|
December 27, 2001 * Apples to oranges I read your essay/op-ed with great interest yesterday and today ["Let him go home"]. There are always three sides to every story: one side, the other side and the truth, so we will probably never fully know what the young man's motivations were or what role he played in Afghanistan. There may be some mitigating circumstances that caused this behavior (some say his parents' divorce changed him radically) and therefore it is correct to have a sympathetic eye towards him given his young age and experiences. However, I think there is a significant difference between your experience and Mr. Walker's experience -- your comparison is apples to oranges. You made some life choices based on emotions: "If Iran had not been so politically under-developed ... at least mamlekat eenjoori beh gaa nemeeraft (Iran would not have been screwed like this)." I'm not convinced that Mr. Walker made his decisions because he felt that the political system in the United States was underdeveloped, was stifling his freedom of expression or offered little opportunity to make his opinion known. If he has rudimentary knowledge of the U.S. Constitution, then he knows about his right to free speech. Recent reports (assuming they are credible) indicate that Mr. Walker met with Osama bin Laden and was offered training at one of the al-Qaeda bases but that he declined in favor of fighting with the Taliban. (You never indicated in your essay that you got the opportunity to meet with Ayatollah Khomeini or one of his henchmen and declined an offer to serve your country with the Basijis in favor of picking corn.) I agree with your underlying point that basic human compassion is required in this as in all instances. I'm just wondering where his compassion was when he took up the Taliban cause (anti woman, anti culture, anti thought and the list goes on). Sincerely, * Dead wrong Sir, Jananshah Javid ("Let him go home") excuses Mr. Walker's treason as a youthful indiscretion and "if he hasn't done any serious harm to anyone, they let him go home." The basic question Mr. Javid poses is when does one become responsible for the decisions he makes? Mr. Walker chose to fight with the Taliban, was captured with an AK 47 in his hand, tossed in prison with the rest of his new-found murderous compatriots, escaped in a riot which killed an American, then re-captured. How much more does Mr. Javid need to justify Mr. Walker's being tried -- appropriately, in a military tribunal -- for treason? Mr. Walker decided to rebel against his nation for reasons he should enunciate and for which he must be held accountable. We Americans must understand that our Founders made their decision to rebel fully understanding that if they were captured, they were doomed. Yet, they had enough moral fiber to proclaim their rebellion in the Declaration of Independence and sign it. John Hancock made sure his signature was bold enough that King George III didn't have to squint to make it out. Just as our Founders made their moral stand for "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" as prescribed by "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God", so must we now re-dedicate ourselves to those basic Declaration Principles which propelled America to its greatness by virtue of the latitude of spontaneous human action they granted its citizens. At the same time we are dedicating ourselves to America's ideals, we must sit in judgement of those citizens who deny their validity and who take treasoness action in proclaiming their denial. The very life of America depends upon a clear understanding of those ideals. Those ideals are bold enough that Mr. Walker doesn't have to squint to make them out. He knew what he was doing and he must be held accountable for his actions. We are in a life and death struggle for the soul of America not a college debate. Although it's doubtful, perhaps the tribunal will reveal the depth of Mr. Walker's belief and he can rightly proclaim much the same as the young Nathan Hale did as he climbed the scaffold in 1776, "I regret that I have but one life to give for my country." There are difference between the two cases. The difference being, Mr. Hale was right; Mr. Walker, dead wrong. Mr. Hale had moral fiber; Mr. Walker has none. ** One man was judged; the other must be judged. Both men, you must recall, were about the same age. Sincerely, Bill Dillon ** To have made the parallelism complete, I should have also written, "Both men made treasoness decisions." PS: More about me at //gopusa.com/florida/editor.shtml * Reexamining ourselves Dear Mr. Javid, I have always had respect for your personal honesty and the transparency of your magazine. Well, my respect for you just doubled because unlike many of our compatriots you demonstrate the courage to self criticize which is rare ["Let him go home"]. I believe that the identity crisis that you point out was the most important reason that educated middle class Iranians choose the revolution and the Islamic Republic in 1978. The crisis might have been more acute in the case of a