Jahanshah Javid

No Wonder we are irrelevant...

Jesus that was boring!

About the only thing I am the slightest bit interested in is the sheer amount of carnage that CTG was ultimately responsible for.

I wonder how many people he had to kill to give them Democracy!

CTG reminds me of the PR campaign to deify Ronald Reagan. Am I the only one who remembers RR as the dumbest President of all time?

آفتاب آمد دلیل آفتاب

I rest my case based on Q's mind numbing diatribe

OKtaby

Yawn... when attack dogs attack...

being blinded by hatred, can have its disadvantages, especially if one's entire life is subsumed with attacking particular people and trying desperately to discredit them while fueled by nothing but rage.

One has to yawn.

The best thing about Oktaby's baseless attacks is his source from Science Daily, which says in part:

Co-author Steven Hoffman, Ph.D., visiting assistant professor of sociology at the University at Buffalo, says, "Our data shows substantial support for a cognitive theory known as 'motivated reasoning,' which suggests that rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe.

Let's look at the evidence from Oktaby's post. I think it is clear he "already" believes I'm some kind of evil hypocrite agent and he is ignoring evidence to the contrary.

For example:

Chuckle-worthy pretense by Oktaby, trying to appear like this is just an "example", and thus inflate his own case. Moving on...

"SAVAK terror state": SAVAK was a notorious security organization but nothing close to what it is today. IRR inherited it and made it a true terror state.

Interesting that there is no dispute in "SAVAK terror state". It is really too much to dispute, since it is a fact of history. The "jerzany" here is that I did not mention IRI abuses. This is a biased and ideological demand, that has nothing to do with History. These are retelling of canonical events for their historicity and noteriety, not comparisons (speculative, i.e. not history) with possible future events. When mentioning the Akhamanid's postal system, do I have to compare how it was "perfected" by many regimes after? When simply listing the fact of Sassanid relgious dictatorship, am I obligatd to compare it to future dictatorships? These might be good discussions, but not in the scope of what I was responding to. Therefore, this self-made "demand" by OKtaby is simply a seeking of information that confirms his own biases, both about the IRI and me, personally.

" 1973: The Arab/Israeli conflict and oil embargo opposed by the Shah (American puppet) that made Iran rich.": Shah was never against it. He was on the fence for obvious reasons and then went along (and paid the price) as convinced via secret meetings of emissaries in Cairo...

Bullshit. Shah was asked to sign on to the embargo and he replied no, which is why to this day it is called an "Arab embargo". Shah never signed on to the embargo. He was the only one selling Oil to Israel. Once the prices began to increase, however and he saw how popular it was in all of the middle east, he jumped on the bandwagon to raise prices even higher. Saying he was on the "fence" about the embargo is re-writing history. OKtaby is falsely pretending Shah was some kind of 3rd party observer who didn't know what to think about an ongoing issue. That's false, the question was forced on him because he was specifically asked to participate and he did not.

"US-approved Iranian inteference in Kurdistan, Bahrain and Oman." There is no such approval but again cutting and sowing is too easy.

Yes, there absolutely was US approval for these operations, in fact nothing like this ever happened without it during the cold war. The British intelligence were involved too.

"Policies leading to corruption and mass migration of poor into city slums: out of control. ": Talk about pie in the sky and subjective, given the poverty IRR has gifted our nation and what it has done to our women, children and just about everyone else.

Again, the "jerzany" is that I didn't mention some other thing years later OKtababy felt it was important to include. Talk about subjective.

"Khomeini's return, Bazargan, IRI vote, constitutional assembly and ratification of constitution.": conveniently referring to Terror at time of Shah but not even a passing reference to a 31 year reign of terror and misery. It is like talking about Bush Jr. and not even mentioning Iraq or 911.

And now we get to the crux of the issue. According to the Science Daily article, let me quote once again:

rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe.

Had Oktaby bothered to search at all (hala "rational" pishkesh) he would have noticed my clear scope of the list I produced when I wrote to Javid in my first comment;

As far as things you didn't mention at least until the present debates about IRI, here's a small list I would have added from top of my head:

I specifically did not cover the IRI because of people like OKtaby who are incapable of seperating politics from history, I did not "ommit" anything, I simply didn't go past the year 1979. But OKtaby, being short-sighted and thoroughly lacking in "searching rationally", totally missed that part of my comment. We can't say he's not a careful reader because he has focused on many details from the same comment. The most likely explanation is from the Science Daily article:

"for the most part people completely ignore contrary information.

If this wasn't enough to prove OKtaby is exactly what the article is talking about, we can ask a final question:

Javid, in his list, also did not mention the IRI era, probably for the same scoping reasons I didn't. But why did OKtaby not notice that, or give any feedback about it to Javid?

The reason is simple. If he really cared about IRI being mentioned, he should have criticized Javid as well. But he simply "didn't see" what he didn't want to se. OKtaby is just using our discussion of Iran's history to attack someone, based on (perceived) political differences. That's exactly what I meant when I called it "height of charlatanism."

Lastly, I have to correct OKtaby yet-again, when he write to Javid:

I think your point was validated by the first comment. Regardless of what history and which victor wrote it, people tend to believe what they want and find/extract what they want.

