|
October 30, 2001 * Husband left us in Kentucky Please help me find Mohammad Gholizadeh Milani from Tabriz, Iran, born in 1958. Hopefully he didn't lie about his name and everything. His grandparents in Iran deserve photographs of his children, whom they have never seen. We lived in Lexington, Kentucky. Thanks for any assistance, * Who are you to demand anything? You guys take the cake. ["Deeply concerned"] The goverment of Iran has supported terrorist organizations like Hezbollah,refuses to have relations with the US, and openly calls the US "Satan", andyou think the US is wrong to reject Iranian citizens from our Universitiesand country? Who are you to demand anything? Last I checked Iranians don't pay US taxesand aren't US citizens! Just think of how ridiculous it would sound if Idemanded that Iran open up their Universities to me and pay for my tuition! I don't know where you people get your ideas from but the US is not aninternational public institution. If we don't want you in our country,that's our perrogitive. I fully support Ms. Feinstein. It is not directed JUST at Iran. It isdirected to all countries that support terrorism, including IRAN. Whyshould we sit idle and not condemn the terrible actions of these countries?Why should we help them out? Frankly, why should we educate people who may turn around and use thatknowledge to kill our own citizens! Maybe Iran could educate you instead?How about that? The U.S. is ALWAYS to blame for all your problems. But realize there areplenty of rich people in your part of the world that choose to fundterrorism instead of educating YOU! It's time to make Iran a democracy and kick the terrorists out of yourcountry. Its time for you to cooperate with the world wide attack onterrorism. Believe me, the west awaits with open arms for Iran to become a democracy. If you don't, things won't change. So stop demanding things from the US, you aren't in the position to do so. * Elected kingships! The Iranians who argue in favor of a return to "constitutional" monarchy by popular referendum are either confused or choose deliberately to ignore the precedents that Iranian history provides in regard to elected kingships! ["His royal lowness"] Nader Shah was acclaimed to the throne by the will of his army in what neared a coronation by popular will. The Afshar "dynasty" was short-lived and marred by war and despostism. Reza Khan was elected king by the Iranian parliamnet, another exercise in people electing a king. That dynasty too lasted for a blinking of the historical eye. These monarchists do not seem to get the basic tenet that in the context of Iranian history monarhcy is not an elective process (and I doubt that it is so anywhere else either). Besides, if the public gives the king his throne then the public by popular will can taketh away. Wow, a constitutional monarchy with a provision for impeachment of the king! For all intents and pourposes, coming to the throne in Iran, including the rise of Nader Shah and Reza Shah, has been based on conquest, brute force. Of course, if the ayatollahs in Iran decide to turn over the throne to Reza Pahlavi, then that of course will be a different precedent, which will join the rial as the other important Spanish cultural export to Iran. Best, * Popular, but stupid, uprising This is in response to Ms. Sohrabi's "His royal lowness". When I read your article I just could not contain myself from responding to the points you made about Reza Pahlavi. Before I proceed, I must ask you, what exactly did you do when you were sitting back on the couch across from him that day at Harvard? Did you simply sit there and stare and listen? It sounded like you wasted a good opportunity to take an active part or challenge him on his views. You brought up so many points in your article, but did you bother to bring any of them up during his visit? You wrote, "What has he done with his life in the past 22 years? What has the family done for Iranians if not in Iran then abroad?" Let me ask you, are you really in Harvard? That is extremely hard to believe after making such an uninformed statement like that. Where have YOU been for the past 22 years? What have you done? Do you feel you can do better? Harvard-educated or not, nearly all of your arguments point to the obvious fact that you need to think a little more before making the statements you made. He does have charitable causes that he as well as his wife promote, one of which involves significant contributions to the children of Iran. Did you bother to email the man any questions about his philanthropy? Just because it is not listed on his website does not mean that he, or the Pahlavis, do not take part in philanthropic causes. If you want to know the name, or names, of the charities, you can simply ask him. You are right when you wrote that the revolution was a "popular" uprising, but it was far from a correct one. In fact, it was stupid. The generation of our fathers were not thinking or acting correctly when they naively put their hopes and dreams in the hands of fundamentalist clerics and their psychotic followers , who have absolutely no education or business running a country competently. This regime contributed nothing but consistent destruction of