Hello!
Here are the Readings/Videos:
Documentary:
Anatomy of A Revolution PART 1 | PART 2 | PART 3|
> Gender and Revolutionary Transformation: Iran 1979,pg 339-342)
http://www.jstor.org/stable/190059
Iran in the News (optional):
UN Nuclear Weapons Inspectors
Iran Halts Oil Shipments to France and UK
Bank Fraud Case
Please remember to let us know your response and what you think/take away from the video and reading.
See you on Wednesday!
Monday, February 20, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The article I found most interesting was Iran's halt on shipments. I think it is a strategic move for political independence. Regardless if they do not buy oil, there are many other buyers. It is ironic that they are halting shipments with countries that have close relations with the U.S., showing their lack of interest with allies
ReplyDeleteThe video on youtube was really powerful in conveying the oppression of the Iranian people as a result of the British control because there was actual footage from this time period which brought it to life. I didn’t realize the full extent of their oppression and when the documentary talked about a certain club that didn’t allow dogs or Iranians, I was shocked. After all of this I don’t blame the Iranian people for their resentment and wariness of the Western Culture, all they have been exposed to have been negative interactions. The Shah did a few good things to modernize Iran but in the end he brought more bad than good: torturing people, being so easily influenced by outside power, and spending enormous amounts of money for his own personal pleasure. His disconnect from the Iranian people and their needs were his biggest downfall.
ReplyDeleteThe documentary from this week was very sad, in my opinion, but not only because it showed footage of the revolution (you should know by now that I totally hate the fact that the Islamic revolution happened). Hearing the mistakes that the shah made and the misconceptions that the people had about the shah's lifestyle hurt me because all of it could have been preventable if he had just taken the situation more seriously from the start.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, the video mentioned that the shah's luxurious castles stand today as a reminder of why the revolution happened. I think the extravagance of his way of life was exaggerated. I traveled to Iran a few years ago and saw the castles myself, and honestly, they weren't THAT big. Especially when compared to other countries' palaces. If we compare the British monarchy to that of Iran, we will see that the shah was justified in thinking that this was the lifestyle he should lead. He was handed the crown at a young age and lacked experience.For this reason, he did make a lot of mistakes.
His worse mistake was thinking that he could lead an ancient, glamorous monarchy and have radical westernization at the same time. He also thought he could have the old monarch mentality and just silence all who disagreed with his ideas. Instead of suppressing all political movements, he should have been more open to listening to what the Iranian people had to say.
Mohammad Reza Shah was too radical and brought reform too quickly. The increase in oil prices threatened foreign powers. He didn't handle the emerging revolution well, either. He made hasty decisions like writing an article against Khomeini instead of coming up with a compromise to appease the revolutionaries.
For these reasons, I say the documentary was sad to watch. The revolution was preventable in so many ways. Shah could have calmed his radical plans, and the Iranian people could have paid more attention to what they were really protesting about instead of following the first person who stirred things up.
Yes I agree completely. The documentary, while interesting, was depressing. It's sad that even though the Shah brought Iran so far, they still went against him. Especially when just ten years prior they were prospering more than ever before. Also, the palace they showed was beautiful. I didn't find it to be that over the top for a ruling monarchy. Did the people expect him to live in a 4 bedroom house in the suburbs? He was the king, kings have palaces and luxury, albeit there should be moderation. Look at where we put our presidents. The White House (which by the way used to be known as the President's Palace) has over 130 rooms and is much larger than the one showed in the video. It is just sad that the Shah was punished for living the a lifestyle of who he was, a king.
DeleteI watched the video and frankly, I have very little sympathy for the Shah. I'm all for modernization, but there is a greater issue here. It's his job to keep the masses happy. This concept is not new and especially by the 20th Century.
Delete“The seed of revolution is repression” (Wilson). Okay fine, he gave women the right to vote, but then he repressed all opposition and initiated land reforms to upset the rich, worsen the poor people's situations, and then used Savak to attempt to silence people. This all paired with mismanagement of dealing with the Khomeini and the poor economic conditions revolution was inevitable. It's as though he asked for the revolution! They also mention a 6-month strike that people protested for secular democracy. I find it most interesting that the strike message was ignored (maybe is wasnt? I dont actually know) and in the following year, he needed to declare Marshall Law.
As for the West, it's no secret that they are evil. It is also your job as leader of your country to act in your people's interest first. I do not care how Western the Shah was, fending off foreign pressure was part of the duty of his government. People deserved to be angry and at the end of the day, it's hard to deny that he was an ineffective leader.
Comment on the Video:
ReplyDeleteAs Edward Said argued, western nations should not use their standards to judge the modernity and interpret the phenomenons of other societies, but to look at their social and cultural conditions through the other people's lenses. In the view of the West, particularly the U.S., Shah was a great leader who brought modernity and "women's liberation." Shah's dictatorial and brutal treatments over his people, however, was largely forgotten. On the subject of "women's liberation," few in the U.S. had asked the question of whether if a woman has the choice to wear a hijab if she wanted to. For a society where women are truly liberated, this answer is yes. Shah's banning of wearing hijabs against many Iranian women's wills thus came out as oppression and not liberation. The West's ignorance of the Iranian culture's particularities and its biased views in judging progress had therefore caused the Shah's many foolish actions that resulted in the Revolution. If the Shah were to take Iranian cultures into consideration as he pushed for modernity, won't that be a good thing? If the U.S. and the West were aware of the cultural particularities and knew that they need to respect this, couldn't they pressured the Shah to slow down? Neither the U.S. nor the West cared; they pushed Shah further, and we have the Islamic Republic of Iran today.
