می بخور، منبر بسوزان - مردم آزاری نکن

You claimed "I'm just

You claimed "I'm just summarizing the peer reviewed work that I have read". The notion that "peer reviewed" articles in scholarly journals or books would make the claim that "The colonizers couldn't admit that the people they had their boots on have a richer history than Europe" seems to me rather farfetched. To back such a claim, you should provide evidence.

The issue of scientific racism in Europe is not even disputed.  

I'm not disputing it. Do you dispute that all sorts of racist and reactionary sentiments also exist in our own Mideast backyard or just the Devilish West?

Even through the first quarter of the 20th century there were "racial studies" in many educational institutions producing rubbish that is repulsive to us now. 

Precisely, they are repulsive to us now. The U.S. of 2010, for all its problems, is not the U.S. of 1910 (or even 1960 for that matter). Is there still a way to go? Sure, there is. 

But, you use this "burden of proof" to deflect and distract. This is a message board. It's not a lecture hall that I could give you the details. It's meant to give ideas to people, so that they could go and explore on their own. 

Asking for evidence is an attempt to "deflect and distract"? You're trying to make a joke, right? Of course, you can't scan in a textbook, but there's enough stuff on the Internet at least to provide some sort of evidence to back your claims.  

However, since you demand proof, and state that the Aryan race may or may not be real...the burden of proof is equally on you to prove that there was an Aryan race. 

I never said a single thing about an Aryan "race". Show me where I said that. For all I know, it's a fanciful notion--but I never made such a claim.

The burden is equally on you to prove that to Churchill's "credit, he denounced the Nazis from the earliest days when many folks couldn't see their danger." Prove that!  

I'd be happy to. Churchill became Prime Minister in May 1940 but was a member of the House of Commons prior to that. Beginning in 1932, he opposed German rearmament in the House. The Nazis had cartoons mocking Churchill for "agitation against Germany"' "fabricating figures on German rearmament"; accusing him of being a "warmonger", etc as early as 1933. In a November 16, 1934 speech, Churchill said, "The many countries, great and small, that are afraid of being absorbed or invaded by Germany, should lay their fears and their facts before the League of Nations." Starting in 1936, he began to write articles in the Evening Standard warning of Hitler's continued rise. Again, I'm not a Churchill "fan" but let's give credit where credit is due. Regards.

AMIR,

The peer reviewed journals (such as Archeology) state the latest findings. Books written on the subject draw the conclusions. The issue of scientific racism in Europe is not even disputed. Even through the first quarter of the 20th century there were "racial studies" in many educational institutions producing rubbish that is repulsive to us now.

For example, Charles Linnaeus included man amongst animals as a specie in his General System of Nature. That was a great leap from the religious view. This was in the 18th century. One could say he was at the cutting edge of scientific thought at the time. But, read what he had to say. He four forms of the genus Homo sapiens: 

1. Americanus. Native American males were supposedly red; had black hair and sparse beards; were stubborn; prone to anger; "free"; and governed by traditions. Thus, this form of Homo sapiens was definitely inferior and uncivilized.
2. Asiaticus. The male Asian was said to be "yellowish, melancholy, endowed with black hair and brown eyes...severe, conceited, and stingy. He puts on loose clothing. He is governed by opinion." Thus, like the aforementioned type of Homo sapiens, the Asiaticus could only be a mediocre prototype.
3. Africanus. The male of this subset, according to Linnaeus, could be recognized by his skin tone, face structure, and curly hair. This kind was apparently cunning, passive, and inattentive, and ruled by impulse. The female of this kind was also apparently shameless, because "they lactate profusely."
4. Europeaus. The males of this subset were supposedly "changeable, clever, and inventive. He puts on tight clothing. He is governed by laws."

You keep asking for burden of proof. But, you use this "burden of proof" to deflect and distract. This is a message board. It's not a lecture hall that I could give you the details. It's meant to give ideas to people, so that they could go and explore on their own. Go to your local library and research. I'm already going out of my way to entertain you!

However, since you demand proof, and state that the Aryan race may or may not be real...the burden of proof is equally on you to prove that there was an Aryan race. Do you have any? Where is your proof to support your comments, all of them!?

Finally, you are dead wrong on Churchill. Churchill (and many other prominent leaders of British and American governments) had no problem with Nazis and fascists, until they became a threat to British interests. They in fact praised Hitler and Mussolini for bringing order to chaos from the beginning and through the Nazi and fascist repression. There is much more, and I know..."burden of proof"! The burden is equally on you to prove that to Churchill's "credit, he denounced the Nazis from the earliest days when many folks couldn't see their danger." Prove that! 

ggorgg,

 I'm just summarizing the peer reviewed work that I have read. 

