[Epaphras]

What are everyone's thoughts on this?

Although the candidate that was robbed of the election was an integral part of the revolution 30 years ago, he seems to have moderated since then.

Here is a great photo-diary of the events of last weekend. Photos 1 and 17 are particularly poignant for me (women involved in the protest) as well as 27 (reminds me of the Tienanmen Square tank guy).

[OiBoyz]

Powerful pictures. I've not been keeping up on this, did Aminidibijad, or whatever his name is win? Scary times.

I don't remember the '79 elections, but I do remember the aftermath that ended up with the taking of the American hostages.

Things are heating up in the mideast. Time to start looking up, I think.

Originally Posted by Luke 21:28

lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near."

[Epaphras]

Originally Posted by OiBoyz

Powerful pictures. I've not been keeping up on this, did Aminidibijad, or whatever his name is win? Scary times.

I don't remember the '79 elections, but I do remember the aftermath that ended up with the taking of the American hostages.

Things are heating up in the mideast. Time to start looking up, I think.

Yes he won by a landslide including the challenger's hometown. No one believes the results were legitimate which is why there are student uprisings in Iran and all over the world.

The challenging candidate is pro-reform which is why I support the uprising.

[OiBoyz]

In order to have free elections in Iraq, it required an armed UN presence.

[beanbag]

it breaks my heart. my dad likes to talk about iran before the revolution and how intellectual and moderate the country was. he said when the revolution happened, nearly all of the intellectuals and non-religious iranian citizens fled for their lives because of khomeini and the extremism. my grandma told me she was barred from going into a bank following the revolution because her dress, although it was long-sleeved and black, was gathered at the waist.

I have a friend who immigrated over here a few years ago, who attended tehran university for a couple of years before she came. she said that the rules had relaxed so much and girls were walking around with scarves loosely draped over their hair and american-style clothing, instead of chadors. she said that couples were even walking around holding hands, which is something that got my dad's cousin arrested for doing with her husband in the early 1980s. (she also got arrested another time because her stockings weren't thick enough.)

it pains me that so many lives must be lost and that there is a return to the extremism and oppression that has caused my family to flee from iran in the last two decades. iranians are very intellectual, very cultured and very hospitable people, but you would never know by watching the news or looking through photo journals. I read some comments on that site that said a lot of fanatics have been imported from other countries to come fight, and I agree with this. modern iranians, by nature, are rather pacifistic. but...you would never know that by watching news reports, and most americans are completely unable to distinguish between iranian non-religious peoples, iranian muslims (who by and large are also pacifistic), and arab muslims from surrounding countries who have been brought in to squash protests.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by beanbag

it pains me that so many lives must be lost and that there is a return to the extremism and oppression that has caused my family to flee from iran in the last two decades.

Not that the Shaw was a good ruler, he certainly was not, but doesn't the religious rule start in 1979?

I read some comments on that site that said a lot of fanatics have been imported from other countries to come fight, and I agree with this.

I sometimes wonder where these "other countries" are (though certainly I can name some *cough*Saudi Arabia*cough*. But it seems to me that Afghanistan, Iraq, and to a good extent even Pakistan are citing "forign influences". Certainly Syria and Lebanon are discussing Iranian-backed groups.

modern iranians, by nature, are rather pacifistic. but...you would never know that by watching news reports, and most americans are completely unable to distinguish between iranian non-religious peoples, iranian muslims (who by and large are also pacifistic), and arab muslims from surrounding countries who have been brought in to squash protests.

Which group overthrew the government by force of arms (likely appropriate actually) and then held civilians hostage for years (not appropriate)?

I don't know what the Iranian people are like. I suspect they are a lot like everyone else. I do agree from what I've seen that Iran seems relatively modern and progressive for that region (hey, it has elections; though not for the top position). But it seems everyone says of their own people either that they are demons or angels; and rarely anything in-between.

[OiBoyz]

I hate to see so many people caught in the cross fire of violence.