life, economic disorder, a disintegration of values and morals in Iranian society and the isolation of our nation from the rest of the world. It is accurate to say it was a catastrophe, not in terms of the Pahlavis losing power, but of Iranians lowering themselves to such an irresponsible level as to let murderers and hypocrites influence their thinking and behavior. You wrote that "one could make an argument that more has been done to create civil society than before the revolution. I do not agree. These mollas have sent thousands of kids to their deaths in a useless eight-year war, repress women on a daily basis, kill and murder their opponents around the world, etc. Are such things civil? Are images of fanatic students taking over the former US embassy and keeping hostages for 444 days civil? Killing students and violently cracking down on their demonstrations is civil? Not allowing the women of Iran to compete internationally in sports events is civil? Chanting Death to America, and Death to Israel, is civil? Allowing the gruesome act of stoning women is civil? The Shah kept Iran out of war for 38 years, did you forget? Before the Pahlavis, Iran hardly had a recognizable infrastructure, schools, universities or even students who were literate. Did you think Iran could just casually waltz into the 20th century, especially after being under the rule of the Qajars? It badly needed a swift kick, and the Pahlavis achieved that, giving Iran tangible reform that no 19th century ruler or mindless cleric could have ever contributed. I am not defending every aspect of the Pahlavis or their rule of Iran, they were not perfect and obviously made mistakes. But you need to recognize our history and give credit where credit is due, not just pound on their failures. As for Mossadegh, who you stated was "an extremely well-loved leader", it was not a mistake for him to be overthrown if you analyze your history correctly. Yes, he was very pro-Iran and good for the people at the time, but he would not have been strong enough to govern Iran as the fundamentalist fanatics and communists would easily have swept him away from his goals and diverted Iran from developing. The overwhelming turnout at the elections taking place in Iran since the revolution, specifically in 1997 and this year, is due to the fact that the youth of Iran, who were either babies at the time of the revolution or not born yet, are now old enough to know that their present situation is not satisfactory to them and have reacted in a predictable manner. What amazes me are people who think that this is some grand development or a surprise. You described it as "positive", but it was more inevitable than anything else. Democratic? Definitely not. What is democratic about a regime that is theocratic? Islam and democracy, in their true forms, are 100% incompatible. Yes, the eyes of these youths were open when they voted for him without pressure, but seriously, what have the elections changed in Iran? The increased production of more newspapers? Their votes for Khatami are meaningless! A wolf in sheep's clothing is still a wolf. Mollas are the same in Iran as they were in 1979 and before. They will not leave quietly, they have to be ELIMINATED. That is where people like Reza Pahlavi come in. Do you honestly think that he should just sit around and not speak, not do anything? Does he have to be "awe inspiring" and out of the ordinary for you to be pleased? It is not his fault that he is the Shah's son. He is who he is, and I seriously do not believe that he wants a return to monarchy, he's not stupid. He's acknowledged the mistakes of his father's reign and is cognizant of the fact that Iranians want freedom of choice and not a return to a government ruled by "royalty. He has an obligation, as any Iranian who truly cares about his country and people, to act. There is so much more in your article in The Iranian that I can easily criticize, since I am so tired of reading pieces like yours which are full of misguided, uninformed views of Iran. You remind me of those type of people who hesitate in fully participating in constructive ways to help our fellow Iranians around the world. Why don't you be "imaginative" and start a successful website to promote the cause for a better Iran in some positive way? Building a "progressive" political system cannot happen until Iranians in Iran undo the colossal mistake they created in choosing fundamentalists to govern them. The elections, as I stated before, are a farce as long as the mollahs are in power. Theocracy nullifies anything meaningful when it comes to true progress for people and a nation. Keep criticizing Reza Pahlavi, but I have to ask again, what are you doing to try to make a difference? If you feel you can do better, than let your actions speak louder than your criticisms of someone who feels an obligation to help his countrymen. * Harvard-educated should be more sophisticated Dear Ms. Sohrabi, ["His royal lowness"] I read your article in the Iranian regarding Reza Pahlavi. I am sorry that you did not understand him (maybe you don't like the Dallas Cowboys, or football for that matter.) You had to take stabs at his father and grandfather to get at him. I mean, a bright Harvard-educated