So the "peer reviewed work" that you have read states that "The colonizers couldn't admit that the people they had their boots on have a richer history than Europe". Really? I would love to see the scholarly journals that appeared in  :-)

Do your own research if you want to know why.  

Actually, the burden is on those making claims to provide some proof. That would appear self-evident. Making a claim and then basically saying "go find the proof for yourself" strikes me as rather intellectually dishonest, wouldn't you say?

There was a reason that Nazis and good folks like Churchill jumped at the idea of European supremacy.  

Churchill was a racist, and I'm no fan of his. But to his credit, he denounced the Nazis from the earliest days when many folks couldn't see their danger. As far as the Nazis themselves, the main targets of their racism were other Europeans (e.g. mainly Ashkenazi Jews, Slavs, etc--many of whom had features as fair, if not more so, than some Germans). They allied themselves with non-Europeans (most prominently, the Japanese) and were also interested in establishing alliances with Turkey (which Ismet Inonu resisted), Iran (which Reza Shah may or may not have done, but he was forced to abdicate anyway), and the Arabs. 

Read Churchill's racist rants about Arabs and dogs and ponder WHY!? 

There are plenty of racist sentiments on the part of Iranians against Arabs, e.g. that saying that "Sag-e Esfahan ab-e yakh mikhorad, Arab dar biaban malakh mikhorad" (and vice versa, e.g. Saddam's uncle wrote a book entitled "Three Whom God Should Not Have Created: Persians, Jews, and Flies"; there is a strong anti-Iranian, as well as anti-Jewish, current in Arab nationalism). And no, these were not simply planted in our minds by the Great Satan and their minions, since they often predated modern colonialism. They are human failings, from which no people are exempt. 

AMIR: what!?!?!?!?!

The lack of justification in one case does not invalidate the existence of the justification in another! I don't know why. I'm just summarizing the peer reviewed work that I have read. Do your own research if you want to know why. There was a reason that Nazis and good folks like Churchill jumped at the idea of European supremacy. Read Churchill's racist rants about Arabs and dogs and ponder WHY!?

The colonizers couldn't

The colonizers couldn't admit that the people they had their boots on have a richer history than Europe. 

There are many historical myths out there, and the notion of an "Aryan invasion" may be mostly true, mostly myth or almost totally myth (I'm not here to debate the merits for or against that hypothesis). But the notion that it was invented by Europeans out of thin air simply because they "couldn't admit that the people they had their boots on have a richer history than Europe" is pure bunkum. Why wasn't an "Aryan invasion" myth invented to explain Ancient Egypt, with its Pyramids, Sphinx, etc--which are quite a bit older than the Indus Valley civilization? Can "leftish" claptrap explain the absence of an "Aryan invasion" myth in that instance? Regards.

Debunking the Aryan myth...

Dear ShAsMi,

I feel your pain. Many a times, I've had a debate about the whole Aryan thing with Iranians. It drives me crazy how they insist on it and how little time they have spent actually researching the topic. Before I get into that, I do have to criticize you for the European scum bit at the end of your article. First, it's not right to insult others. Second, it invalidates the point you're trying to make. After that, here is the lump sum of my research into the Aryan issue.

There is not a single shred of evidence to support the existence of an Aryan race. The word 'Arya' means noble (as in noble character, not noble ancestary), learned, or skilled. It shares the same root as the English word 'art'. The ultimate root 'Ar' roughly means to create with skill. So, 'Iran' does mean the land of Arya, but interpreting 'Arya' to be the name of a race was a European concoction. It's as if English fell from use and another culture saw an inscription that called US "land of the free." Then, the word 'free' can be interpreted as an adjective or misinterpreted as a noun for the name of a race called 'Free'!

In fact, the whole story in academic journals is referred to as "the Aryan invasion theory" for an explanation of the archeological sites associated with what now is referred to as the Indus-Sarasvati civilization. Back in the late 19th, early 20th century, European colonialism was in full swing and often justified with the now hackneyed line of "civilizing the barbarians." Today that line is replaced by "liberating this or that" in the American lexicon. Well, the Indus valley sites went against that idea. They were far older than most of Europe and extremely sophisticated and developed. The colonizers couldn't admit that the people they had their boots on have a richer history than Europe. So, in comes a German fellow called Max Muller and the whole Aryan thing catches on. The barbarians are barbarians and the archeological anomalies are explained away by the conquering, blue-eyed, blond European race of 'Aryans' whose accomplishments are mentioned in old Sanskrit text. That is if you buy Muller's interpretation of 'Arya' as a distinct race.