[beanbag]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Not that the Shaw was a good ruler, he certainly was not, but doesn't the religious rule start in 1979?

yes, religious rule started in 1979. my family was too busy during the 80s moving from one part of the country to the other to start thinking about escaping the country itself. (plus, it is extremely difficult to get out. most of the people who are here as religious refugees have to go back every so often and take care of bank affairs, and pretend that they have not become citizens of other countries. it's pretty crazy.) they started leaving in the late 80s to european countries like germany, and the first people in my family to come to the US post-revolution came in the very early 90s. my dad was already here as a student when the revolution happened, and my uncle had come over a few years before with the company he worked for. everyone else arrived here in 1992 and after.

I sometimes wonder where these "other countries" are (though certainly I can name some *cough*Saudi Arabia*cough*. But it seems to me that Afghanistan, Iraq, and to a good extent even Pakistan are citing "forign influences". Certainly Syria and Lebanon are discussing Iranian-backed groups.

the "other countries" are the ones which house the most militant and best-financed groups, like syria.

Which group overthrew the government by force of arms (likely appropriate actually) and then held civilians hostage for years (not appropriate)?

some of the second group (the non-pacifists, obviously) and the third group.

I don't know what the Iranian people are like. I suspect they are a lot like everyone else. I do agree from what I've seen that Iran seems relatively modern and progressive for that region (hey, it has elections; though not for the top position). But it seems everyone says of their own people either that they are demons or angels; and rarely anything in-between.

ah but you see, they are not my "own people." I am not persian. I said my dad was iranian, not persian. you will not find assyrian muslims, so when I speak of iranian muslims I am not speaking of my own people.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by beanbag

the "other countries" are the ones which house the most militant and best-financed groups, like syria.

Really? It seems like Syria's most militant group is Hezbollah, which is backed by Iran and operating in Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine/Isreal... not the other way around.

ah but you see, they are not my "own people." I am not persian. I said my dad was iranian, not persian. you will not find assyrian muslims, so when I speak of iranian muslims I am not speaking of my own people.

It seems to be splitting the proverbial hair. Ignoring that "your" was at best implied: in a discussion of "Iranians", you are the daughter of an Iranian.

You didn't say "Iranian Muslims", you said "Modern Iranians". In fact, you made a contrast between "Modern Iranians", "Iranian Muslims" and "Arab Muslims".

I don't want to treat the differences lightly, any more than you would the differences between myself and a southern fundamentalist Christian, but it seems apologist to, in a discussion of "Iranians" to start arguing distinctions.

If I had said the same to an American talking about "Modern Americans", I would have used the same words: though we are at least as diverse.

[beanbag]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Really? It seems like Syria's most militant group is Hezbollah, which is backed by Iran and operating in Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine/Isreal... not the other way around.

they're all interrelated.

It seems to be splitting the proverbial hair. Ignoring that "your" was at best implied: in a discussion of "Iranians", you are the daughter of an Iranian.

You didn't say "Iranian Muslims", you said "Modern Iranians". In fact, you made a contrast between "Modern Iranians", "Iranian Muslims" and "Arab Muslims".

I don't want to treat the differences lightly, any more than you would the differences between myself and a southern fundamentalist Christian, but it seems apologist to, in a discussion of "Iranians" to start arguing distinctions.

If I had said the same to an American talking about "Modern Americans", I would have used the same words: though we are at least as diverse.

please don't take this the wrong way, as I really don't want to sound like I am being arrogant or dismissive, but until you are intimately acquainted with the region and the differences between ethnicities and religions, you really will not understand that there are not only major differences, there are exclusive differences. the differences present between various groups in the US are a good starting place, but they are unable to fully or completely compare to the differences in the middle east. these differences are deeply, immovably rooted and go back thousands of years, and just in case it isn't obvious from news reports, the middle east never changes. yes, my family identifies as "iranian," which is fully separate from farsi/persian, and is secondary to identification as assyrians. my family's self-identification as iranian is completely different from you or any other average US citizen's self-identification as american. ethnicity comes first, then nationality. my family, as assyrian first and iranian second, would identify more with an assyrian from iraq, lebanon, or syria than with a persian individual who is an iranian.

