|
Friday * Desire without action In response to letters by Messrs. Mahdi and Saffari-Fard ["Generalizing & pontificating", "Why people choose to go back"] about my article, "Stop hallucinating": * The news from Iran highlights the magnitude of the drug problem in Iran. I am not sure which one of these news sources are "sworn enemies of the Islamic Republic" or "sworn lovers" but a reasonable reader ought to be able to extrapolate the magnitude of the problem. My apologies for misquoting a figure of 10% - estimates below are between 1 million and 10% (and both growing) - therefore I should have mentioned the figure of 5% as a safe median. Even at 5%, there would be more than 3 million addicts - a very alarming figure. Again my apologies are due if this "misrepresents Iran and Iranians" since it seems, as more often than not, we are evading the problem and concerning ourselves more so with "aabeh-roo" and "hay-siiat" and the insult to our collective "gheyrat". * The writer of the letter is alarmed by the "the ease with which many generalize, pontificate, and exaggerate". The populations of Iranians in USA, Canada, Australia and parts of Western Europe are at a level where they can get actively involved in their local communities and have an influence on the local policies and can greatly benefit the Iranian people, and as such, it is appropriate to request the Iranians to group and unite in said causes. The same, as the writer correctly points out, can not be said of many other Iranians elsewhere in the world. However, it may help to consider the nations whose policies may effect Iran more so than others. It is obvious that the policies of G-7 (and similar) countries are far more significant to Iran than those of Turkey, Syria, and Lebanon. Barring military attacks by the likes of Iraq or a neighbor like Turkey, Iran and Iranian people are far more affected by G-7-like policies than the decisions of the Lebanese and Syrian Governments. Therefore as an Iranian resident/citizen of a G-7 country (and others like Australia), it is far more beneficial to the people of Iran if one actually DOES something (i.e. TAKE ACTION) versus dream/think endlessly to no avail. * The comment "For some of us living with our family or living where we can visit them as often as we want is worth lot more than you can ever imagine" begs the question of why the author then is not willing to go back and live close to his family? There are certain factions of the population, who due to political problems, may not consider it safe to live in Iran. What about the rest? What about the writer? Tucked safely in (based on his return email address) Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA the author seems offended by the notion that he is living away from Iran and presumably his family. I do not recall arguing with the devotion and closeness to families. As he correctly mentions, that is pretty much a "given" and the base of our strength. But again, the same family (and other families) will benefit from your action in your "adopted" home country far more than incessant "ghosseh", "aarezoohaayeh bar-baad-rafteh" and "aah keshidan". It is not that I do not understand the desire to go back. It is the perceived desire without any action that ties up positive energy. Energy that can be put to work and used effectively to help Iran and Iranians. (See replies from Saffari and Mahdi below) Respectfully, * I have done my part Dear Mr. Erfani, ["Perceived desire without action"] I too, thank you for taking time to respond to my comment on your opinion piece ["Stop hallucinating"]. As I recall, I had respectfully requested that you refrain using collective term in your writing on the issues that would impact Iranians as whole. In you piece, you had used every conceivable arguments ranging from political, economical and social issues to establish the point that people shouldn't romanticized the idea of returning home because it diminished their positive energy. In support of your argument, you went as far as mentioning the length of your stay in U.S. to make it more convincing. I personally found your argument very much self serving. Your point of "forward movement outside Iran can tremendously benefit the people of Iran in the long term", begs the following question which I hope you will be able to answer. What if, the majority of professors, doctors and intellectuals who are fundamentally important in the growth of a society would listen to your suggestion and decide to leave Iran at once? Then, would you still use your factious argument if your parents, siblings or some one that you love need to have surgery and is told that the specialist has left the country to seek a better life outside Iran? As your questioning why I have chosen to stay in this country despite my intense passion for Iran, you would perhaps not be able to grasp the Idea, if I inform you that I was one of the few professors who went to teach in 1991 at the Abadan Institute of Technology in Abadan. Where I would walk in a dirt road every morning to go to university and do what I was trained to do In U.S. to educate the improvised and war stricken people of the