young Iranian-American but it was by no means limited to the youth or dual citizens. Since 150 years ago, there has been this war, this schism raging inside the soul of all Iranians who have been exposed to the modernity and the West. Our rational self understood that in order to survive as a nation, we had to adapt to modernity, to the rule of Cartesian logic. We needed to develop a modern economy. We had to open our culture to critical scrutiny. Our emotional side however longed for the utopian idea of a simple, agrarian, premodern, puritan society where cultural solidarity and a regimented morality preempted individual freedom and personal subjectivity. To save that cultural identity, that inner soul from modernity we sided with the most traditionalist forces in Iran i.e. the clergy without thinking of the consequences. It was not therefore surprising that educated Iranians felt that if they were cosmopolitan, urbane, refined, worldly, cultured they were not true Iranians and could not really help alleviate the lot of their compatriots in life. To be a true Iranian, you had to belong to the Umma of believers. You had to be provincial, crude, bearded, veiled, ignorant and a follower of the mob. Those million man demonstrations were the chauldron where our urban intellectuals were finally melted in the so called masses. Those marches were not political forums, they were mass therapies led by the most backward layer of our society, the mollas. For theirs is a creed who asks unconditional acceptance of their interpretation of centuries old scriptures and thereby asks the follower to take blissful leave of the faculties of thought and reason. The cosmopolitan, logical side was forgotten and projected on those that educated Iranians unconsciously decided to victimize and demonize. Someone had to take that burden and be blamed. That is why Mohammed Reza Shah was vilified and exiled and Amir Abbas Hoveyda was murdered. In the aftermath of the revolution, the whole demonization was simply extended to any group who showed any sign of rational thinking, the liberals, the leftists, the moderate clergy. To this day, Khamenei calls the intellectuals "A sick plant imported from abroad." We will never get out of the mess that we created unless we critically reexamine ourselves, our culture. The cultural schizophrenia that you described in your article has only one cure: The resurgence of thought and reason in our political and cultural discourse. * Lack of freedom = Revolution? JJ concludes in his article ["Let him go home"] something I have heard many times before. "if there had been political parties and a free press - there would not have been a revolution." I don't disagree with this point but would like to point out, from my book review of Abbas Milani's biography of Abbas Hoveyda some other considerations to elaborate upon this conclusion. In Iran of the 1970's "The ethos of responsible journalism" had not yet taken root in the country. Libel laws were weak and practically unenforceable. The boundaries between investigative journalism and partisan scandal mongering were neither clearly understood nor heeded. Some of the less scrupulous journalists even used the power of the print media as an overt tool for blackmail. The most violent, critical and vituperative scandal sheets received the most attention. Would it have been correct to openly publicize and allow promotion of the prosecution of the capitalists plus the uprooting of the base of a national culture based on untested philosophies and religious fanaticism. Where in the world, is there such freedoms? Even in the USA the freedom of the press ultimately belongs to those who own the press. After the last 20 years experience, should we not have learned that the campaign to get votes, in a country with the demographics and social development of Iran in the 1960's and 70's, would have delegated power to the un principled Machiavellians and even the Monarch's spring 1979 free election under UN supervision would have been, possibly, premature. If the theory 1.) lack of political parties/press freedom = 2.) Revolution, a zillion other authoritarian regimes should have collapsed by now, including all our neighboring countries. How many societies imploded during an economic boom? Our Arab neighbors who did not use their oil wealth to educate their citizens in western democracies, as the Pahlavis did, and spent much of it instead on luxury yachts, mega palaces, and a welfare state administrated by foreigners seem to have fared better. There is more to our societies malaise than lack of a free press. * Second chance I read your article "Let him go home". First of all great job by admiting what you were! As someone who was only 5 at the revolution peroid I always wonder what went to the mind of those people who tried to topple Shah's regime. I read books like Daei Jan Napleon and think how come nobody pay attention to what affects reliogion has to a community?? (referring to section that Daei jan throws a mourning over a party by Aldollah to disarm him for telling a truth about daei