TOLERANCE

Persian-speakers are not the only ones

Dear Abarmard,

>One could simply talk about the humiliating
>and disgusting so called jokes that the Persians
>make in order to describe their fellow citizen.

I think you have not seen an Azeri telling "Rashti", "torki" or "Esfahani" jokes !
Your presumption that only Persian-speakers are telling jokes, is totally wrong.

> Those “Persians” who continuously speak
>of Iran with the term of “Persian Pride”
>should know more about the “Iranian Pride”.

In Iran, no "persian" speaks about "Persian pride", but "Iranian". "Persian" is another term for "Iranian" in English. In Iran we don't call ourselves "Persian/Fars". Your information is wrong.

Why all you have to say is about "Kurds", "Azaris" and "Baluch", etc? In Iran there exists Persian dialects that standard Persian speakers cannot understand, because of their thickness and/or vocabulary and/or even partly grammar. They are also ridiculed because of their accent.
The same Tehrani who goes to Tabriz and may behave arrogantly, do the same when in Shiraz, because he feels others are ?ahrestâni and he is modern. By the way, who are Tehranis? They are the children of the same ?ahrestânis. My nephew was born and brought up in Tehran, he is a student in another Persian-speaking capital of a province. He tells me that who he hates their accents. That while his own parents are from "?ahrestân" and have a little accent.
I am a ?ahrestâni myself, up until I came to Tehran I had not heard a single "Torki" joke in my home town. That jokes are Tehrani culture. Please stop propagating misinformation.

No one in Iran is "tâfteye jodâ bâfte".

I agree with you about democracy and understanding each other.

Read related articles too

I invite other members and surfers to read the related articles and comments too:

//iranian.com/main/2008/not-pan-turkism
//iranian.com/main/2007/azerbaijan-iran
//iranian.com/main/2008/origins-azeri-turks-0

Persian dialects are made fun of too

I have only read a part this, so a comment for that part:
You say:
"Instead of admiring this fact we humiliate them and make fun of their accent when they try to communicate with the national language of Persian."

All Persian dialects are made fun of. Actually when a Persian-speaking person comes to Tehran, s/he tries hard to conceal the accent. For some Persian-speaking persons in every part of Iran, speaking in Tehrani dialect is a way of showing modernity. They have actually a sense of inferiority, unfortunately. The film director Cumars Purahmad once was telling his stories of coming to Tehran for the first time in TV. He said he was trying to hide his Esfahani dialect to no avail. So you cannot base your arguments on such things. But as a whole I agree with you about more linguistic rights for all people of Iran.

Thanks for your reply,

Thanks for your reply, however I think that it is time that Europeans do not consider themselves as the center of the universe (the world) and that all matters should begin from them, your opinion that nation states started 500 years ago (just because it started approx. 500 years ago in Europe) is a very strong example. While I suspect you are not a chauvinistic wetsro/Euro-centric, but this is, and quite understandbly, the case when Europeans (and Americans by extension) view the world, from their prism. The concept of a nation started from Iran, thousands of years ago, if Iran was in present day Europe and considered a European country, your education and understanding would have been different, and much much closer to the truth. I think it is time to break down the barrier of all things global (international) MUST be per the approval and view of European's liking (and peiople of European origin). This topic is a perfect example. Here's a simplistic example, if Europeans learned about Algebra some centuries ago, it is not correct to say that the science of algebra started some centuries ago, because that is when the Europeans learned about it. I think you subconsciusly replied the way you did (about nations forming 500 years ago, because that is how it is taught in the west).

Reply: Nation-state / 500 years old.

The concept of the modern nation-state is a "Western" one so its explanation has to be sought in the West. 500 years is a VEEERY approximate date. The sense of English and French nationhood began centuries earlier, while that of German and Italian centuries later, with very unfortunate consequences.

But this very flexible "500" has a relationship to the gradual collapse of feudalism.in favor of a centralized government system with a mission to forge a "national" identity and territorial integrity.  Spain is an example I know well and is just about 500 years old. 