person should be more sophisticated than that. Oh, before I forget, there were not 20 million Iranian voters in 1980. Maybe from you ivory tower in Harvard simple math does not mean anything. With regards to the coups that you referred to, I am sorry to say that again you prescribed to two very vocal yet undemocratic groups, the communists such as Toodeh, and the clergy such as Ayatolah Khomeini. Come on, can you think a little here? It might come as a shock to you but one of the side effects of the first Pahlavi's coup was that women in Iran became first class citizens able to go to schools and universities and vote. Yes, vote, the one thing that the theocratic government of Iran hates so much and you totally misunderstood it's meaning in voting for Khatami in 1997 -- and the 14 million who did not vote in 2001. How much of Iran's history have you studied? How old are you? When was the last time you were in Iran? Were you there during the 1997 and 2001 elections? It is easy to criticize, especially with a satirical sense and I must admit you were very good at that in your article. It was actually cute. * Find logical flaws I am dismayed at the knee-jerk reaction to Ms. Sohrabi's thoughtful piece ["His royal lowness"]. She presents a reasoned piece on why she has misgivings towards Mr. R. Pahlavi's political aspirations. By presenting us a researched and clearly argued piece, she is inviting us to interact with her in such a sober and thought out manner. Instead, the vast majority of letters are emotional diatribes against the Islamic Republic of Iran, institutions of higher learning, intellectuals (roshanfekers), and Ms. Sohrabi. I did not see one systematic and reasoned statement that sought to engage Sohrabi's on its own terms and provide reasons in support of the Reza the Younger. Although I personally have a difficult time coming up with logical arguments defending Mr. Reza Pahlavi's aspirations and conceptualizations of Iranian history, I imagine that his advocates or critics of Ms. N. Sohrabi could do at least one of two things 1) find logical flaws in her argumentation regarding the consequences of revival of the Pahlavi "dynasty" and her position that it would be a step backward or 2) a refutation of Sohrabi's presentation of Pahlavi's platform and agenda. As Sohrabi quite clearly states, her position has no ramifications for an assessment of the principles or performance of the Islamic Republic, i.e. a critique of RP is not a justification or support of IRI. There really are differences within and across regimes and we should try to move beyond this narrow conception of mullas or shahs. Even among democracies their are major variations. Finally, please don't simply say that Britain, Spain, and Norway have constitutional monarchies. They also have viable and contentious parliamentary systems, something that Iran did not have during Reza the Elders or Mohammad Reza's tenures (with the possible exception of 1319-1332). I think these issues are important enough that people are proposing change should contemplate what constitutes a worthy change. This way you all won't complain 22 years after the fact that roshanfekrah stole the show and are off living is LA drinking cosmopolitans and smoking cubans (nobody really complained about that, that was my own anti-LA hobby horse.). My two cents, * Zaher Shah & Hazer Shah Reading thru the letters in response to Ms. Sohrabi's article, "His royal lowness", one finds a severe lack of meaningful content and a variety of personal meaningless attacks. She is labelled as namak-nashnas, clueless, Harvard-elitist and so on, yet NONE of the letters provide a response to any of the issues raised with Reza Pahlavi, namely: 1. What qualifies him to be such a leader? What are his accomplishments? What has he done?(The following reasons do not constitute qualifications - His last name, 2. How does he pay for all of this? What does he do for a living? (daftar-daaree, while a noble bureaucratic profession, still requires a source of income) 3. Given his background and the possibility of the old Pahlavi cronies, thieves, thugs and oppressors (albeit all of them 22 years older)landing in Tehran right with him, why should he be trusted with what he says? Did he not proclaim himself King several years ago. Now he has changed his message. What guarantee is there that his message will not change again at the opportune moment? 4. Why has he not denounced the wrongs and the wrongdoers of the Pahlavi regime -- he may not be personally responsible for them but why not denounce the attrocities; financial, social and political. Why not? Can he not think of anything wrong that happened under the Pahlavi regime? 5. What guarantee is there that a referendum that he sponsors, is truly free and democratic (are we to take a hint from the "majleseh mo'assessaan" sponsored by his grandfather)? 