jan; people chose to go to mourning over a party according to Daei Jan!) From one side, I think ok: those people were thinking about freedom in general, from other side, I think to myself: where were those scholars who read books like Daei jan Naleon or wrote those!! how come they never informed people! or would have really people listen to them at all? I think I will never find out the real answers to these questions. However, I have come to two conclusions, the first one I draw was what really happened in Iran was becasue of fact that those generations lacked cultural and historical bridge between the previous generations. They never respected what previous generation went through. They thought, they could do things their own way and everything will be fine! The second conclusion I draw after reading your article is if a person makes a mistake and he hasn't done a big harm, s/he deserves a second chance! Regards, * Touched a nerve You have touched a nerve ... ["Let him go home"] Thanks. * None of her business Madeleine Albright is no longer in any position to sell our country short ["On the same side?"]. I cannot imagine why this woman is being touted as such a "authority" on Iran. She's proven to be nothing more than an arrivist and opportunist (on the eve of the 1992 election, she discovered all of a sudden at the ripe old age of 60 something, that she's Jewish?!). She is also no longer the secretary of state. She is absolutely in no position to concern herself with the Iranian question. Iranians who feel it their duty to somehow elevate her to some savior stature as well are nothing more than brown-nosers themselves; they are weak-spirited people who feel the need to sell their soul and that of their compatriots to the proverbial devil. Banafsheh Zand * What is your motive? If I could contact Madame Albright, I would have the following to say to her: Shame on you for calling the Persian Gulf, the Gulf. How can mention September 11, a clear act of Arab terrorism by a band of scum who believe in their narrow version of Arabic Islam, then in the same breath appease Arab hegemony by not using the legal and historic name for the Persian Gulf? I am dumbfounded at your suggestion and support for re-establishing US ties with Iran. How can an elected President guarantee the safety of your diplomats when he is not even capable of guaranteeing his own safety or that of his appointees or the constitutional rights of the members of Parliament? Are you mad or do you have another motive? How can you turn a blind eye to the record of the Akhoond regime in Iran? Haven't American people suffered enough because of the stupidity of your policies in the hands of another Akhoond regime? I wonder if you would have survived if your forefathers appeased Hitler the way you're proposing to appease Hitler's Children: the Israeli Zionists led by the war criminal Sharon, the Arab nationalists, Akhoond Khamenie etc etc etc. I cannot believe you are so dense, the question is, what is your motive? Regards * Men in general are afraid of women I read your article ["Questions of faith and freedom"]. First out of curiosity to see what you would say. Secondly out of interest because this is one of the areas that tortures our own country. Unfortunately like most people I don't have any standard answers on this but I could throw in a few observations. Firstly, in any religion / society I firmly believe that men in general are afraid of women. This itself is on two level. Number one is that all men are raised by their mothers and as a general rule she is the only woman they abide. Men see this as a weakness specially in a Macho/egomaniac society where they are constantly told that they are the provider/protector like Iran. This is a mutation of their biological being. In general he female is supposed to tend the nest and male to provide food and protection. Perfect explanation except that it lacks one essential factor. As humans we are intelligent being, social beings capable of communication. We are not animals although many would argue otherwise based on our behaviour. Number two really follows from number one. To most men the sub-conscious protection of their mother, is probably one of the most strongly felt responsibility they have. Think of the Greek mythology and the Oedipus complex, it helps to explain the relationship between men and their mothers. All they really want is to marry their mother. Now since the women who show any sign of strength do not need protection, one might argue that this takes away a large part of the raison-d'etre for men and makes them rather agitated. This is further aggravated by the fact that the status-quo in middle eastern countries actually forces mothers to raise their sons banging into their head from an early age that it is their responsibility to look after their mother. This in itself plants the wrong seed in the head of men-to-be. They grow up under the misconception that women need protecting and that independent women are prostitutes. I believe the whole thing is a very complex psychological problem that will continue to