Before the unification of the Catholic Kings Ferdinand and Isabella (famous also for financing Columbus) there was no Spain or concept of Spanish nationality.  There were many separate feudal entities , each more or less with their own language (a couple whose descendants are still separatist today).  At the head of each feudal hierarchy there might be a king, as in Aragon, or a Count, as in Catalonya.  Feudalism was based on vows of miliatary protection, from the serf up through the lower to the higher nobility, thus based on war, and so the boundaries of these feudal "entities" were always changing, often drastically.

The Catholic Kings forged a modern Spanish identity, they ENGINEERED it.  They unified the territories on the Peninsula and gave preference to Castillian over the many other tongues.  And one of their first acts was to expel the Jews, then Muslims, and that is a price historically often paid for the concept of a "national" political identity. Dearly paid in the case of Germany, very late on the scene of European political nationhood, and desperate to prove that identity. 

So 500 years is a VERY approximate figure and corresponds to the erosionof feudalism and the rise of the centralized bureacratic state (but not as an EMPIRE, ruling over MANY peoples, as a NATION professing and CREATING one common identity).

There are parallels and differences with the case of Persia, but I won't talk about them unless someone wants to, I'm just anwering the question about my choice of "500 years" for the nation-state--the answer to this question has to be found in the "West", where the concept of "nation-state" arose.

I'm curious as to how you

I'm curious as to how you define it per the "500 year old" definition which you referred to, could you please explain a little more? (I am referring your comment "It is true that in the modern political world the term "nation" is used to mean the "nation-state", a concept only about 500 years old,...").

Re: "Nation/Nationality"

It is true that in the modern political world the term "nation" is used to mean the "nation-state", a concept only about 500 years old, and the integrity of which boundaries the two Shahs were so concerned with maintaining in Iran. A nation comprising numerous ethnic groups among its "Iranian natoinals", about half the total population.

However,the word "nation" has another use, a looser one, referring to a specific ethnic group with an historic, cultural unity. We see this in the US for example when we refer to the major native American "tribes" interchangeably as "nations".

It seems to me that the dual meanings of this word have been the source of some discord on this site. And the situation is further compounded by the existence of the short-lived Iranian-Azeri POLITICAL nation in the last century.

So I think these terms need to be scrutinized and carefully discussed and chosen. Suggestions: Iranian nation, Azeri people, and for those with such inclinations, perhaps Azeri republic within a federated Iranian nation. (The last one is a tough one.  For example, the independent Iranian Azeri NATION of the 40's was called the REPUBLIC of Azerbaijan, while the US with its 50 states is also called a REPUBLIC, and on the OTHER other hand there was the "Union of Soviet Socialst RepublicS" (plural)

So the nomenclature is tricky, but still I don't think there exists such a political animal as a smaller "nation"  within a larger "nation" recognized as a MEMBER NATION of the United NATIONS, iin this case. Iran.

I hope I'm not making myself as clear as mud.  Language is a murky thing, but on this website, it is all we have.

Robin

Universal truths........

I agree that putting too much emphasis on ethnicities is not the best thing to do. Yes, we know there are some differences culturally but there are also similarities. It is best to focus on the similarities. At least that is my opinion.

There are some universal needs, wants and desires among all ethnic groups:  Freedom of speech, Freedom of religion or lack of religion, Freedom to practice their language, and cultural beliefs without being judged or labeled as the "OTHER", a good education for themselves and their children, a good job, to be able to live with dignity and the list goes on.

I have learned these universal truths by having friends from many different ethnic groups and religious backgrounds. Most of all they want to live in PEACE. They truly want the best for their children and other family members.

solh

Natalia

Concentric Circles

Self, family, group(s), mankind, life forms. You get the idea. Let's not get too bogged down in ethnicity or any other grouping. People in the whole world are not that different from one another. Having a country, ethnicity, etc. helps organize and categorize things. But too much importance put on it causes problems in itself. I can be a brother to another Iranian and I can also be a brother to an American, never mind a Kurdish or Azeri. We are all trying to survive as best we can. And as time goes by, hopefully we will learn better ways to live as individuals or individual groups and yet respect the rights of others to survive.

-- Peace

RE: Male seeking Female........Yes, we know

 Yes, we know. It is the same in America where the Nationality is Americans but many different ethnic groups:Iranian, Mexican, Black, Italian, German.............