Today, the Aryan invasion theory has been completely debunked and it is well established that if anything the flow of the civilizing force was the other way. Yet, many Iranians display that vapid footprint of colonialism by regurgitating this stale, old fabrication. Sadly, our history as portrayed in epics like 'Arashe Kamangir' is so much richer than the myth of blond, European invaders!

Thanks dear friends: AntiM and Majid

Your kind support is much appreciated.

Doctor X also has a good point about concentrating on the issue at hand. But I believe that "the issue on our hands" has always been the fight against dictatorship, stupidity and brutality.

Mitra khanoom: good point

Good point, some of it was through sympathy for the poor people and such, but why no one became Liberal Democrat, Human Right Activist, Moderate Reformist?

Why did almost everyone become entangled in the web of some sort of Fascist, Communist or Islamist, anti-Western dogma?

"... after these turbaned roaches run to the hill ..."

That's such a lovely expression, dear Hamsade! God bless and thanks a lot.

Boom dear: this is my last reply to you, unless you ...

... change you picture to a real Boomerang!

1. You are perhaps too young to be aware of what we used to call Ashraf Laashi and company.

2. "Only 8,000 killed and 173 tortured" became ONLY, only after IRI. It was a big deal till 1979.

3. Don't forget "Village Stories" on tv, 90% of Persian movies, and the glorious "Jashneh Honar Shiraz"!

4. You should have seen Shah when he suddenly, out of nowhere, came on TV and announced Rastakhiz. CAN SOMEONE PLEASE POST HIS CLIP HERE? The guy was a raging lunatic. It was not a mistake - it was a disaster! 

PS: a correction. Where I said 50 rials per beer, it was actually 20. Sorry, I may have lost too many brain cells to booze!

Antifeshfesheh

It was a misspelling, Don't get any ideas now. Don't get excited.

@ BoycottIraniandotcom

محضر مبارک حضرت آیت الله  بایکوتُ العُلماء  دامت نجاساتُه و اَکمَلٌ کثافاتُه:

وقتی چار تا دکتر دارن بحث میکنن یه دفه نَپّر وسط و بگو تنقیه و شیاف کجاست! مثل من عقب بشین، کامنت ها رو بخون، بَلکَتم ایشا لله یه چیزی یاد گرفتی!

Shazdeh khan

I've been following this blog of yours for a few days. Excellent, utterly brilliant. Thank you.

Mr Doctor X, what is an 'obsticle' ? A new medical innovation? Cross between an obstacle and a testicle may be?

Good Doctor,

"Would it not be a waste of time to remind ourselves of the problems that we had back then, while we know for sure we are faced with a new set of obsticles and there are new lessons that we have learned from this experience, and that ought to be front and center for us and our focus for the future?"

Perfectly put, my friend!

Really perfect!

 Iran is a prisoner of IRI

The Bygone era

Hamsade Ghadim

It is really pointless to still maintain that we should have learned what we obviously did not learn in order to not let the same thing grip our nation. That is what is really counter productive here. It is true that we should not minimize repression from any era in our history, but when we  put it all together and look at things in the context of current events, and sorta put things in perspective you are bound to come to youself (i hope that is the case) and that is when you should start analyzing the motives and reasons behind what happend in 1979.

Would it not be a waste of time to remind ourselves of the problems that we had back then, while we know for sure we are faced with a new set of obsticles and there are new lessons that we have learned from this experience, and that ought to be front and center for us and our focus for the future?

I mean I respect the disgust and hatred towards monarchy in its most genuine and purest of all forms, But there are far more urgent issues we need to put our heads together to solve.

I think Boom explained everything very clearly.

Dear Hamsade,

I never said that "oghdeh" and the lure of free things were the SOLE causes of the revolution -- Jesus, OF COURSE there were other more pertinent factors, but towards the end of the revolution, post September 1978 and Black Friday, the masses (and by masses I mean those who really won the revolution for Khomeini, i.e., the middle class) were hooked by the sinker of empty promises (democracy and women's rights were just two of them).

The poor and the religious zealots were on the side of Khoemini from the early goings of 1978, but that would NOT have been enough to secure the revolution for the mullahs, as it had not been enough in June of 1963, even with the treasonous help of Jebhe Melli, who backed Khomeini in 1963 even thought they fully knew that the Hezbollahi crowd were vehemently against women's rights. 

