. As Edward Said described in his seminal work Orientalism, "The Orient...existed as a set of values attached, not to its modern realities, but to a series of valorized contacts it had had with a distant European past." Such is the construct of Persia that it exists not even as a representation of its own past, but as a European cultural artifact.

A central aspect of the dynamic is the valuation of Western logic over what is perceived as the Middle East's incapacity for self-government. As Said describes, "On the one hand, there are Westerners, and on the other there are Arab-Orientals [in Satrapi's case, Persians]; the former are...rational, peaceful, liberal, logical, capable of holding real values, without natural suspicion; the latter are none of these things." Both Satrapi and Said explain how the West's perception is of a Persia that never really existed. Perceived romantically, as an objet d'art, it could not be expected to function as an autonomous, self-governing society, despite the fact that it was self-governed for thousands of years, and produced such powerful leaders as Xerxes, Cyrus the Great, and Darius, and later Nadir Shah and the Safavids.

Persia is the archetype of that fascinating dream world of the Arabian Nights, harems, opium dens, and barbarian comportment. Satrapi asks, "Where is it, this legendary East of our fantasies and dreams and hatreds?" The construct produced by the West has come to symbolize that which is inferior to Western thought and governance, regardless of the fact that Persia and the East do "exist" on their own terms. The differing perspectives ultimately provide a false demarcation of East and West, itself a historical construct. The East simply represents what the West does not; but really, the divide is manufactured by cultural differences.

In other words, the line drawn between the East and West is imaginary, but it serves to distinguish divergent approaches to governance, culture, and life as a whole. Satrapi offers, "Maybe the term 'Eastern countries' has more to do with a religious definition--maybe what we really mean is that they're Muslim countries.... This notion would take us from Bosnia to Somalia, and from Morocco all the way to Indonesia--and such countries are to be found on three continents: Europe, Africa and Asia."

Islam is at the heart of what Iran has come to represent to the Western political system and media, not only as a state under theocratic rule, which it undeniably is, but culturally and socially as well.

Satrapi points out the key here: it isn't only the reduction of all Middle Eastern countries into a "single abstract concept," but what that concept represents. "What is a Muslim? Unfortunately, the West equates him or her with Bin Laden, that is, with the most radical of all wretched ideas.... The West turns the Muslim into an enemy...and Iran is a Muslim country."

Iran thus represents the alternative metaphor for this same geographic region, the flipside of the Persian coin. Iran is not a place of genies and Delacroix. Iran has long been the target of the Western news media, of xenophobic paranoia and terrorist labels. Satrapi states, "As for the Iranians, they take American hostages, they detonate bombs, and they're pissed at the West. They were discovered after the 1979 revolution." In the Western perspective, Persia can be subdued, painted, written about, romanticized, and dominated. Iran is perceived simply as hostile--in large part, because Iran will not allow itself to be treated as a European artifact.

As Satrapi reveals, the reductive image of Iran that has taken root in the West, particularly in the United States and Great Britain, makes it a symbol for all that is evil in the world. For decades, the Western media has focused on stories and images reflecting Iran's most extremist elements while ignoring the majority of Iranian Muslims who devote themselves to family and friends, spend their time playing volleyball, visiting the beaches or mountains, celebrating holidays, watching TV and going to the movies, or sitting in restaurants and cafes, talking or reading.

The rise of the Green Movement has forced the West to see this side of Iranians--the silent majority who gathered friends on social networking sites, rejecting the extremism and hypocrisy of their own government in favor of democratic values and personal liberty. The movement broke through the image long maintained by the West of Iran as a monolithic evil. On every news site, television station, and radio outlet there were reports of outraged demonstrators fighting against an election fraud perpetrated by a regime that the West assumed all Iranians supported. The image of the axis of evil's most notorious member has needed to be redrawn, much to the consternation of American hawks long intent on precipitating a violent attack, even an outright invasion. To drop bombs on Iran now would mean to kill not terrorists, but young people in the street peacefully demonstrating for the same values Westerners espouse. We all saw the camera-phone footage of Neda's brutal murder on TV and the Internet. To attack Iran now means killing thousands of young, innocent Nedas.