and actually I made no contrast between modern iranians and iranian muslims. what I said was modern iranians are by and large pacifistic. I then said that the west really has no understanding of the differences between iranian non-religious peoples (persian non-muslims, if you will) and iranian muslims, who I said were also largely pacifistic with the exception of some groups, and arab muslims, who are imported for religious/political fighting. please reread what I said. I apologize if I was unclear before, but I happen to think that I was pretty clear.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by beanbag

please don't take this the wrong way, as I really don't want to sound like I am being arrogant or dismissive, but until you are intimately acquainted with the region and the differences between ethnicities and religions, you really will not understand that there are not only major differences, there are exclusive differences. the differences present between various groups in the US are a good starting place, but they are unable to fully or completely compare to the differences in the middle east.

Incomparable to a country that counted black people as "1/3rd a person", after they started counting, and who institutionalized genocide against the native Americans? One where "no dogs or Irish" was a slogan, where killing "Mexicans or Chinese" was hardly a crime till 150 years ago, where Lincoln "the great emancipator" originally proposed moving all of the black people out of the US? Where I've got a 50ft confederate flag 4 miles from my house?

I don't know if you've noticed the race riots, inter-gang warfare (and that's all most of these factions seem to be: gangs blown up to warlords), and American-born terrorists, but there's a good chunk of hostile differences over here.

How big is Iran's Wiccan population? How many nude bicycle races? Where's the gay-BDSM crowd hang out? Differences? No, I think the US has you beat on differences.

Modern violence? Well, you just finished telling me how Iranians and Iranian Muslims are (mostly at least) peaceful: are you now going to tell me how violence is higher? Remember, the US has the largest prison population outside China (and largest per-capita) in the world.

Sunni-vs-Shia, Prodestent-vs-Catholic, Hatfield-vs-McCoy.

these differences are deeply, immovably rooted and go back thousands of years, and just in case it isn't obvious from news reports, the middle east never changes.

Really? I seem to remember that while Europe was in its dark ages, the Jews and Arabs were getting along quite well. In fact, the Jews gained their reputation as wealthy merchants because they were the only group both the Christians and Muslims would associate with.

The region has been repeatedly united (Xerxes-era Persia, Alexander, Ghengis, The Eastern Roman Empire). Certainly modern Turkey (despite hostilities such as overlapping Kurdish regions) is a far cry from 200 years ago.

There's so much diversity in the region: from democratic Isreal bordering Monarchist Jordan (another area that seems internally peaceable, though often the Belgium (the area everyone else moves through).

Maybe its the people who say that things never change in the way of change? I haven't seen the resurgence of the Shin Fain despite the occasional cook.

Poverty (and severe class-dimorphism), lack of social services, failure of security, a lack of involvement in the government: these are the things that have most places that are in such a state that way.

yes, my family identifies as "iranian," which is fully separate from farsi/persian, and is secondary to identification as assyrians. my family's self-identification as iranian is completely different from you or any other average US citizen's self-identification as american.

But it didn't come first.

You didn't say "assyrians are a peaceful people". You've changed "which group you used" to "which loyalty is more significant to you" without any real cause.

ethnicity comes first, then nationality. my family, as assyrian first and iranian second, would identify more with an assyrian from iraq, lebanon, or syria than with a persian individual who is an iranian.

Ok. What does that have to do with the discussion? Would you like to meet some "Baptist Texans" who are also American?

modern iranians, by nature, are rather pacifistic. but...you would never know that by watching news reports, and most americans are completely unable to distinguish between iranian non-religious peoples, iranian muslims (who by and large are also pacifistic), and arab muslims from surrounding countries who have been brought in to squash protests.

and actually I made no contrast between modern iranians and iranian muslims. what I said was modern iranians are by and large pacifistic. I then said that the west really has no understanding of the differences between iranian non-religious peoples (persian non-muslims, if you will) and iranian muslims, who I said were also largely pacifistic with the exception of some groups, and arab muslims, who are imported for religious/political fighting. please reread what I said. I apologize if I was unclear before, but I happen to think that I was pretty clear.

I'd say is what the "also" that made me see them as separate from the earlier indicated pacifists.