It's true, I did write exactly that which Oktaby is paraphrasing:

So more accurately, what they seek is their own relflection of present day politics and morality in a "glorious" past, be it 50 years or 5000 years ago) that is mostly their own self-serving fantasies.

However, this was not the "first comment," it was the third!

I thank OKtaby for participating in this demonstration. You may leave the stage! :)

Most of this history stuff is for evening cocktail conversations

People get to know some mouth filling names in history and then throw them in here and there to get attention. 

Like it was Ghavam who told Alam to bring Pishevari to meet Shams.  Ajoudan Mostofi 'ol Saltaneh told Ahmad Shah that Ghazagh will not sit still.  Alam wrote in his book about his personal conversations with Sepabod Khansalari that Timsar Azhari was personally involved in getting Kianouri to sell the secrets to Soviets with Eskandari in tow.  Years later Hojat'ol eslam Falsafi a student of Rashed told Shah that he will no longer work for the secret section of Shams for the benefit of Ms. Diba.

Everything is sacred

With recent archeological discoveries (about last 100 years)...

alongside forensic science, studying the ancient art affects and the life of the ordinary people has gained us much more insight about the ancient timers than simply relying on the written essays. The elites' diluted and convoluted version of history is becoming more and more of little use within the context of modern science of history.

~~

jj, that was one of the fastest reviews of a few thousand years :)

I think your point was validated by the first comment. Regardless of what history and which victor wrote it, people tend to believe what they want and find/extract what they want. To prove themselves right or just feel good about it...

//atheism.about.com/od/logicalflawsinreasoning/a/confirmation.htm

//www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090821135020.htm

Problem with history specially a polarized one like Iran, is even when one proves a point or event, then context is argued. Revisionism is too common because it is too easy. Colonialism mastered it, Israel perfected it and IRR elevated it to an art form. It is akin to 'jerzany' and we Iranians are very good at it.

For example:

"SAVAK terror state": SAVAK was a notorious security organization but nothing close to what it is today. IRR inherited it and made it a true terror state.

" 1973: The Arab/Israeli conflict and oil embargo opposed by the Shah (American puppet) that made Iran rich.": Shah was never against it. He was on the fence for obvious reasons and then went along (and paid the price) as convinced via secret meetings of emissaries in Cairo...

"US-approved Iranian inteference in Kurdistan, Bahrain and Oman."  There is no such approval but again cutting and sowing is too easy.

"Policies leading to corruption and mass migration of poor into city slums: out of control. ":  Talk about pie in the sky and subjective, given the poverty IRR has gifted our nation and what it has done to our women, children and just about everyone else. 

"Khomeini's return, Bazargan, IRI vote, constitutional assembly and ratification of constitution.": conveniently referring to Terror at time of Shah but not even a passing reference to a 31 year reign of terror and misery. It is like talking about Bush Jr. and not even mentioning Iraq or 911.

or "...their own self-serving fantasies" that is best illustrated by a cheesy listing of historic items in a biased manner guised in a show boat, and followed by another response that 'vasat da'va nerkh tey mikonan' 

It is a big subject

OKtaby

Why I love to be an Iranian

What interesting about Iran’s history is even after losingbeen a super power we still kept our originality. Iran been ran over by manysuper powers and stupid religion (Islam) for many century up to now and theyall try to change Iranian people to what they believe with no success. But whathelps us from changing to their way was we believe in our language, art, musicand culture and why life worth living as long as it ties us to the nature. Ibelieve leaders with different names will come and go but when they believe thesame values as their people their names will lives on in history, likeKorosh.  

I am not a history buff, and

I am not a history buff, and follow history, as more of a glance through or bullet point, just to see how far we have come.... but as they say history is written by the "victor", so how much of it can we say took place exactly the way it is presented....

Even if every bit of the history was facts based and written by independent observers, how does it relate to the task that  is in hand now.... how can its events and happenings be the guiding light into the process that needs to take shape, to get us where we need to go.....

This is a time like never been before.  Whether we had a just king like Koorosh, or an evil like Alexander, is as worthy as just a glance, in case there is lesson or take away, to be incorporated into the blue print that we need to have for moving FORWARD ..... 

....

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7D378f42eU

قومی مفتخرند اندر ره دین
قومی به گمان فتاده در راه یقین
میترسم از انکه بانگ اید روزی
که ای بی خبران, راه نه ان است و نه این!

I know all about this one

So there was this guy and he said "follow me" and kill a few people, 'coz that's makes chest-beating really sexy. And then there was another one, who said "nah" my chest is bigger than yours "hooch hooh hooch", and then one of them hooch hooh hooched more and bigger  than the other and then another one came along and hooch hooh hooed....and everybody clapped "hooch hoooh hooch"....Yeah!

Hooch hooh hooch hurray!

"Last night I drowned in a puddle"

And if you don't hooch hooh hooch with us, we will kill you! Yeah!

Q

How am I supposed to interpret your response, Sir? I wish you had ignored my comment instead of trivializing it to the point of near humiliation.

"Learning carries within itself certain dangers because out of necessity one has to learn from one's enemies."