The mask of the enemy has been shattered. However, the old casts of Iranian identity are still perpetuated. Contemporary Iran is as much a construct as Persia was in the 18th century. They are each flat, one-dimensional characterizations hardly representative of Iran's culture or its people. Iran is further constructed through fantasies of Islam promulgated by sources as diverse as the memoirs Not Without My Daughter and Reading Lolita in Tehran and the abrasive speeches of President Ahmadinejad. With its supposedly relentless pursuit of a nuclear program, Iran still represents the axis of evil, the rogue terrorist nation in league with Hezbollah and Hamas, haters of Israel. However, all of Iran can no longer be made to represent these ideas -- lines are being drawn between the Iranian people and the government that ordered the beating of citizens gathered peacefully in the street, in some cases to death, while the whole world looked on. So the West is learning to separate these two entities, as opposed to lumping a nation's entire population under one ideology. As Satrapi states at the end of her essay, "Iran has extremists for sure. It has Scheherazade as well. But first and foremost, Iran has an actual identity, and actual history--and above all, actual people, like me." Through the efforts of the Green Movement, the West is discovering that the reality is much richer and more complex than such crude constructs, and the Iranian is not a projection of Western interests and ideas, but determined, diverse, independently thinking and compassionate--in a word, human. And in the end, should the movement succeed, Iran may very well define itself on its own terms.

Rick Zand is an editor at Tehran Bureau.

Marjane Satrapi's essay is in the collection My Sister, Guard Your Veil; My Brother, Guard Your Eyes, Uncensored Iranian Voices, edited by Lili Azam Zanganeh.

28 Comments

Lushly written, and a truth rarely explored.

Amir / March 12, 2010 6:52 PM

Dear Mark,

Excellent article and brilliant prose!

But, ironically, by treating the “West” itself as a monolithic entity, you may have misjudged the salutary impact of the Green Movement on Western perception and behaviour toward Iran.

To gauge Western impulses, you must first distinguish between elite opinion and the mindsets of ordinary folk, the “great, big, dull bulk of the nation”, in Mark Twain’s words.

While images of the Green Movement have unquestionably altered the perceptions of Western commonfolk about the homogeneity, menace and “otherness” of Iranians, elite Western opinion has long been aware of serious fissures in Iranian society, and eager to exploit them to its own geopolitical advantage. To illustrate this point, I cite below excerpts from George Bush’s 2006 and 2008 State of the Union addresses, years before the epiphany you claim the Green Movement has wrought on the Western mind:
__________________________________________________

(SOU 2006): “... The same is true of Iran, a nation now held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people. The regime in that country sponsors terrorists in the Palestinian territories and in Lebanon, and that must come to an end. ... And, tonight, let me speak directly to the citizens of Iran: America respects you and we respect your country. We respect your right to choose your own future and win your own freedom. And our nation hopes one day to be the closest of friends with a free and democratic Iran.”

(SOU 2008): “... Iran's rulers oppress a good and talented people. And wherever freedom advances in the Middle East, it seems the Iranian regime is there to oppose it. Iran is funding and training militia groups in Iraq, supporting Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon, and backing Hamas' efforts to undermine peace in the Holy Land. Tehran is also developing ballistic missiles of increasing range and continues to develop its capability to enrich uranium, which could be used to create a nuclear weapon. Our message to the people of Iran is clear. We have no quarrel with you. We have respect your traditions and your history. We look forward to the day when you have your freedom.”
__________________________________________________

To launch a war of aggression, the West must first engage in a consensus-building effort, aimed at both elites and common citizens.

For elite isolationists and the great majority of common folk, instinctively averse to overseas adventures, the only acceptable casus belli is a palpable, imminent danger to their own persons and families, such as proliferation of WMD, the prospect of ‘mushroom clouds over New York,’ or the 'proven' association of the target with the ever elusive Osama bin Laden. Hence, in the lead up to war, the profusion of “dodgy dossiers”, Ted Koppel documentaries with sinister background music, ‘smoking gun’ revelations from anonymous sources and shady defectors leading the news in print and on TV, anthrax scares, a spate of red and orange alerts, bomb scares at airports, and last but not least, massaged “intelligence estimates”.