What exactly was your point? Was there a point? :o)

solh

Natalia

"Nationalities"

Greetings,
.
There is only one "Nationality" inside of Iran's border. There are various ethnic groups that compose the Iranian Nation.
.
Thank you for listening.

Chokh Yakhchi Article!

You have definitely become my favorite author on this site. As a culture we definitely need to work on our ability to tolerate differences while maintaining our principles. The very first thing I noticed when I left Iran and arrived at the "West" was the westerners' immense ability to be patient when faced with opposition. It didn't mean they would give in - just patient and able to maintain communication until the difference in viewpoint was resolved or some kind of agreement was reached. We should definitely improve ourselves in that area. We are just too much into fighting and revolutions and other forms of violent action.

P.S. - "Chokh yakhchi" means "very good" in Turkish language.

Abarmard you speak of "Azeri

Abarmard you speak of "Azeri nationality" inside Iran and among Iranians. Please do continue with your falsification of the the truth. Which "Azeri nationality"? I suppport the rights for all people in all countries of the world (including people of different original ethicities), but misrepresenting and spinning of facts into fiction, I look down at (of course, "democratically").

LostIdentitiy but of course.......:o)

 Of course you will be branded a Mollah supporter, it is the highlight of their day. We would not one to take such joy away from them would we? :o)

solh

Natalia

Re: Tolerance for the Tyranny

This is one of those Dogma's I mentioned in my previous reply - Whatever moves and goes wrong, it's Mollah's job. This is the state of our "so called" professionals, highly educated or intellectual breed, now what should we expect from people who (we think) are out of touch with reality!!!!!
Khoda be ma shanse bedeh (God help us)!

Now, Let me be proactive - I will be branded as Mollah supporter:o)

Re: Rosie...Abarmard/Rashidian

You say:
"these Iranians include people like Rashidian and others with whom I dialogue with,. Yet JR thinks the people who I think are on "my side" are with Khamenei,...yet...both he and I know I'm not...so...

what is it I'm not getting here?"
Dear Rosie,
It is very simple. Iranians , in general, (and that means there are exceptions) think either black or white. They no no shades of gray scale. I know this because I'm one of them. Now add to this the Conspiracy theories, you will end up with people who easily make decision and go on pushing their agenda. This has nothing to do with religion - It's a cultural issue. No matter if you're an intellectual, college student, Clergy, farmer, army general or a king. Once they lock on seeing your weekness twe will hold on to that, magnify it and forget about all the other good qualities yours. Needless to say that this dogma is not just a property of Iranians.

I always say that the world we live in is Not black Nor white. It's all gray with varying scale of grayness. I think we need to understand this system of values in order to stay in a reasonable path, be pragmatic and value people based on what they are rather than what we see them as.

The root of these problems are not the people but....

Just to clarify that generally most people of Iran respect their fellow Iranians (Kurd, Balouch, Persian, Azeri and etc. It is the political system that creates division among us. As examples we see that many Kurdish areas are ignored in terms of development, Local governments are not elected by people and as a result of that we have a governor who is not even from the same region. Minorities’ culture and festivities are prohibited. The list goes on……unfortunately as long as the IRI is in charge, there won’t be a road to democracy nor we can live in freedom that we deserve.

R.Rosie

The first premise is that Iranian political history never experienced a period of democracy. This is due to the difference between Muslim and non-Muslim societies. The non-Muslim West needed 1500 years to push Church back, whereas the Islamic world is since 1500 bogged in this process of show evolution. Several hundred years of delay is due to the widespread influence of Islam which has not been removed by a similar western renaissance.

So, in short, we, Iranians never experienced democracy in our history, especially under despotic regimes like the current IRI. I give you a typical example of my generation. Iranians know extremist worldviews, from revolutionary Marxist-Leninist movements of 70th, and 80th, until the Islamic MOK and along to the current Islamists of the IRI.

The second premise: the people you mentioned cannot project “democracy, tolerance, left or any charge to hasten our social evolution towards democracy and secularism. Their alleged “political evolution” is a mincing interpretation of different IRI's factions to which they belong or have sympathy for. Those who believe in evolution cannot oppose to revolution because this latter is inevitably a part of the process of evolution, known mutation.