region. Where, the conditions of life was so primitive that very one would ask me why I had decided to leave U.S. and return to Abadan. You see, not everyone romanticiz about Iran. There are those of us who take an action and choose to go where most people would not even dare to dream about. At least, I can claim that I have done part of my duty if not all to Iran and to Iranians by selecting to teach in a region of Iran that is least attractive and most rewarding. There are those of us who are not driven by the economical promises of the west or shortage of water because we think about those who need us in Iran. Abbas F. Saffari * Be careful with facts Dear Mr. Erfani, ["Perceived desire without action"] Thank you for taking time to reply to my comment ["Generalizing & pontificating"] on your article ["Stop hallucinating"]. It is nice of you to provide me the opportunity to read your reaction before its publication. I also appreciate snippets and links you have provided in your defense of 10% drug addicts in Iran. I had no intention of underestimating the drug problem in Iran. Your point regarding this social problem in Iran is well taken. My point was and still is that we need to be careful with numbers and facts. We cannot exaggerate, stretch, or even massage them in order to make a point. If we use them accurately, they provide us enough ammunition for our arguments, theses, and theories. No one denies that Iran has serious drug problems. I am not ashamed of saying it loudly and publicly. I have done so in many of my interviews with various radios and in some of my relevant writings. This is a fact and not a matter of personal or "collective gheyrat," as you put it. My reference to your 10%, as well as "generalization," had to do with accuracy and representation. Even in your response, you still take a casual approach to the matter and say: "estimates ... are between 1 million and 10% (and both growing) - therefore I should have mentioned the figure of 5% as a safe median. Even at 5%, there would be more than 3 million addicts - a very alarming figure." Alarming, indeed. Accurate? No! If you read one of the sources you have quoted, it says that "Some recent surveys have placed the number of drug abusers closer to 3 million -- nearly 5 percent of Iran's 63 million people. Estimates leap to nearly 10 percent of the population in some cities along major drug trafficking routes." As you see, 10% is a reference to the possible number of addicts to the population in some major cities along drug trafficking routes and not to the population of Iran. I support your call for getting Iranians involved in their local communities and doing something to positively affect their host countries' policies toward Iran. That is great and I hope we do it in a way that it does not misrepresent "facts" about us. Regards, * Bi ehsasi Aghaye Khorsandi, ["Leila Pahlavi beh faarsiye saadeh"] Dorost ast keh shoma yek nevisandeh (tanz nevis)-e herfeh-ee hastid, digar farsi-zabanan ham zaban haalishan ast - va jaaye shoma nist keh hameh ra tamaskhor bekonid. Va amma dar ertebat ba neveshteh-ye ghablitan reje` be Leila Pahlavi ["Gozaaresh"], asle e-traze mardom bekhatere entekhabe bijaye "mozoo"-e shoma bood, va bi tavajjohi-o bi ehsasi shoma nesbat be andoohe khanevadeh-ye on javane bigonah bood. Agar shoma in ra nemifahmid, digar che bayad goft? Zemnan shoma az koja midanid keh mardom bemonasebate dargozashte pedar va madar-bozorge Leila che payamhaee ferestadeand? Aya shoma alaveh bar loghaz-khani, afkare mardom ra ham mikhanid? Be omide inkeh az in eshtebahetan darsi aamookhteh bashid. * Refusing help I agree with Ms. Sabety that Sir Alfred Mehran is another example of displacement in our time ["Aym not eeraaniyan"]. In his case, he might be better viewed as a case of displacement by a revolution which displaced, misplaced, and replaced many many more. However, I believe Sir Alfred's life reflects an intentional trajectory much better understood in the context of his own ideas, ideals, behaviors, and attitudes. Ms. Sabety writes: "I thought of how shameful it was that we, Iranians abroad, had not taken care of Sir Alfred." Well, the question is: Did Sir Alfred wished Iranians help him? I do not know how many Iranians have tried to follow his case but I know very well that his story was regularly covered in the Iran Times throughout the decade and I followed it very carefully. In fact, I myself tried to visit this gentleman twice in the past decade. As indicated by this documentary and Ms. Sabety reports, he refused to talk to another Iranian. On both occasions, I went all around the airport trying to find him in order to learn of his case. In the first encounter, when I greeted him in Persian, he refused to answer and moved away. In the second encounter two years later, he was sitting in a chair and reading a newspaper. I strategized approaching him by sitting next to him while talking loudly to myself "Let's talk with this fellow Iranian for a while." He simply ignored me and pretended that he either did not hear or understand me! I am sure other Iranians have approached him in similar ways. It is possible that he did not want