Interventionists are much easier to coopt. For Zionists, whether of the Jewish or Christian origin, any threat to Israel’s untrammelled freedom to enforce its writ on the Middle East is sufficient cause for war. For clash-of-civilizations elitists, Islamophobes, chauvinists, Christian millenarians, rednecks, war buffs and White supremacists, any assault on the Orient is psychologically cathartic -- the more violent and indiscriminate, the better. For neocons and some traditional conservatives, American military domination of Middle Eastern, Caspian and Central Asian hydrocarbon reserves is a prerequisite for checking China’s global ascendance.

But the most prolific strain of interventionism in modern Western societies is the ‘neoliberal’ or ‘humanitarian’ kind, a kinder and gentler version of the ‘White Man’s Burden’, which assigns to the West the privilege and responsibility of freeing captive societies from their brutal regimes through military attack.

The doctrine of humanitarian intervention also draws sustenance from the Western sense of superiority and global mission, but is not explicitly premised on the backwardness, otherness or menace of the target nation. Quite the opposite, it holds that those people are ‘just like us’, but need our military to help them overcome their oppressors.

After the WMD and OBL ruses had outlived their purpose, this is the strain of interventionism that the famous humanitarian, George W. Bush, appealed to in his State of the Union speech of 2005, excerpted below:
_________________________________________________

“And to the Iranian people, I say tonight: As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you.
“One of Iraq's leading democracy and human rights advocates is Safia Taleb al-Suhail. She says of her country, 'We were occupied for 35 years by Saddam Hussein. That was the real occupation. Thank you to the American people who paid the cost, but most of all to the soldiers.'
"Eleven years ago, Safia's father was assassinated by Saddam's intelligence service. Three days ago in Baghdad, Safia was finally able to vote for the leaders of her country. And we are honored that she is with us tonight.”
__________________________________________________

The attack on Iraq was justified with a mix of reasons designed to appeal to all social interests listed above, in order to get the critical mass of elite and mass support needed for a complex democratic polity to act. There was a justification to suit every influential shade of opinion and doctrine, and at each moment, one reason was highlighted or deemphasized as appropriate or exigent.

A similar dynamic will certainly apply to the consensus-building effort for an attack on Iran.

The image of Neda and scores of other protesters being bloodied and killed in the streets certainly humanizes the victims for those Western dimwits who assumed that Iranian society was menacingly monolithic and alien, but it also dehumanizes the perpetrators and regime supporters. Contrary to your expectations, the West can use this to great advantage in justifying a war on Iran.

You say that “to bomb Iran now would mean to kill not terrorists, but young people in the street peacefully demonstrating for the same values Westerners espouse.” The humanitarian interventionist would flippantly respond: “Don’t worry. We will use precision bombing to limit the number of Nedas collaterally damaged to a minimum, certainly far less than the Nedas that will be imprisoned, tortured and killed by the regime if we fail to act. Please stay off the streets while we remove your regime. No pain, no gain.”

Finally, you say that “through the efforts of the Green Movement, the West is discovering that ... the Iranian is not a projection of Western interests and ideas, but determined, diverse, independently thinking and compassionate -- in a word, human.”

On the contrary, the Green Movement was humanized by the West precisely because it was conceived as a revolt against a regime that is adversarial to the West, and therefore, could be convincingly spun as mass endorsement by Iranians of “Western interests and ideas.”

I hope it is clear to you that if Neda had been protesting the repressive policies of a beloved pro-Western client state and shot by an Israeli or Jordanian security goon, she would never have been humanized, and you would have found Western media editors and anchormen scrambling -- much like their slimy counterparts in IRIB -- to spin it very differently: 'disputed account', 'caught in crossfire', 'shot by fellow protesters', 'forged footage', 'agitator', 'cannot be independently verified', 'linked to terrorist groups', 'seemingly armed', 'agent provocateur', 'human shield', ...

Anonymous / March 12, 2010 11:14 PM

All this article is doing is saying that Iranians are divided into two groups: the "good" Green Movement Iranians and the "bad" Hezbollahi (pro-government) Iranians.