The third premise: In order to begin a new stage in our political growth, we have to think outside the IRI. Yet, every time we abandon an old worldview for a new and wider vision, we merely find ourselves on the correct path. And while each worldwide serves its particular function for a time, each particular society in particular circumstances, our pro IRI intellectuals are always in struggle of claiming that the worldview which miraculously will be one day evolved from the IRI is the ultimate one.

Let me tell you, if Islam had accepted the general theory of evolution it would have a renaissance long time ago in the Islamic world too. Given that society consists of free expression, what is the relationship between a general theory of “jihad fi sabillah” (war for the sake of Allah) and a general theory of social evolution.

The spiral shape of the current extremism suggests that it can keep growing forever. There is no design for a "final" secularism and democratic regime. Yet, some Iranian intellectuals keep building new paradigms to prop the spiral up. How can we believe in sincerity of such intellectuals who call themselves “Moderate”, while spreading the idea of the most anti democratic, the IRI?

And finally let me tell you that such pro-IRI intellectuals would never participate in a democratic, objective, and rational debate. Some of them even prefer to slander "profane" writings, as we both know.

Re: Rosie

As far as I know only camp Ashraf (MKO) has clearly articulated ... that is why those who advocate regime change might get a surprise they were not hoping for!

Anon7

Thank you for your reply.  Actually I'm already aware of the division between "evolutionary"/"revolutionary" and I'm in the first "camp" too...I've written on it at length...foreign intervention has been the scourge of Iran and MY country in particular (ESPECIALLY under this administration) has NO RIGHT to purport to "help" any country...America has become like a disease....

And Abarmard speaks CLEARLY of democracy, so what's the missing piece?  Has it been clearly articulated or not by these spokespeople so to say of our "camp"--the Abermards, Sorayas, Q's, Hoders, etc.--that the IRI IS a theofascist dictatorship and that they ACTIVELY await its DOWNFALL, through evoloution from within?  That this is a viable STRATEGY for an evolution toward democracy because foreign intervention--including sanctions--will fail, in their opinion, for xyz reasons...?

Actually I hold "my" (appointed) President and his minions responsible for the failure of Reform through the military flanking of Iran.  Whatever.  The current situation for the past several years is what it is.  Much may well be Bush's "fault".  But US govt. and IRI govt. are still two DISTINCT entitites. 

Is it being articulated clearly enough that, despite great progress in civil society, in growth of awareness, in coming to terms with history, in education of women, etc. among the youthful, dynamic and ingenious population of Iran....the current IRI REGIME remains...quite simply disgusting? 

(As by the way I consider my own...regime...?)

Robin

Re: Rosie

Rosie, I am not Abarmard (since I post as anony.. I need to clarify), but if I am not mistaken this is the second time you are posting this type of question, and I try to answer it.
Besides the normal high level devision of right and left between the Iranian seculars there are many other divisions, one of which is very important in the case of Iranian.
That division is defined by those of us who think the best way to reach a fully democratic, tolerant, ... Iran is through the evolution and those who think this requires another sudden change (revolution, foreign invasion, etc.).
I can't speak for that latter group however I consider myself as one in the evolutionary camp and I strongly believe that is the fastest route to a true democratic Iran.

Abarmard / Rashidian...

I don't understand this.  I REALLY need clarification.

I read Abarmard, I read Q and Soraya and others and as far as I can see they are ideologically on "my side."  ('soft" socialist, meaning pragmatic acceptance of mixed economies, pacifist, anticolonialist yet objective and conciliatory).  I'm not an Iranian.  These people sound ideologically just like me....(considered MODERATE left in Europe).  sorry if I've mischaracterized you on details Abarmard but I hope you get my point...

BUT THEY DON'T SOUND THAT WAY TO OTHER IRANIANS WHO ALSO BELIEVE IN A SECULAR PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY.

 And these Iranians include people like Rashidian and others with whom I dialogue with,. Yet JR thinks the people who I think are on "my side" are with Khamenei,...yet...both he and I know I'm not...so...

what is it I'm not getting here?

I was so happy to read the title of this article, about understanding both sides.  But Rashidian's post below is right, Abermard, but it's  wrong, JR.  The separatist issue IS important (JR), but it ISN'T the central polarized issue by any means (Abarmard)..we all know what those are...