6. Why does he not get a real job and work like normal people so he can taste reality? Why is his blood thicker than that of the common Iranian who has to work, whether inside or outside of Iran? Unfortunate reality is that he has no qualifications for such a job. His finances and that of his family are shady at best. He can not be expected to denounce his family members and their closest friends and their deeds. And he does nothing for a living. Thank God for "pooleh mofteh dozdi"! Afghanistan has Zaher Shah. We have Hazer Shah. Joy to us all! * IRI may fall, but... Shah blah blah blah... ["His royal lowness"] So far, the exile "opposition" has done more to alienate Iranians from politics then to present a real viable alternative, and so its the best opposition the IRI could hope for. So go on -- bicker amongst yourselves, gather around some has-beens with their convenient talk of democracy, dream on about your long-delayed "any day now" which will magically erase the last 22 years of history and restore the good old days -- and watch yet another 22 years pass by. As long as reactionary monarchists, pseudo-monarchists, discredited leftists, and the MKO define opposition to the IRI, the IRI is safe from everything except its own incompetence, the occasional youth riot, and the reformists developing from within (whch you are so intent on discrediting.) Sure, the IRI may fall, but it will be despite the exile "opposition", not because of it. * Blaming people for wanting something better It's very amusing to see how controversial Naghmeh Sohrabi's piece on Reza Pahlavi has become ["His royal lowness"]. Almost all the letters are unobjective and emotional. Can't we look at the issues more objectively? First of all don't blame the people of Iran for the revolution and don't call them namak nashnas. They were hoping to improve the conditions in their country and have a free society where they were allowed to criticize the system. I would be the first person to say that the regime of the Shah did modernize Iran and it stopped our country from being involved in ideological and unnecessary wars. However, most people forget about the Savak and the oppression that the Pahlavi regime imposed on our country. Those of you who are saltanattalab, did you forget about the crimes committed by the Pahlavis? It was only 23 years ago and I am sure you remember them well, deep inside of course. The repressive nature of the regime eventually alienated the people and it was a matter of time before something drastic happens. Those people who participated in the demonstrations in 1979 had no idea of what was coming after the Shah. They had no idea what Khomeini and his people would bring to their country. Therefore, it is unjust and unfair to blame them for wanting something better Also, as I mentioned before this is only a phase in the history of the Iranian revolution. The repressive nature of the Islamic Republic can't last and it will eventually give in to a more democratic nature of government. However, I still don't think it's good for Iran to go back to the past and try to restore the monarchical system. As with the French Revolution, the roots of monarchy in Iran are so badly destroyed it is virtually impossible to go back to that system. Most of the population of Iran are now below age 25. They were either not born or were extremely young during the last days of the Shah's regime. As the result, it is impossible for them to identify with a figure like Reza and the system that the Pahlavis represented for more than 50 years. Be realistic people. Don't go chasing after Reza Pahlavi as if he is your savior. The key to the problems of Iran has to do with ideas, not personalities. Try to understand the root of the problems instead of following non-qualified and opportunistic leaders such as Pahlavi and his organizations! * Still dreaming Dear Naghmeh, ["His royal lowness"] In regard to Radio 24 Saa'ate , NITV and others, promoting Reza Pahlavi , TAA ABLAH DAR JAHAANEH MOFLES DAR NEMIMAANEH, and therefore they are counting on the imaginary help from George W and ABALAHS to get back to what they are missing. I assure you that many of them are the same people who created a God out of SAAYEHE KHODAA and plundered the country under his shaddow, as the mollas are plundering it under Velayate Faghih. What they have forgotten is that NOBATI HAM BAASHEH NOBATE AANHAA VA MOLLAAHAA TAMAAM SHODEH and there are 65 million others waiting in line to run the country, hopefully for a democratic system. To tell the truth, besides the expenses, I have always wondered, what is good about monarchy? And what are the British getting out of it except scandal after scandal? And there is not a damn thing they can do about it. But we did do a damn thing about it by abolishing the highest paid hereditary and permanent position that was not accountable to any one and did not require any job qualifications. Alas , a few are still dreaming about the past. Those should know that even with the "international moral support" it is not a safe bet and many kings, queens and their beneficieries, have lost their heads for that glory. So I would think twice if I am going to grab the loot from the hands of the mollas like Khalkhali. And those KHOSHI ZYRE DELESHAAN ZADEHAA in Tehrangeles and elsewhere who beg for Uncle Sam's help, should remember YEK BAAR JASTY MALAKHAK.... But of course they will try to lure the ABLAHS to the streets first. And God forbid, by the non-existent possibility that there are ENOUGH sympathisers in Iran, the ABLAHS will have to pay for the consequenses of