You don't have to bash the Islamic Republic to show the human side of Iran. Sure, maybe you and other Iranians from your socio-economic background don't like it. That doesn't mean all of us do. There is an implied message here that the Hezbollahi Iranians aren't civilized, and they are what the West thinks; they don't watch movies, play volleyball, or talk with their friends.

Everything isn't black and white. Believe it or not, there still are millions of Iranians that don't support the Green Movement, retain some support for the current system, and at the same time, are *gasp* human like the rest of the world.

Koorosh / March 12, 2010 11:47 PM

Green is dead for good, and thank GOD for that!

Kiumars / March 13, 2010 12:11 AM

Great article. Covered many important themes and points, particularly regarding Khatami's attempts to reach out and the American administration inability to sieze the opportunity.

Arash / March 13, 2010 1:34 AM

I very much agree with Koorosh. "The rise of the Green Movement has forced the West to see this side of Iranians--the silent majority who gathered friends on social networking sites, rejecting the extremism and hypocrisy of their own government in favor of democratic values and personal liberty."

I find that statement utterly condescending to Iranians who are not. I think the writer falls into the very trap he is describing. There are million of Iranians who don't use twitter, who don't support the green movement, who might even support the government, but who in no way fit into the stereotypical images imposed on them by the West.

By this logic, the green movement has proven that only HALF of Iran should be labeled "axis of evil".

Houshang / March 13, 2010 2:26 AM

Hi, Rick.

The "Anonymous" post of 11:14 PM above is mine.

It got away from me before I could type in my pseudonym.

I posted it again a few seconds later with full sender details, but apparently TB did not register it.

Rgds

Ali from Tehran / March 13, 2010 3:16 AM

Many are against the government and don't support the Green movement.

AH / March 13, 2010 5:00 AM

What trash!!!!!!!!!!

No sir, the west only sees the Green as an opportunity to exploit and dominate Iran. The article's suggestion that the West has a capacity to see Iran differently because of the Greens is a falacy. The only outcome of the Greens used by the west to demonize Iran further.

The article paints a picture that Iranians should care or live to change their image in the west.

While we can find much wrong with Ahmadinejad, his cohorts represent a different path than the pathetic "please love us" western thinking of this artice. They say "what west thinks means nothing to us." They invite the average Iranian to free their minds from this preoccupation of what others think of Iran.

Pouy / March 13, 2010 8:33 AM

been trying to say (in fact actually saying) similar things here or there for years now, especially about the West's "idealized image of Persia" vs the "demonized Iranian" one but could never have done it as thoroughly and well stated as has been done in this very comprehensive yet concise article.

very well done indeed and i hope both Iranians and Americans (as well as the rest of the world) will be able to communicate in similar manners from now on instead of stereotyping other nations.

the whole world now, from the richest most advanced nations and countries to the poorest, needs a great reform. and it needs it in all directions: social, economical, cultural, political and what have you ...

all nations ought to help and stick together in that respect instead of fighting or trying to dominate each other unnecessarily. it can be done and very easily too given all or most agree upon doing so.

the age of silly conflicts over natural resources and a childish attitude toward "all mine" driven by the even worse "money talks" attitude has indeed passed now. Mother Nature Earth and The Universe belong to all and ALL have nothing but to use it wisely while preserving it just as well, and it can be done ...

Shahbaz Parsipour / March 13, 2010 11:24 AM

Honestly, what a pile of tripe this article is. How can someone make this absurd claim and rationalization? Mr. Zands articles get more strange and almost paranoid sounding! This chap has a strange chip on his shoulder and feeling of persecution!