What carried the day in 1978 for the Hezis was the middle-class. And there was plenty of petty gripes there, and among them were Pahlavi oghdeh and the lure of freebees, and frankly, a lot of ignorance, greed and stupidity. This story is long and tired, but there were a ton of factors that went into the victory of the revolution (one of the more important ones were the British and American support for Khomeini from the first days of 1978, so as to punish the Shah's independent oil policies).

The revolution was a concoction of many different factors, the most damaging ones were of course caused by a few critical decisions of the Shah (pbuH) from 1975 thru 1978 -- Rastakhiz for example.

But believe me, the promise of free electricity, gas, water, bus fare, and a share of the oil profits!!! -- was a very inticing promise for the vacuous hezbe baad crowd, which had a HUGE following in those days -- some of our family acquaintances belonged to this uninformed, unprincipled crowd who had a very superficial understanding of Khomeini's Hezbolah and Iranian politics. But they sure understood the meaning of the phrase: free electricity! And they most certainly had a disease of Pahlavi oghdeh. 

 Iran is a prisoner of IRI

Dear Shazde, some of your theories in this blog are wrong

Dear Shazde, when I first read your blog, I was inclined to write which I did not.  However, I don't want to be quiet since your blog, even though nicely written has some wrong assumptions and theories. I agree with certain spects of your blog such as the fact that many Iranians always like to say that they are Aryan. Which it is true. You wrote about how Iranians like to say that they are light skinned,etc. From there, you took your blog in a direction that included many wrong theories.

In your blog you conclude that many of Iranian youth became communist because of low self esteem. This is totally incorrect. Some of brightest youth in Iran became communist. Many students of "Daneshkadeh Fani Tehran" and "Daneshgah sanati" were communist or Mojahed. This had nothing to do with low self esteem. They had ideals and they chose certain groups in order to work towards a bettetr Iran. You can argue that groups that they chose were not great or their activities were wrong in some cases, but to say that they became communist, Mojahed, etc.  because of low self esteem, that I don't buy.

boom, you’re too ready

boom, you’re too ready and willing to claim that the root of the revolution was greed and oghdeh by the masses. 

“It wasn't so much uber hatred of the Shah and America as it was the lure of free water, free gas, free electricity, free bus fare and a share of the oil profits. Greed.”

“Come to think of it, "oghdeh" had a lot to do with the cause of the revolution as well.”

if you like to approach the cause of the revolution so simplistically, it seems equally plausible to claim that it was the oghdeh and greed of monarchy and its apparatus that led us to this mess. 

your failure to empathize with anyone who had (and has) a genuine and strong feeling against the shah and his cronies is mind-boggling (and counter-productive).  and we should not minimize the repression that was committed under the shah.  if we do that, we are bound to repeat it again after these turbaned roaches run to the hill.

meanwhile, in spirit of the content of the blog, enjoy the following video:
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjrylqTNoRQ&feature=player_embedded

And by the way,

The North Koreans were able to make the bomb through the help of the Chinese, from which Dr. AQ Khan, was also able to secure the knowledge for Pakistan. I doubt **anybody** really wants the mullahs to get the bomb, not even the Russians, that's why the IRI hasn't received the kind of help that the North Koreans received from China. The Russians toy with the IRI so as to squeeze the Americans. But they, too, they being the Russians, don't want the IRI to get nukes. No way. It would have long-term negative consequences for Russia and its sphere of influence.

And China will follow Russia all the way on this subject. The Chinese and the Russians have a very long and rewarding history of diplomatic ties. China will do exactly what Russia wants vis-a-vis the IRI and nukes, which means no real nuclear assistance for Iran, and that's including their Bushehr plans.

But when you think about it, no other country besides America really has made the atomic bomb by itself. The Israelis got the knowledge from the French. The French got it from the Americans. The Russians stole the knowldege from the Americans post WWII, through spies like the Rosenbergs. Even the Americans gained the knowledge through German (Jewish) nuclear scientists who escaped Europe during WWII.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that all the members of the nuclear club have had some sort of help from others in building the atom bomb, including Iran from Dr. Khan in the late 1980's, but in the case of Iran, it hasn't been very substantial, ergo their difficulties and massive failures in trial and error.

 Iran is a prisoner of IRI

Shazde,

You know better than to accuse the Shah of pushing drugs on his people ("drug pushing gangs") -- that's ridiculous and you should know this. The Shah needed able, educated and capable young men and women who could help build his "great civilization," that's why he sent thousands of Iranian students to universities overseas with scholarships and cheap dollars. A king who does that doesn't then turn around and intentionally pollute his nation with drugs so that it becomes a nation of opium smoking darvishes!