[beanbag]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Incomparable to a country that counted black people as "1/3rd a person", after they started counting, and who institutionalized genocide against the native Americans? One where "no dogs or Irish" was a slogan, where killing "Mexicans or Chinese" was hardly a crime till 150 years ago, where Lincoln "the great emancipator" originally proposed moving all of the black people out of the US? Where I've got a 50ft confederate flag 4 miles from my house?

I don't know if you've noticed the race riots, inter-gang warfare (and that's all most of these factions seem to be: gangs blown up to warlords), and American-born terrorists, but there's a good chunk of hostile differences over here.

How big is Iran's Wiccan population? How many nude bicycle races? Where's the gay-BDSM crowd hang out? Differences? No, I think the US has you beat on differences.

Modern violence? Well, you just finished telling me how Iranians and Iranian Muslims are (mostly at least) peaceful: are you now going to tell me how violence is higher? Remember, the US has the largest prison population outside China (and largest per-capita) in the world.

Sunni-vs-Shia, Prodestent-vs-Catholic, Hatfield-vs-McCoy.

I didn't say there was a wider variety of differences. I said that the differences were exclusive. there's a difference there.

*edit*

also, there are fewer visible differences because in middle eastern countries, different is bad. if you're different, you get killed. there are zoroastrians (a rough equivalent to wiccans, I suppose) who keep their religious preferences under wraps. there are plenty of very diverse iranian individuals who don't allow that diversity to show until they get to a country where it won't get them killed.

appearances can be deceiving.

also, the differences which I said were exclusive were pretty much strictly religious (which could include a bit of what you mentioned) and ethnic, not "lifestyle" like GLBT or punk or communist or whatever.

Really? I seem to remember that while Europe was in its dark ages, the Jews and Arabs were getting along quite well. In fact, the Jews gained their reputation as wealthy merchants because they were the only group both the Christians and Muslims would associate with.

well, remember this: there was no state of israel in the dark/middle ages.

The region has been repeatedly united (Xerxes-era Persia, Alexander, Ghengis, The Eastern Roman Empire). Certainly modern Turkey (despite hostilities such as overlapping Kurdish regions) is a far cry from 200 years ago.

it's been repeatedly united or repeatedly conquered? it depends on how you look at it.

There's so much diversity in the region: from democratic Isreal bordering Monarchist Jordan (another area that seems internally peaceable, though often the Belgium (the area everyone else moves through).

Maybe its the people who say that things never change in the way of change? I haven't seen the resurgence of the Shin Fain despite the occasional cook.

Poverty (and severe class-dimorphism), lack of social services, failure of security, a lack of involvement in the government: these are the things that have most places that are in such a state that way.

there are problems in jordan, although it's a great state comparatively, that aren't covered in the media. there is diversity, but there is certainly not equality the way there is here in the US. there are also internal frictions in all of those countries that aren't brought out before the general public.

But it didn't come first.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. can you please clarify?

You didn't say "assyrians are a peaceful people". You've changed "which group you used" to "which loyalty is more significant to you" without any real cause.

because the thread is about iranians. I said that iranians are a peaceful, hospitable people. I was talking about them from an outside perspective, and then you said that bit about your own people always being angels or demons. I then brought in assyrianity to show that my primary identification is with assyrians, and that in speaking about iranians I was speaking about them as I might any other people, the way I might speak about chinese or mexican or nigerian people.

Ok. What does that have to do with the discussion? Would you like to meet some "Baptist Texans" who are also American?

"baptist texan" is not an ethnicity. assyrian is not a religious sect. it has a lot to do with the discussion.

I'd say is what the "also" that made me see them as separate from the earlier indicated pacifists.

well I hope that what I meant has been clarified for you then.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by beanbag

I didn't say there was a wider variety of differences. I said that the differences were exclusive. there's a difference there.

This goes back to one of my earliest statements. People are people.

Just as no two are exactly alike, neither are any two entirely different.

But given that, I'm not sure what you were/are driving at. That Iran is not exactly the same as anywhere else? Nowhere is.

also, there are fewer visible differences because in middle eastern countries, different is bad. if you're different, you get killed.