Beli / March 13, 2010 11:47 AM

I believe both Beli as well as Pouy need to read the article once more, and this time more accurately too of course. Please do.

none / March 14, 2010 4:34 AM

I do not have a PHD in ancient Persia or modern Iran but i do see misjudgment when it comes to the people of Iran of today! Iranians have the most wonderful unique history of any nation, the ancient history which even the west holds dear!
Iranians too hold their history dear and highly valued and it is that value that Winston Churchill himself once quoted as saying this about Iran: "A price from the fairly land beyond our wildest dreams - Mastery of the price is the venture". (Youtube video: US Intervention in Iran Part I).
I do not have or need to have a PHD to know where Persian Gulf is located and what all this 30 year fuss is about but i do know that Winston Churchill was dead wrong in trying to make slaves out of the Persians and to steal their price(oil). Mastery of the price (stolen goods) may have sounded to him as a venture which he should have taken to his grave with him just as so many thief's had done before him. Ruthless Alex,Genghis Khan, Saddam, etc, they all tried and failed,reason: they all failed in taking to account the pride of an ancient people have lived in peace and call their land Iran.
Persia or Iran, Persian gulf or Gulf, it really dose not matter what we like to call it, what matters is that Iranian people have history that is valued amongst the nations of the world that will last until the end of time, unlike oil!

Jazeh / March 14, 2010 6:20 AM

Pouy,

I was following your comment until you went right off track: "While we can find much wrong with Ahmadinejad, his cohorts represent a different path than the pathetic "please love us" western thinking of this artice. They say "what west thinks means nothing to us." They invite the average Iranian to free their minds from this preoccupation of what others think of Iran."

Is that what khamanei and AN doing? They have killed, tortured, raped, and arrested thousands of Iranians because after 31 years of controlling every aspect of Iranians' education and media, they are trying to "free their minds"?

This regime was undemocratic and intolerant of any dissenting voice from day 1. Do you remember what happened to those who disagreed with including the concept of velayate faghih in the constitution? Where are they now? Dead, that's where.

Of course I agree that all Iranians (even those who have engaged in inhuman treatment of their countrymen) are human. But please don't throw in ridiculous statements.

Bahman / March 14, 2010 9:31 AM

Most grown ups with any sense of fair play can separate the government of any country from its citizens. I get so tired of articles like this about the so called 'western press' not liking this person or that..most of us are so totally adept at seeing the forest instead of the trees that this kind of article is preaching to the choir. Iran is a great country with well educated citizens that are fun and hard working just like any of us. Their government makes them hide that..but the minute they are free it will shine like the brightest star. I don't know anyone in Iran now..but many of them in my area are wonderful...Use everyday people HERE to make your story. NOW counts.

me / March 14, 2010 8:15 PM

Bahman and others,

I appreciate your comments, first and foremost. However, I do not buy into the recurrent logic of "they killed and raped" etc. I think it is dishonest to pretend we did not know what kind of regime IR is. Yes, Iran remains an authoritarian regime. But within the last 30 years there have been tremendous progress in Iran. To deny that is to deny reality. It is time we STOP pretending Iran used to be a better and more democratic place before the revolution. Iran is a work in progress, and it is a far better place than it used to be. We can constantly focus on where the IR should rightfully be criticised, or we can choose to criticise while we take into consideration the positive, thus we form a more balanced view of that nation. Who doesn't kill and rape in the Middle East? Is Guantanamo a vacation destination? Did Obama close guantanomo or is he continuing to torture? Isn't it embarassing that Khamanei can claim he closed the prison that torture occurred and has a better record than Obama?

Let's stay on what I originally stated, that Iranians need to STOP, I mean STOP, thinking or caring what westerners think or want from Iran. Ahmadinejad is right about that. He once correctly said "we can have a $40 billion trade with Europe (which was Iran's trade volume with Europe when he first took office) which means we import their goods, or we can export $8 billion to Iraq, $1 billion to Afganistan." And he is right. Iran is far better off to cultivate its relations with its neighbors, something the Shah did not do, and none of the arabs are doing now. It is that policy that is causing a shift in Turkey's alliances as Iran's trade with that nation is set to reach $30 billion.
We can have truthful criticism of Iran, and we can recognize that after 30 years of sanctions, chemical warfare, aid to every enemy around Iran, and propaganda, Iran's economy is ranked 17th in the world (but they invite the Saudi's to G20 instead), Iran is more influencial in the region than in the past 200 years, builds many things than Iranians ever imagined possible, and let's not get into its space program which made the 9th nation to build and launch a satelite in the world.