persist until such time that our values are put under the microscope, revised and that the level of education, is raised to overcome such misconceived notions as women need protection and that they are weak. The same problem, not in the same acute form, exists in developed countries. Women do not have the same rights and do not command the same salaries for similar jobs as men. Bearing in mind that the statistical evidence points to women being cleverer and stronger psychologically than men, indeed it does make you wonder why more of them do not have positions of power. The bible in itself does not help this problem and if anything aggravates the issues. Eve, after all, was the one who is believed to have tempted Adam. Nowadays Adams don't need much encouragement to bite all types of different apples and are rather proud of it. Do not forget that witches were burned at the stick not because of their magical powers but because they took no shit from the church. This indeed continues. They still burn the witches. Only the way they do it has become more refined. Naturally, mine is just one point of view. It could be absolute nonsense. Then again until such time as we view every person as a person and not a male/female thing, the world will remain a shithole for women. * The struggle for understanding Dear Ms. Mehrtash, ["Tight knot"] I just read your writing in iranian.com with interest. It was not only well-written (as many other articles in iranian.com are), but also quite balanced (as, unfortunately, not many expatriates' articles in this webzine seem to be). Somehow I have more hope in second generation Iranians who have maintained some sort of connection with Iran (even though this connection may be only at an emotional level) than I do for Iranians who immigrated to this country in an old age, with their misconceptions about America uncurably implanted in their mind, who no matter how long they spend in this country, they just do not "get it". Your example of the ladies in the airplane who rush into the bathroom right after the take-off to get rid of their "ommol" outfit and "liberate" themselves (as you put it so aptly) as quickly as they can, is, sadly, a familiar scene. By most standards, I'm not a mazhabi person myself, but I somehow expect Iranians who have lived in this country to behave more sensibly, and every single time they manage to disappoint me with the way they react to this phenomenon that is known as the West. I usually find this kind of behavior of these priviledged, but desperate hamvatans kind of idiotic, and feel embarrassed of being an Iranian when I see them not "getting it". When you write the "I love you" you exchanged with your father, was not one of those habitual empty "I love you"s that people are used to in this country, I hear you loud and clear. We are not used to saying "doost-et daaram", and it took your 70 year old father some contemplation to say it back to you, but when we finally gather the courage to say it, it means a lot. [It's interesting to also note that we don't have two words for verbs "love" and "like" as they do in English language. There is therefore less of a distinction between "loving" and "liking". (Well, something like "man aasheq-et hastam", even in a non-parental kind of relationship, would be kind of lame; wouldn't it?)] You have also pointed out some Iranian misbehavior that stands out in the eye of an outsider. Staring old women in a waiting room, the culture of matalak, the non-existence of public hygienic facilities in Iran, ... All in all, I think both Iranians who are more Iranian than American, such as yours truly, and those Iranians who are more American than Iranian should try to help improve the mutual understanding between the two cultures. The struggle for understanding America and Americans may be a life-long struggle for most of us, but unless we gain a well-rounded image of what America is all about, until we get past the images instilled in our minds by Hollywood and MTV and all the "urban myths" prevalent in Iran about American way of life, the chances for any change for better are meager. Regards, * Now go burn a cross Dear Azam, Wow. Now that is class. Nothing is classier than self-assured bigotry and speaking mindlessly. I just hope other Iranian women aren't as "classy" as you. Bravo to you and all the intellectual effort that went into your "Pork rinds vs ghorme sabzeei" note. Those attitudes must have men breaking their necks to meet you. I know I was quite turned on by your enlightening speech. In fact, I was so moved by your observations that I have to express my gratitude to you. Thank you for redefining the term beauty for me. I misplaced my Nazi aesthetics book sometime ago and haven't been the same since. Thanks for reminding me that as an admirer of beauty, I have sinned for noticing the world around me. From now on, I will close my eyes and bite my tongue when I notice "cheap and trashy" Latinas and "fleshy lipped" Black women. No more pork rinds for me. Of particular interest to me: Thanks for excluding White women in your diatribe. I'm