their action, exactly the way they are paying now for approving the "Islamic" portion of the Republic. Hopefully we learned our lesson. Regards, * Characteristics of a dictator I read the article "His royal lowness" and loved it. I didn't agree to each and every word of it, but I loved it to each and every word. At the same time I can read articles of people who I can agree fully but find their article distasteful or disrespectful. It is funny (or sad really) to read the articles of people who write in style of "ordinary folks neither want your advice nor understand your high ideals" or "apologise to the Iranian nation for their actions which have helped to destory our country." It is one of the characteristics of a dictator to talk on behalf of people, think about Hitler, Khomeini, Khamenei and many other dictators when they defend their actions or ideas by saying it is the ideas and will of thepeople. My answer to people using these words is: how do you know what people want? How do you know how people feel? Let's rephrase and instead of using the word people say: "I neither want your advice nor understand your high ideals" or "apologise to me for the actions which destroyed my country" The phrases really changed their meanings, didn't they? They got their real meanings. * Help or shut the f... up I HAVE READ A WHOLE LOT OF NONSENSE IN MY LIFE BUT NONE OF THEM COULD HOLD A CANDLE AGAINST THE ARTICLE "His royal lowness". IT IS THE MOST IRRELEVANT PIECE THAT I HAVE EVER READ. I HAVE NOT YET MADE UP MY MIND ABOUT BEING A ROYALIST. BUT THE IDEA OF PUTTING YOURSELF IN A POSITION OF TALKING ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF IRAN IS JUST AS REVOLTING AS THE IDEA OF HAVING A VELAYAT-E-FAGHIH IN THE 21ST CENTURY TO TELL YOU HOW TO GO TO THE TOILET AND CLEAN THE MESS THERE AND HOW TO HAVE SEX WITH YOUR WIFE. I THINK IF THE WRITER WANTED TO ATTRACT SOME ATTENTION AND TELL US ABOUT HER EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUD SHE COULD DO THAT BUT IN THE MOST DESPICABLE MANNER. DON'T FORGET THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE REVOLUTIONARIES WERE GRADUATES OF GOOD UNIVERSITIES BOTH FROM INSIDE IRAN AND ABROAD AND THEY WERE THE FIRST TO FLEE THE COUNTRY. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO CAN SPEND THE REST OF THEIR LIVES IN COMFORT AND PROSPERITY, BUT THEY ARE CAMPAIGNING FOR A JUST CAUSE. I RESPECT THEM AND TRY TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THEM. LET THE PEOPLE OF IRAN DO WHATEVER THEY CAN TO FREE US AND IF YOU DON'T ROLL UP YOUR SLEEVES TO HELP JUST SHUT THE F*** UP. * No Namak Lake In response to the "Drive to Qom in half the time" letter, I drove on the Qom highway in late summer of 1977. It was not complete yet and had not been opened to the motorists. Being a rebel, a friend of mine and I got on it near the Namak Lake (near Kooshk-e Nosrat). I drove 200 Kilometers an hour for a few minutes before coming to an unfinished bridge. We later that day got off the highway and drove to the lake. I was determined to get to the shores of the lake. The farther we drove the farther the lake got. The Namak Lake was nothing but a mirage and we drove all the way into the middle of it and saw nothing but dried out salt which reflected the sun like it was a lake. Just wanted to let you know, and for the record, this freeway was built way before the revolution of 1979. Yours, * Essence vs. Form Usually, I find what Ms. Laleh Khalili writes a reflection of her genuine attempts at real thinking ["No better, no worse"]. However, her uncritical viewing of what I wrote in my pseudo-poem [Blame Blindness] in response to Setareh Sabety's article ["Anthrax of the masses"], left me disappointed. As you can see below, in my response I even went as far as highlighting certain words in capital letters, for added emphasis, in order to indicate that I was not making a direct comparison or even an analogy between what Ms. Sabety does and what the Taliban do. If I were doing that, Ms. Khalili would be quite accurate in her assessment of such direct equating as "absurd." Indeed, doing so would be beneath any thinking person. I said:
There is a FOUNDATIONAL difference between ESSENCE and FORM. I have never said that the actions of radical. secularized, and even ideologized Feminism is comparable to the ideological actions of the Taliban. To do so would be comparing apples and oranges. However, apples and oranges are two FORMS of a common ESSENCE. They are both fruits. As I alluded to, indirectly, in another essay about the nature of power [Chairness], a simple chair, a throne, and for that matter a sofa, are different manifestations in FORM, of a common ESSENCE, of a seat--the possibility of sitting above the ground. I say that I find no distinction at the level of essence, not form, between Ms. Sabety's "thought" and of the Taliban's. Ms. Khalili herself seems cognizant of the distinction between essence and form earlier in her letter:
In the above passage, Ms. Khalili points to the commonality in essence (ideological structure) among Fascist, Stalinist, Zionist, etc... ideologies. I am sure she does not mean to equate the actions of these ideologies directly in their actual manifestation in the phenomenal world--for example, the number of people killed by the Stalinist ideology is far greater than the number of humans killed in the name of Zionism. I wonder why when it comes to seeing the common ESSENCE of the Talibanist and the Feminist ideologies, Ms. Khalili's thoughtful vision becomes so disappointingly blurred? Afterall, all actions are first intents, wishes, dreams, fantasies, or even thoughts. Let us be more care-ful, PLEASE. Peace, * No straight iranian men? As a gay Iranian man in DC, I am often amazed by the number of gay Iranians I know. In my circle of friends, there are at least 20. It has gotten to the point where my gay American friends make a joke of it saying "there are no straight iranian men." That said, I am often amazed at the homophobia expressed by older Iranians. The younger ones tend to be cool and have a live-and-let-live attitude. But the uniformed hatred that spews out of many older Iranians when talking about homosexuality is abhorent. Often times, they say in conversations, probably not aware that I am gay -- but come on, I am a fit 38-year-old man that never goes out with women and always has men around me -- I mean "hello!... ding ding ding!... earth to older Iranians... " There are lots of us gay iranian men out there. I am pretty much out to everybody. However, my family begged me not to come out to my relatives. I thought at first it was because they wanted to spare me some grief. But later I came to the realization that it was because they were ashamed that I am gay. (sigh) It's really sad that we can't move beyond these issues. I think that gay Iranian Americans however, have it so much better than our Iranian brothers and sisters. Life must be hell for them. There must be over 6 million gay Iranians, and I shudder to think what they have to go through in their daily lived in places like Tehran, Isfahan, and Shiraz. Well, thanks for listening. A.S. * Takes a big man Dr Payam Thanks for your letter in The Iranian titled "Being real". It takes a big man to announce to such violently homophobic society like Iran that he is gay but it takes a bigger man to be who he is inside. Such expressions and letters are long overdue for us Iranian men who are proud of our sarcastic language when it comes to gays and their sexual activities. The sarcasm is so expressive of an intense insecurity about one's own sexuality that I would not be surprised that if left alone and unbothered by violent reactions, many foes of gays turn out to be gays themselves inside. Neissan S. * Every language evolves Ms. Karimi ["Cheraa farhange lompanizm?"] is just as opportunistic as Ms. Hojati is, and they are both masking their own frustrations and qualms by first vilifying the current manifestation of Iranian language (which should be celebrated) and then blaming it on their foes. Ms. Karimi, When Hedayat wrote "Alavieh Khanoom" he used gutter speak. So did Sadeq Choobak in "Rooze Avale Qabr". Every language evolves and that evolution, to some purists, may seem vulgar and uncanny, but it only helps the language grow and be more comprehensive in its scope, reach and representation. The kids on the street are both the beneficiaries of that evolution and its impetus. The state of Iranian language and literature is fine. We need not worry about it. And if you, or Ms. Hojati, are unhappy with the politics of Iran (she on the right and you on the left), let's just say so, shall we? Regards, * "Lompanism" has its own literature A reply to Maral Karimi for "Cheraa farhange lompanizm?". Dear Ms. Karimi, I I've read your article fully on Iranian.com in response to Ms.Hojati. I should confess that you pointed to an important fact which unfortunately exists on our educational systems. Our real and valuable literature was forgotten and students have not gotten familiar with our great literary heritage. I should also say that almost the same system were exist in previous regime. As I studied I 'd never seen a poem from Shamlou or a story from Saaedi and...in our literature books at high school . But the number of people who speaks like "Lompans" were much less than now Speaking in this way is developed day by day. Both educated and uneducated are speaking carelessly with lots of mistakes. Even in TV or radio you can hear a reporter use some words which are not Farsi.They say "Raftesh" instead of "Raft" and so on which is not correct. There are lots of wrong and peculiar words and expressions entered in daily conversation and are used particularly by youth. For instance an expression which is widely used is "Bezan too rag." which means "Meyl konid"!! The reason you pointed at is not the main cause for this way of conversation. The main reason is related to the group of "Lompans" which has a close relation with our economical conditions. I do not want to talk about "Lompanism" here ,for more details you can refer to "Lompanism in Iran" written by Ali Akbar Akbari. "Lompanism" not only has its own literature, but also in many fields such as its behaviour is noticeable. I hope my email open a door to an accurate discussion about this subject which is very important at the current history of our Iran . Regards, * Shamloo & Hatef A reply to Maral Karimi for "Cheraa farhange lompanizm?".