STOP your preoccupations with what they think. They live under the sand, while Iran is expanding its connections with Turkey, Iraq, Afganistan, Syria, Lebanon which does more to enhance Iran's long term security than anything the west has to offer. This is why "their sanction only hurts them" as Ahmadi pointed out.

The march to a full secular, democratic state will continue in Iran, and we all know that the mullah's eventually will leave. They are a victim of their own success, you can't educate all these women and expect them to accept only half their rights. This process is slow and painful, but it is an internal problem. And it has nothing to do with the fact that Iranians need to stop their preoccupation with the West.

I pose a new queston: How many Iranians wish Mossadeq had his own brand of Basij to protect him and the state in 1953?

Pouya / March 15, 2010 9:58 AM

Thanks for this article. Where can I find this essay by Marjane Satrapi? Could you please send the details?

Shadi / March 15, 2010 3:43 PM

Pouya, you are making really good 'basic points' while ignoring the 'most basic' one in here though: A`nejad is not even the truly independent, pro-Hizbollah, Islamic-minded person he pretends to be much less to be really working for Iran! (And sorry, no offense, only a deaf and blind person might be deceived by this man's false and fabricated maneuvers!)

Granted Mosadegh may have done even worse mistakes given he had succeeded in gaining total power (that is something I, as a pro-Masadegh person myself, have been telling all other pro-Moasdegh people around me for ages now!) but the Islamic Republic of Iran is anything but democratic or even 'populist' for that country and its people!

We are dealing with a bunch of thugs and mafia guys whose only difference with the thugs and mafia of the pre-revolution times is that they wore ties too while these guys just don't do it (and why they don't wear ties but do still care for the business suit is in itself another story that requires another thorough article ivestigating the matter further and elsewhere ...)

Iran's independence has been badly manipulated, not only during and after the Islamic Revolution, but throughout the ages! And the main enemy is within not without but that 'enemy within' is not comprised of only the traditional and absent-minded groups of Iranians who ruin the whole thing in their hands often times due to their own negligence and lack of wisdom, but it is also made up of certain other groups whose main aim is to keep the rest of the community in an absent-minded state, and do it at whatever the price possible, be it via religious (or even nationalistic) brain washing alone or by force when and if necessary.

There is no doubt the Pahlavi era was anything but democratic (unless by a few comparisons made between then and now, and mostly in a little individual freedom only some people could enjoy back then) but what has been happening in Iran during the last three decades is barely what even the Islamic Republic's true advocates were pursuing much less to be a 'democratic for all' movement in any sense!

And now let me pose another question here: why at all does an entity such as the Islamic Republic of Iran that is first and foremost based on autocratic ideas such as Velayat Faghih have to be democratic in the first place? And why these guys don't just stick to their original idea of Velayat Faghih instead of at times showing off some democratic slogans (and slogans only they are to keep everybody including the criticizing West busy, not serious actions!) without having to manipulate the rest of Iranians and the world? (And I don't want to get into another even more important aspect of this revolution, which would make me question the important and destructive role the West, Europe more than America, has been playing in keeping these guys in power all the time!)

More questions: Why at all, if this is a godly doctrine of thought, a 'heavenly ideology' that has been ruling that country for 30 years, has it not succeeded to breed a generation of true followers, especially among the post-revolution generation? (That generation is now on streets fighting these guys for their very basic rights such as "Where is my vote" and so on!)

Why at all do such a regime have to 'cheat' and rig the elections if they are truly godly and have 50 million true followers who did vote for this president? (And then the same president's office has to arrange it under the table for a mere 1000 workers to show up in some demonstration in Bandar Abbas or elsewhere after the elections?)

Why do we need elections if Islamic Republic believes it is "above democracy" and does not need its authorities to be elected by people but by a bunch of illiterate clergies who are barely even able to speak Arabic much less to be capable of interpreting their own holy book? (All they follow is certain 'hadith' traditionally and just stick to the rules, without ever thinking why those rules are there and if they are still applicable today?)

Why ...?

Hope I've been able to make my points clear in here.