So, are you going to address JR on the central polarized issue, Abarmard?  I know (I THINK I know..) that YOU DON'T REPRESENT AND SUPPORT A THEOFASCIST DICTATORSHIP. 

JR is a rational, intelligent, dedicated person whom I respect.  Abermard, CAN YOU PLEASE ADDRESS HIS CONCERNS CLEARLY IN A LANGUAGE HE CAN START TO UNDERSTAND??? Sorry but he's right on this one:  Azeri bilingualism doesn't cut the mustard here...

Close...but no cigar...

Best regards, 

Robin Jayne Goldsmith

To Abol Danesh #2

Circumstance has estranged my friend He has bolted the door but I will enter the portal and knock despite my enemies.
I will shatter locks with words.
I will break bolts with my songs and will persuade myself that nettles are sprigs of balsam. I will dance and shout to their bitter juice as if I were drunk on wine and humble myself and pretend that hell stream is icy if it will get me through darkness into his light. Go now my song, Take this message to my Beloved for song is a faithful messenger.

Atrocious

Danesh's ripping through the labels is literaly a prime example of atrocious writing. Can sombody help this illiterate man toward a more legible and smooth writing of prose or poetry...
.

Simply Awful!

Bonding: Kiss in the rain

Ripping through the lables...
.
Religion...
Nationality...
Education...
Wealth...
Ethnicty...
Race...
Class...
These are endemic categories
Of course man made
And then people
Are thrown to these large sacks beyond hope or window
There...
Rip throw them all
So for the first time
Begin to understand the man as he is
Standing before you for the first time
Like the first kiss experienced
Sending shock waves & shock waves
Into the deep spine of consciousness of man
Toward awakening
From these earthquakes in the mind of man that
Man then begins to understand
These labels for the first time
Their useage toward their habitual blind date bonding
.
AH Danesh
December 8, 2007
.
//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thum...

Utopia is beautiful but people are limited

I would love every body speak all languages but in every day life it is not so easy.

Here if I write in French, can I expect people hear me ?

This is not only an Iranian problem, look at what is hapenning in Belgium between Flamish and Woalon //www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/07/europe/EU-GEN-Belgium-Government.php

Something I disagree with you is the jokes. They are just to be funny and shouldn't be taken for something more serious. I dont want Iran becomes like US something fade (Bimazeh) ;-)

In Europe there are also many Jokes about several nationality and nobady is ASHAMED !!

Tolerance for the Tyranny

Mr. Abarmard, the fact is all Iranians are the victims of the same tyranny. Yet, you seem to alleviate the tyranny by stirring up non-existing issues. In fact, people of different ethnical backgrounds are unanimously and righteously united when it goes on the rejection of this tyranny. Such dishonest articles on this site, consciously or not (?), strenuously support survival for Mullahs' regime, whose each day corresponds a human and economic loss for all Iranians regardless of their ethnics. Your aim seems to hide or play down the IRI's crimes, misogyny, human rights records, cultural damage, corruption, social crackdowns, all committed by the different factions and supporters of the same regime. With a silence over these points and the obvious IRI’s atrocity, your moral preach on "ethnical tolerance" can only mean “tolerance” for the regime--in other words, you seem to attempt to buy an, eternal, life for the tyranny.

lost identity is spot on. We

lost identity is spot on. We don't value life or each other as human beings much. We value wealth and are very much status oriented.

Lack of tolerance is a

Lack of tolerance is a cultural issue. I promise you if the people actually did follow their religion, they would tolerate each other alot more. Remember the jokes that are so routine in Iran to humiliate the various ethnicities in Iran? These jokes are not made to actually be funny mutually. They are meant to humiliate. The other major issue is that we truly do not value human life as it is valued in the west. These are the two critical cultural issues we are facing that makes us to abuse freedom OR imposing dictatorship! Abuse of freedom and imposing dictatorship are the two faces of the same coin;

Why is it so hard for some poeple to understand that..

monarchy doesnt mean dictatorship. Look at scandinavian countries, they are the most democratic countries and they are all constitutional monarchies.

the monarch does not rule,

im for such a system 100 % democracy and a shah as a symbol for iran.

it will work and is the best path in my opinion.

An american style democracy isnt good at all.

scandinavian countries and even england are all monarchies and very democratic. much more than usa and most republics.