any Iranian shower him with questions, sympathy, pity, criticism, advice, etc. He might have been tired of them. But if it has been his intention to be someone else, as Ms. Sabety reports from this documentary, then it is easy to understand why he would not welcome any Iranian acquaintance, assistance, and attention. Such an avoidance seems intentional and in line with his strategy to secure legal status in a country different than his place of birth. What can Iranians do with people who avoid even acknowledging their Iranianess or refuse any help from other Iranians? During my graduate years, I took a course in which another Iranian was enrolled. One day I greeted him in Persian. He responded in English acknowledging himself as an Egyptian! I had seen his name on the university's official list of Iranians and knew he was an Iranian. I asked about him from several other Iranians living in the university's married housing. They all confirmed that he was Iranian but refused to talk or interact with other Iranians! Several months later, we learned of a major medical problem in his family. We all were afraid to step forward because he continued to deny us as people worthy of interacting with. Why? I am sure he had his reasons and it was not our business to interfere with his life. But, such a refusal was intentional and no one could have been blamed for not embracing him as an Iranian fellow at a time of need. It seems Sir Alfred's case falls into this category! He made his own choice and Iranians should not be blamed for not reaching out to him or helping him out of his long and painful ordeal. * Traitors I remember I was fourteen-years olfd and living in Washington D.C. in July 1988, towards the end of the Iran-Iraq War. At this time our brave young soldiers had been fighting the violent and evil intentions of the Arab world, combined with the cruel rule of the Islamic regime for eight bloody years. Against all odds, they had fought and reclaimed every inch of our homeland that was violated by the invading Iraqi army. In the summer of 1988, Iraqi forces, combined with direct military assistance from the United States had been able to secure a couple of victories against our outnumbered and under-armed fighters. The one image that I will never forget, or allow myself to forget is the image of Mojahed traitors posing for foreign news crews while they were standing on top of murdered Iranian soldiers after they had captured the town of Mehran, along with the invading Iraqis. Right, then I knew that this was the worst crime committed against Iran. This cowardly act was worse than anything ever done by the Iraqis. ["Burning eyes"] Let this be known to these so-called "freedom fighters": You are no different than the mafia-like regime that is ruling our country now and you will never have a place in the political future of our country. The only regret that I felt while reading your article was that the way you died fighting along side Arab murderers and rapists, was this did not happen to more of you cowards. * "Fools" voted for Khatami? The same Iranians and youth you refer to as being "smart enough" not to be "fooled" by Khatami are the ones who voted for Khatami, unless you also want to deny that the elections actually occurred. So are they "fools" or not? ["Nothing peaceful about Khatami's policies"] And so far, who has accomplished more: the reformists, or the "rejectionists" like you who have been acting hand-in-glove with the hardliners in attacking the reformists and who oh-so-bitterly dismiss the massive election participation and the obvious enthusiasm of Iranians for gradualist reforms (as well as Khatami) as merely a "pantomine"? Yes, you are right - these people are not fools - so why insist that they were participating in a "pantomime" just because you don't the results? You may not like Khatami, or the fact that this is the road chosen by Iranians, and you may instead have hoped for a boycott, thinking that it would delegitimize the system. This is the "either us or no one" mentality which is only destructive, but it is your right to have that opinion. But at least have some respect for the people who voted, and stop harping on them or dismissing them as fools who are so easily misled by "pantomimes". * In a heartbeat In response to the letter regarding Nooneh's stories ["Sexless Nooneh"]: I am an Iranian man, and I would marry this lady in a heartbeat. This goes for all the chauvanistic, macho Iranian males and the Iranian girls who pretend to be virgin's even though "we all know" most of them are sleeping around as much as non-Iranian girls. To Nooneh: Keep on being yourself. Luv, * Typical Iranian mard-saalaari What is up with this "Sexless Nooneh"? bad az ye omrii ye khaanoom iraani harfe delesho mizane (oon ham be onvaane short stories) and mr. typical Iranian man does his regular routine? Is this what it is? I do understand Azadiye bayaan, but this is typical Iranian mard-saalaari va inke zan haghe inke harfe delesho bezane, nadaare, and I do not have to take that anymore, nor does anyone else. Best regards, Leila
|
|
|
Web design by BTC Consultants
Internet server Global Publishing Group