Anonymous / March 16, 2010 12:17 AM

Anonymous 12:17 AM

Overall I agree with you. My views of Ahmadi is somewhat more moderate than yours. But he is not so important because of the overall trend of the nation.

Your questions are well taken and they point to the fact that the inherent life of the Mullahs or Rabis or Pope's in power is limited. You are right that Iran's govenment pretends to have democratic values that are incompatible with their religious stance. Again, this is why their lives are limited. But they pretend because they are wise, they know Iran's history from 1902 till 1953. They know there is a large segment of the society that longs for democratic secular state. So, they have come up with this mixture that does not make sense to neither one of us. But that is precisely my point, we have a state that fears the public and compromises when it needs. This will eventually lead to a secular state. It wil take time, and that is why I think any outside intervention would ruin the natural progression of Iran's long and arduous road to freedom. While we may not like the vehicle we are riding today, but we must appreciate that it is still on the road and going so ever slowly toward the main goal.

Just recently I read they have put 17 people on trial for commiting torture, and are using them to build a case against the procecutor general of Tehran. They are also reviewing the election laws and are considering to do away with the Guardian Council's role in this regard. If so, 2009 was not a lost. And they are making these changes because they fear the public more than the US. And I like that!!

I also think Iranians have never been as ready for a secular Democratic state than in the past 4 to 6 years. Let's not kid ourselves, no one could have kept Iran together under these pressures of the past 30 years better than the mullahs and their ability to bring people onto the streets or the battlefield. History will treat them harshly in the short run, but in the long run historian will recognize that the IR was the vehicle by which the Iranian nation took the religious monkey off its back, and used the foundation set by the IR to build a glorious secular and democratic state, without anyone's help.

Pouya / March 16, 2010 6:14 AM

"[T]he Iranian is not a projection of Western interests and ideas, but determined, diverse, independently thinking and compassionate--in a word, human."

Replace "Iranian" with "Westerner". I enjoyed Persepolis, and wish to read this further, but I find it, while not completely untrue, condescending and prejudging "the West".

I never imagined that viewing a Delacroix I was supposed to see the underlying message that those Persians are incapable of ruling themselves and need our help - thought never entered my mind, not even subconsciously (though how would I know?!). Granted, that was a view, even among Persianists such as Zaehner and Eden which I have a hard time to understand - it makes me pity them that they could be so intelligent and immerse themselves in a culture, yet remain so imperialistically arrogant.

But; I never knew that by reading FitzGerald's version (however stylized) of Khayyám that I was supposed to assume that all Iranians were polymaths and lived just like him. Did all Germans live and believe as Goethe? Kant? The Dutch as Van Gogh? And, were Delacroix' "Liberty" painting done by an Iranian in a miniature, I can only imagine what 'message' that would be sending about the French (like can't their women keep their tops on?). Sometimes art is just art. But, I'll admit art history is not my specialty, and proffer this humbly. I hope any particular mistakes can be overlooked and my broader point considered and tackled in any counter-argument. Nor do I dismiss the validity of studying such things for cultural attitudes. I merely suggest that nuance, like art, can be interpreted in a myriad of ways.

Granted, I will not deny the ultimate premise of Western perceptions and subsequent Persian v. Iranian debate among the diaspora. How can one not have noticed the West's despicable one-dimensional depiction of Iran the past 31 years? I just wanted to suggest, ever so gently, the irony of viewing the West as monoliths, or to judge us by our media. Especially since I believe it additionally ironic on another level that Marjane Satrapi was criticized by Hamid Dabashi for misrepresenting Iranians by merely recounting her personal experience (correct me if I have erroneous information here).

I've even heard specific Scottish personages referred to as Englisi. How would an Azeri, for example, feel being confused? And, as if all Western countries were the same, or their people felt the same. Current polls suggest that Americans still have a negative general view of Iran. I find this disheartening, and there must be a disconnect with what has been happening? I don't know. Maybe I'm being noticeably kneejerk and taking this too personally. I can concede that. I don't mean to give the impression that I completely disagree with the summation or Satrapi's essay itself.