They First Came for ...

Borrowing the famous poem attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller, and apply it to our recent history,

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3DI6iQlom8&feature...

“THEY CAME FIRST for the Shah’s people,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Shah’s official.

THEN THEY CAME for the Leftists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Leftist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Nationalists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't one of them.

THEN THEY CAME for the Reformist,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Reformist.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

History matters, but we shouldn't get stuck in the past!

That's pretty good

I wish everybody knew as much as you.

Only part that's wrong: "The Aryans arrive from Siberia via India."

They came from North of Caucasus through Central Asia (and some continued on to India).

I'd give you a B+ 

Agree with Q, with caveat

This is a joke- right? I

This is a joke- right? I just can't identify where you've placed the punch line.

How many of us read the "opposing" views on history?

Everything is sacred

Gee ... That is such a difficult "Q" uestion ...

I feel like an Ignorant in comparison to some of the enlightening comments in the thread to this Blog by our Household History Expert ...

Much Obliged ...

This was Really an Eye Opening Experience !

Humbly Yours !

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF2RYhNhBdw

Javid,

I agree it's limited. I know mine is. But you don't need to be a history buff. If you just read alot of what people write in your own magazine, you would be way ahead of me!

Of course the real "scholarship" is seperating fact from BS.

I have a slightly different take. I don't think many Iranians are "obsessed" with the past, but rather inartfully (ab)use history to make a claim about their politics of the present. So more accurately, what they seek is their own relflection of present day politics and morality in a "glorious" past, be it 50 years or 5000 years ago) that is mostly their own self-serving fantasies. That, in my opinion, is the height of charlatanism in Iranian culture.

comrade: Obviously it's a conspiracy to distort and destroy the memory of the constitutional revolution. Good job, you've uncovered another one!

As a student...

I'm just wondering why the writer of the blog, and the first commenter decided not to mention the Constitutional Revolution (as it seems to be).

I really do wonder.

"Learning carries within itself certain dangers because out of necessity one has to learn from one's enemies."

Are you sure your other name is not Tabari?

JJ jaan, You missed our national hero, Shabon Bi Mokh. And that is why it matters and there is so much arguments and discussion. It's not about the water under the bridge, it's a battle between truth and lies. Between celebrating those who served Iran versus smearing them with cheap spin.

You have answered yourself with this blog. Not many of us are readers of history and get our information from unverified sources in media and more likely from self appointed family historians who have their own prejudices.

If we don't challenge the lies and allow one group to make Shabon a patriot and the other to hail Sheikh Fazlollah and Navab Safavi as freedom martyrs, then what guarantee do we have that the same thing would not happen again?

History buff?

I'm pretty sure you're ahead of the curve, Q. You are close to what I would consider a history buff. I mean which average person would know about "Muslim alliances with Mesopotamian Christians prior to invasion of Persia"? And a couple of other "obscure" facts.

Thanks for sharing. I'm just trying to make people think about the fact that our knowledge and understanding of history is severely limited, eroded and distorted by time and personal taste and... And yet we dwell on the past far more than the present and the future.

Sure I know more...

I mean, it's a complicated question. For example you say "Then come the Parthians who are sort of Greekish Persians", well I could write pages on this, but so can you probably.

As far as things you didn't mention at least until the present debates about IRI, here's a small list I would have added from top of my head:

NeoAssyrian/NeoBabylonian Empires
Median Empire
Origins of Zoroastrianism
Greek Persian Wars in Asia Minor
Egyptian conquests by Achaminids and Sassanids
The Mazdaki revolt and decline of Zoroastrians
Iranian influence in pre-Islamic Arabian Peninsula
Sassanid tax system
Muslim alliances with Mesopotemian Christians prior to invasion of Persia.
Invention of Sufi orders and their spread throughout greater Asia.
Rise of Shiites in early medieval North Africa and relationships to Iranians and Turks.
Iranian participation in the crusades.
Mongol/Timurid conquests and Iranian resistnce
rise of Ghezelbash and turkik tribes in Perisa
Nader Shah's devestating invasions of India and Afghanistan.
Karim Khan Zand's philosophical shift of the Monarchy.
Portoguese colonial wars with Iran and forceful takeover of several Persian Golf Islands. (Beginning of Modern Iranian Navy)

Colonial domination of Qajari Iran (mostly British and French)
Tobacco boycotts and nationalist movements
Americans in Iran: Simon Schuster, Howard Baskerville, etc.
Iran's occupation by the Allies in WW2.
Oil nationalization (really should have mentioned this)
Rise of Khomeini as anti-colonialist, first nationalized criticism of American involvement and Shah's support of Israel.
Operation AJAX
Capitulation laws
SAVAK terror state.
1973: The Arab/Israeli conflict and oil embargo opposed by the Shah (American puppet) that made Iran rich.
US-approved Iranian inteference in Kurdistan, Bahrain and Oman.
Policies leading to corruption and mass migration of poor into city slums: out of control.
Khomeini's move to France.
Bakhtiar: the last ditch effort of Monarchy
Khomeini's return, Bazargan, IRI vote, constitutional assembly and ratification of constitution.