No way!

I agree with you that the image of Savak was not good for the monarchy. Although the Savak was really a matarsak (scarecrow) of the highest order. Studies have been done on this. Between 1963 and 1977 a grand total of 173 people were tortured in Iran and less than 8,000 killed during the entire Pahlavi Dynasty, mostly killed in separatist squirmishes. But as Akbar Ganji, the former revolutionary stated publicly, the crimes of the Shah (and the Savak) were exaggerated so as to win the revolution. This is pretty much what he admitted in public. And most of those tortured/killed bastards pretty much deserved it -- they were traitors in the Mojahedin, who wanted to turn Iran into a cult nation in the order of North Korea or traitors in the Tudeh, who wanted to hand Iran on a silver platter to mother Russia. The Savak was not in the business of torturing or executing regular Iranians.

And the Shah's cinemas and TVs were not filled with "porn," but there was occasional nudity in some Iranian movies, which was not very smart for our traditional society, I must admit. I associate porn with full blown sex acts, and there was no such thing on our TVs.

And as far as freebees and the mullahs are concerned... the theory that a large portion of Iranians didn't want to "miss the boat" on all the free goodies offered by the Hendi Olagh is not mine. It was a thesis presented by Fereydoun Hoveida, who was very knowledgable when it came to Iran, and he was no fan of the Pahlavis, not after 1979.

And yes, the Rastakhiz was a bad idea, even the Shah admitted as much in exile in 1980.

 Iran is a prisoner of IRI

بیل عزیز، خاتم انبیا و ختم ختم ها

بشکه آماده و سوراخ حاضره، فقط گیریس پیدا نکردم! بی‌ گیریس هم طلبه جماعت نمیتونه "رکوع و سجود" کنه.

Yes, it's confusing to me too, like two cousins' hands touching!

Q dear, I've grown used to being called an A-Hole by your Excellency, so "excellent" was real confusing!

It may also be confusing to you, to realize that I do not make much distinction between the Shaholahi and the Hezbolahi. To me both of them are deluded and out of date zealots. The only reason why Shah did much better, in my opinion, was his initial obedience to the Americans and the English. As soon as he became independent (say past 1973 and after the Nixon departure), his vane pride started to ruin Iran, just as Ahmaghi's today.

As for Euro-Envy, I have to confess that I see the root of all social behavior in the psychological trends and of course the latter is mostly buried under the sexual desires. So for me, the Euro or Aryan or any sort of domination envy, is just an extension of Penis-Envy. It's the drive of us males to dominate, and our reaction and psychosis, when we can't.

Now, why should we care the slightest bit about all that? I guess it was alright when we were clubbing or stabbing each other, one-man-at-a-time. But now with all sorts of WMD, it's a dangerous behavior to harbor and spread.

Shazdeh, did you get a chance to

sorakh the boshkeh of Q, Sargord, and Mola Nasredin?

Dear Mehman: this is simply lovely ... thanks.

Every voice counts! Every action counts!

Ok Boomi dear. Can you also change your pic to a Boomerang?

PS: it's my sleep time now.

See you all next weekend.

Agha Shazde,

You're funny re: me, the boomerang effect and JJ.

Good one.

 I'll respond to your comment shortly.

 Iran is a prisoner of IRI

Dear Shazdeh,

I feel myself obliged to send you a precious gift for the general theme of your mature blog and your thoughtful comments. Enjoy it:

Concise and accurate VPK

Dear VPK, you listed the main causes so well. I also like to add that our traditionally religious society was steered towards more nationalistic values (some of which were in odds with Islam) and the religion kicked back. Perhaps it was an inevitable phase that we had to endure in this journey.

Boom,

You are right about the economic incentives, but that targeted a different layer of the society. Khomeini was good in targeting each layer with the appropriate incentives. People that Shazde discusses here did not run to the street for the free bus tickets.

Wow...

Shazdeh, you are on a roll, both in the blog and in the comment section. I am following this thread eagerly.

I have never come across such a candid analysis and admission to what happened in 78/79. I was very little at the time, and this is the most convincing explanation I have heard to date.

Incidentally, now I am witnessing this craving/fight for respect amongst the Afghans on a daily basis. 

Dear VPK: you are 100% right: "hope to see a real free Iran"

Urgently, free from the warrior cults which want to get us in fight with the world, in name of religion and/or Chauvinism.

Listen to Ahmaghi's rants about old Persia, and you can catch my drift.