* No wonder Hey, I like your mom's style of writing ["A patriotic day"]. No wonder you ended up doing iranian.com! * I'm still laughing... Recently I agreed with Jahanshah Javid when he wrote that the features in iranian.com are getting boring. But today's cover story ["Curse of the torshi"] was the best one you've ever put in your website. I hadn't laughed that much for a long time. I'm still laughing... * Bad omen Dear Simin khanoom, ["Curse of the torshi"] I believe "be maa nemyaad" means "It has a bad omen for us" in this case , like "aamad nadaare". My mother believed the same. Regards, * Did we have your cookies? Javid Jaan, ["Father's brownies"] Your mother's household was a loving and warm refuge for a large group of Iranian youth in London of the 1970's. Your late mother's Persian hospitality and charm, her legendary smiling face, her love and service to the community will never be forgotten by many of us graying folk. Javid Jaan, after reading "Father's brownies"; please tell us if we ever had cookies at your house! * Looking for Daryoush Tahmasebi My name is Richard Cheesmar. I am looking for someone called Daryoush Tahmasebi, and was wondering if there is any way that I may be able to use sources in Iran to see if he is there. He must be aged around 65-68. He was residing in the United Kingdom in the early 1960's was married in England at a registry office in Portsmouth in 1961. In 1963 he had a son whom he called Mark. I have no record of him after 1963, and believe he may have gone back to Iran. I know that he was from Tehran orginally. His father's name was Ebrahim Tahmasebi. I think his wife's name is Azar. If you know of any way I may be able to locate him in Iran I would be most grateful. I realize that it is a long shot but it is important. Thank you for any assistance you may be able to give me. Tel: +44 (0)7710 763000 * Nemitavan ra'ye mardom ra be tamaskhor gereft Bename Khoda, doostane aziz salam va vaghte shoma bekheyr. Man be yekbareh sayte shoma ra didam va kami az an khosham amad. Agar betavanid dar hozehaye ejtemaee va farhangi va varzeshi bishtar kar konid motmaenan movafaghtar az hala khahid bood . zemnan az masael siyasi dakhel iran ejtenab kardeh keh ra'ye mardom ba madaniyat hasel shodeh ast va nemitavan ke ra'ye mardom ra be tamaskhor gereft . omidvaram dar farhang va honar az shoma bishtar bebinam. * One of the few Please remember this: I think your medium is one the few perfect Iranian things. As perfect as a good Persian rug ( I just don't think we, Iranians make many excellent things, but you have made one of the few! BRAVO). * For sale: IranWomen.Com Dare Sir/Madam If you are interested to purchase the following domain names at a reasonable price please contact us at: 41/23 Silom Soi 19 Bangrak Bangkok, Thailand 10500. Telephone: (662) 235-4405, fax. (662)238-3295 We also have following Domain Names For Sale! 1.ISRAELWOMEN.COM 2.IRANWOMEN.COM 3.EUROPEWOMEN.COM 4.MALAYWOMEN.COM 5.KOREAWOMEN.COM
|
|
|
Web design by BTC Consultants
Internet server Global Publishing Group