sure they appreciate your vote of confidence. Most of all, thank you for judging me, and wishing me the best of luck in my love life. I was waiting for someone to go and remind that there is deep ignorance in people of all backgrounds. Even in our own classy backyards. Now go burn a cross. * Just look around you Dear Azam Nemati, Your letter "Pork rinds vs ghorme sabzee" was indeed very interesting. You did describe us Iranian women as beautiful and mysterious with class and incredible feminity. As an Iranian woman reading this put a big smile on my face! But unfortunately you went on and ruined it by insulting black and Latino women! I am very ashamed and upset about your remarks. I don't know about you but I was brought up to believe that all people from black to green to yellow are beautiful. Black women have the most amazing physic I think most Iranian women would give an arm and leg to have! Latino women are considered to be very sexy and beautiful. I just wanted to understand why do you have such an attitude? I want to know if this has stem from Americanised way of thinking. After all the blacks and Latino population of America have been treated differently from the rest. Please please please just look around you, every single person that you see is beautiful no matter what colour they are. Best wishes * Truly appalling I'm writing regarding a couple of letters written to your site in response to two different articles, both letters by the same woman: "Pork rinds vs ghorme sabzee" and "Does not know what she wants". I'm sorry, but the comments in both these letters shocked me. While I'm very glad that there are gentleman that appreciate the beauty of Iranian women, I hardly think we are the end all and be all of beauty. How dare you insult the beauty of black and hispanic women by implying that the are the equivilant of pork rinds (perhaps the lowliest of junk foods)? First of all beauty is in the eye of the beholder. As an Iranian woman, I think that Iranian men are very attractive. That doesn't mean that I don't appreciate the beauty and charm of black men, the smooth movements of hispanic men or the boyish looks of Irish men for what they are. If everyone looked alike, the world would be an incredibly boring place to look at (or in your own words, as good as ghormeh sabzi is, would you like to eat just that for the rest of your life and NOTHING else?). Also, in case you haven't heard, MANY women go to great pains to get injections so they can have "the thick lips of black women". I must say, it was truly appalling to read such a comment from a fellow Iranian. Perhaps the icing on this bitter cake was the comment about the writer of "The hunt for hamsar" was just trying to get married so she isn't labeled as "torsheedeh". I'm one of those girls who waited and was labeled "torsheedeh" among other things by some of my ignorant relatives. I too wondered where the good Iranian men were that didn't live by double standards and would see me as a "hamsar" and not just a "zan". I'm happy to say that despite the name calling, whispering and gossip I was strong enough to wait and marry a man who does see me for what I am, and my age (which was considered "peer" by some bizarre Iranian standard) was not the least of my concerns. So please, as a fellow Iranian woman, stop the name calling. Finding the right person is difficult enough as it is, without having to feel the pressure of people standing by to pickle us and set us aside. PS. Sharbatehalbaloo, there are a lot of incredibly nice (Iranian) men out there of every walk of life and age. Be patient and heed your father's advice, look for a man willing to love you as a hamsar and nothing less. Sincerely, * But I'm also Muslim Regarding the article I worte on names, ["Do not embarrass your children"] I'd just like to point out a few things to the readers. First and foremost, my name does mean Goddess in both Arabic and Farsi (believe me, I've checked that over and over again, each time wishing I was wrong!) Second, the reason I care for the translated version is because Arabic is the language of the Koran; if the Koran were in chinese, I would be bothered about the chinese meaning! And finally, YES, I am IRANIAN, not Arab-Iranian, just Iranian... as we often say here, as Iranian as Aab Goosht! But I'm also Muslim, and I don't want to ignore that. Also many of the readers assumed that my Arab friends are the ones who make fun. I'd like to say that Arabs, as I have known them for 22 years, are well-mannered, respectable people who have never mocked my name. My Iranian friends and family, however, don't hesitate to do so! Regards, * Sources of delusion You asked WHAT Melville was talking about. ["The new zealots of the sun"] He's talking about how the power of tradition, military might, religion, drugs and other sources of delusion -- all symbolized by the Persian, or more generally, the Asian -- will eventually be understood, and thus conquered, by science. Do I get a gift from eworldrecords.com? :-))
|
|
|
Web design by BTC Consultants
Internet server Global Publishing Group