But indeed, hardline politicians can bank on a belligerent, decadent "Occidental" caricature (Gharbzadegi, anyone?), as Westerners have fallen under the romantic spell of ancient Orientalism or the hysterical fear of a supposèd nation of terrorists. I even recall Hooman Majd describing a sort of "in America, the roads are paved with gold" fantasy from some Iranians on the other end.

People are complex. As such, whole nations and cultures and "races" (very intentional quotation marks) infinitely more so. The key is in not viewing another culture or broad groups of peoples as 'other'. That is the fundamental error. To take one painting, one book, - snapshots - and think that you are viewing the whole mosaic, is a human fault. Not a "Western" or "Eastern" one.

---

P.S. Pouya and Anon, it was refreshing to see a debate not devolve into flaming, but stay a civil discussion and exchange of ideas. I've been depressed to see others end in ad hominem attacks and start with premature vitriol. Indeed, I am not without sin in this department at times, but it is always regrettable.

Kurt / March 16, 2010 4:54 PM

The festival is barely tolerated by the authorities in the Islamic Republic, who object to it on the grounds that it is " Islamic". South Africa

South Africa / March 16, 2010 7:29 PM

Shadi,

The Satrapi article appears in the collection, My Sister, Guard Your Veil; My Brother, Guard Your Eyes: Uncensored Iranian Voices
edited by Lila Azam Zanganeh

Rick

Rick Zand / March 16, 2010 8:52 PM

Dear Kurt,

It was a pleasure to read your thoughtful and expressive post above.

Yes, all cultures think of others in flattened, stereotypical terms. It is indeed human nature to simplify, classify and categorize.

The preconceptions thus formed are not always negative; sometimes they are misleadingly flattering: Italians are charming bon vivants, the French are romantics, Jews are studious and creative, Germans are disciplined and precise, Japanese are deferential, etc.

But you will realize that in each one of the seemingly positive characterizations above, there is a dark potential, just waiting to be cultivated by hatemongers to create strife.

What makes Orientalist thinking and native informancy, even in their most benevolent and humane manifestations, so utterly dangerous and prone to abuse, is the gaping imbalance in military and economic power between Western protagonists and the Orientals they are examining, defining or representing.

Ali from Tehran / March 16, 2010 10:55 PM

What makes Orientalist thinking and native informancy, even in their most benevolent and humane manifestations, so utterly dangerous and prone to abuse, is the hegemonic context: the gaping imbalance in military and economic power between Western protagonists and the Orientals they are examining, defining or representing.

Ali from Tehran / March 17, 2010 2:37 AM

Kurt,

Your points are well taken. And you are right, we should all keep things civil. It can be struggle.

Pouya / March 17, 2010 12:08 PM

Hey everyone, what is wrong with stereotyping and hate mongering?

You know better, it can get you elected as president in any country, even twice. Here, there, everywhere.

Get real. Why go the peace rally before we kill these bastards. Don't they pray to a different god.

Honestly, this is all distractions. Follow the money and the smell. That of oil and that of oil. That is where it all begins and ends.

I drive a car daily, sit in a well heated room, fly about, buy Chilean grapes in the winter and french lemonade in the summer here in Boston. All of that requires energy, wasted energy. I am sure everyone of you uses more energy than is reasonable or wise. So, we need conflicts to distract us while the merchants of death and oil, on both sides profit from it. Iran, Persia, East, West,... show me the money.

Oh, I love my laptop. It was made without a single drop of oil. So, my conscious is now clear. Thanks. I am and American Iranian Persian, ready to bring heaven onto earth.

nassim sabba / April 13, 2010 1:46 AM

I can't read www.pbs.org in IE 3.6, I just thoihght I wuold et you knw?

seo lace / May 2, 2010 11:59 PM

recognize where your daddys come from.

and irooniane aziz, its up to US. not the U.S.!

nobody will save us except ourselves. and stop speaking arabic....say dorood instead of salam! (for starters)

we will take our Persia back!

persian soldier / May 26, 2010 2:07 AM

Name
Email

Breaking the Stereotypes of Persia and Iran

by RICK ZAND

12 Mar 2010 22:0828 Comments

28 Comments

Contact Us

Subscribe