----Wenjia Xing
I tend to agree with the previous comments. Although I was not alive or in iran when this happened, when studying the facts, it's clear that Iran was heading in a progressive direction. The Shah's miscalculation that led to inflation in the late 70s could be considered a growing pain of a developing country. The current regime would have us remember only the Shah's mistakes (economics, not regulating SAVAK, forcing secularism on religious people, being DUMB) but we can't ignore the massive amount of growth he brought the country. He just made a few dumb mistakes, and the opposition leaped at his small vulnerability.
ReplyDeleteI think that the two biggest mistakes the Shah made were disregarding islamic religion (and some aspects of the islamic cultural so intertwined with society)and how important it was to his people and smothering it instead of trying to find a way to progress the country without hurting people's belief sytems.
The biggest mistake though, what i got from the video, was that he instilled high expectations in his people. He had given them a decent life heading slowly in a good direction. At least compared to the poverty and illiteracy that there used to be. But because the Shah kept pushing their expectations higher, saying he'd give them even MORE, so that they could not see or be happy with the good life that they had gotten so far and lost patience.
Therefore, the clerics could pick on one weakness of shah, religion and give the people a sense of unity and hope (for those high expectations) based on God.
I'm also happy that Hedayat Matin Daftari pointed out that the intellectuals knew what was best, that a monarchy was dangerous, and an islamic regime was also bad, but outnumbered by uneducated (who were ruled by religion)a secular democracy couldn't be created and the cleric's could take over (powered by the majority uneducated).
I wanna talk about the Jstor reading on women in the revolution. It just absolutely kills me to see religion destroy women's rights from Christianity to Islam. It makes me sick when I read that women veiled themselves in protest against the Shah, as if they want to go back to being 2nd class citizens! Uggh! I know it is their culture and religion, but this is the freakin 21st Century. Christianity, the founding religion of the United States preaches the same anti-women, male dominated bullshit but our country has moved out of the awful tradition because society must progress. Now there are dudes in the Midwest who still swear to Jesus and all things sacred but they don't treat their wives like crap, and don't abuse her, smash her rights, etc. I just know the main agrument is, "Well Jeff, this is all these women know, it is their tradition, to them this is right so back off," and I get so heated because sometimes old traditions and customs need to be abolished because they don't make any god damn sense (pun intended), and they are human rights violations. Women are equal to men (actually better in many regards)and this is a fact modern society has knows to be true so we must tell these ladies in Iran before they crush themselves further. Underneath all those veils are smart, beautiful, amazing people but they don't even know it themselves. To have some arbitrary book determine your life is just sickening. What if the Bible or the Koran made men 2nd class citizens, yes, it is that arbitrary, just so happened the guys were the ones with the pen (again pun intended). Ok, I'm done.
ReplyDeleteI was really interested in the JSTOR article. I really enjoy reading about women's rights in Iran. I found it extremely ironic how the women wore the veil in opposition to the Shah.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the NPR article, I found it interesting that this same topic keeps coming up in the news; Iran "denies allegations of having a nuclear weapon" and the West believes it does. I just wish someone would give me some evidence that there might possibly be a nuclear weapon in the making because clearly uranium can be enriched for peaceful purposes as well.
I really enjoyed the video clip. It was extremely interesting to see these places that I have recently visited, in the 70's. It is appalling to hear the blatant racism between the British and the Iranians, and this division reminds me of the racism between the whites and blacks in South Africans during the apartheid.
Although many were against the Shah and it is true he did show signs of an ostentatious lifestyle, I do like how he tried to enhance women's rights by allowing women to vote in the elections.
In response to the JSTOR article, I immediately found it very striking and ironic how a part of the revolution against the Shah was centered around women wearing veils...it seemed at the moment the correct move to make in order to be opposed to the more western influences of dress the Shah wanted to spark, but the fact that after the revolution the veil later became an actual Islamic law to be abided by by women was interesting. I wonder if women actually wanted the veil for the sake of actually having the veil, or they only wanted the veil because it was an oppositional gesture.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the NPR article, I found it pretty obvious and frustrating how certain agencies and countries come out with certain allegations only to later fall short of proof and evidence against Iran and their nuclear program. I believe many times within the article were the words "seemed" "appeared" "could" used to describe Iran's nuclear program.
The JSTOR article upset me. It reminded me of a discussion we had in high school about veils, burqas and related articles of clothing. Some people thought it was a voluntary, religious gesture; others thought it was something forced upon them. I remember one person who took cultural relativism to an extreme degree, when after being asked if being forced to wear a veil is not a violation of a woman's fundamental rights, he said if that's the culture they live in, that's the right thing to do. That, to me, is a load of crap. If the people were opposed to the Shah and wanted a new regime, fine. But that the women showed their disagreement by putting on veils: that just baffles me.
ReplyDeleteIt was interesting to see how Iran cutting off its oil to Europe would effect different countries. Although Iran's economy is being damaged by sanctions, it is an interesting tactic to cause some divide between the different nations, as some depend on a larger percent of oil than others.
ReplyDeleteI really like how bold Iran is being despite the pressures from other countries. Iran just does what it thinks is right and doesn't let other countries stop it from doing what it thinks it should do, and I think that's respectable. So I like how Iran stopped shipping oil to France and the UK because it shows how it still has and can use the power it has.
ReplyDeleteAbout the Islamic Revolution, I don't think it was much an upgrade for Iran compared to the Shah, maybe just a worse replacement because people are still being oppressed but at a different level than the Shah. What's worse about the new government is that it uses Islam to justify many of the wrongs it does in many aspects of governing. Religion and the government should never have been combined to become one.