US society has become more tolerant over the past century or two. You used to get burned at the stake here for being different.

there are zoroastrians (a rough equivalent to wiccans, I suppose) who keep their religious preferences under wraps. there are plenty of very diverse iranian individuals who don't allow that diversity to show until they get to a country where it won't get them killed.

Funny side-note. The Zoroastrians introduced Satan (he who opposes) to the Jews. After the Persians conquered the Babylonians (who the Jews really disliked), one of the new cultural imports was the idea of dualism (from the Zoroastrians). The Jews modeled their "opposing one" after a symbol of Babylon... the serpent.

appearances can be deceiving.

So can self-perceptions.

... these differences are deeply, immovably rooted and go back thousands of years ...

also, the differences which I said were exclusive were pretty much strictly religious (which could include a bit of what you mentioned) and ethnic, not "lifestyle" like GLBT or punk or communist or whatever.

I'm curious what religions you are thinking of. I was under the impression that there were few religions from the Pre-Islam days practiced among the Iranians (some of whom you've already identified as Muslim, and others I can assume from your presence here are Christian). Those religions are not yet thousands of years old (perhaps Christianity in what is now Isreal or Rome)

well, remember this: there was no state of israel in the dark/middle ages.

I miss your point. You said things never changed. It seems to me they have changed a lot from the single Byzantine empire that got along with the Jewish people, to the colonial era to the modern balkanized states.

it's been repeatedly united or repeatedly conquered? it depends on how you look at it.

That sounds like everywhere in the world.

there are problems in jordan, although it's a great state comparatively, that aren't covered in the media. there is diversity, but there is certainly not equality the way there is here in the US. there are also internal frictions in all of those countries that aren't brought out before the general public.

No. There's nowhere in the Middle East I am aware of with the level of equality that the US has... though only for about 40 years.

And even now we have evangelizing in the military, Judeo-Christian paraphernalia in the court rooms, laws based on the Torah, and a political foreign policy influenced by Christians looking for the end times.

We've got some work to do.

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. can you please clarify?

Your *first* identification was "modern Iranians"

because the thread is about iranians. I said that iranians are a peaceful, hospitable people. I was talking about them from an outside perspective, and then you said that bit about your own people always being angels or demons.

And you are Iranian (well, Iranian descent at least) and so those go together. Your statement was not nuanced until later.

I then brought in assyrianity to show that my primary identification is with assyrians, and that in speaking about iranians I was speaking about them as I might any other people, the way I might speak about chinese or mexican or nigerian people.

Sure.

"baptist texan" is not an ethnicity. assyrian is not a religious sect. it has a lot to do with the discussion.

It doesn't. It really doesn't.

The "us-vs-them" dehumanization and inter-tribal feelings are the same whether it's genetic, religious, or favorite sports team.

The details change (no two people are identical), but they are just variations on the same theme (no to people are entirely different).

well I hope that what I meant has been clarified for you then.

I fear I'm still in the position of believing that you are setting one region's blue-vs-red fighting as somehow different than everyone else's, and I still disagree.

FWIW, the attempt to reach consensus is fun even if unfruitful.

[ICTHUS]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Maybe its the people who say that things never change in the way of change? I haven't seen the resurgence of the Shin Fain despite the occasional cook. .

Actually, Sinn Fein is a current political party in the Republic of Ireland (and Northern Ireland). The fifth-largest political party in Dail Eireann, in fact. (it holds four seats in the current, 30th Dail).

Its leader, Gerry Adams, sits on the Assembly for Northern Ireland, as well as leading the party in the Republic. And in fact. Martin McGuinness of Sinn Fein is the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by ICTHUS

Actually, Sinn Fein is a current political party in the Republic of Ireland (and Northern Ireland). The fifth-largest political party in Dail Eireann, in fact. (it holds four seats in the current, 30th Dail).

I should have been both more specific and more general.

After more than 100 years, and arguably more than 400 years, the Irish insurgency has ended. Violence by Irish nationalists (aside from the occasional weirdo) has ended. Change can happen.