This is a quick post that will probably elicit lengthy answers. I have two questions that I would like some of you to answer.
1. Without the benefit of hindsight, if you were an Iranian in 1979, do you believe you would have participated in the Revolution against the Shah? Why or why not?
2. Now with the benefit of hindsight, does your answer change? Why or why not?
I am interested to see what you guys think.
-Amir
8 comments:
1. Without the benefit of hindsight, I probably would have done what many in Iran did and participated in the revolution. based on the readings, Shah's regime seemed to be an oppressive one that failed to address the needs of the people while alienating many groups through its hasty attempt at reform. Although Iran was able to mend ties with Western nations under the Shah, it is difficult to think that it was to the benefit of the Iranian people. Considering this, a revolution that sought to overthrow the existing regime with one aimed at social justice would have sounded very attractive.
2. With the benefit of hindsight, it is difficult to say how I might have acted. Considering that the Iranian people were 'betrayed' (as the title of the video indicates) with false promises by Khomeini, I'm divided over which one of the two evils would be more tolerable. Both forms of government didn't grant any more freedom to the Iranians, while the Khomeini regime also isolated Iran from the rest of the world. He took advantage of the threats posed by outside powers to consolidate his power. (Iran-Iraq war) There seems to be a catch-22 for the Iranian people, given that neither Khomeini or Shah have been very effective in addressing the needs of the population. Had I been present in Iran in 1979, I probably would have moved to Europe or the United States instead of having to choose sides during the revolution.
Overall, it seems that the outside powers (especially Britain) is to blame for this catch-22. Although the US is not free of guilt in its involvement in the 1953 coup, at least it acted based on security threats from the Cold war era (although it was based on fear and suspicion instead of plausible evidence). Britain, on the other hand, was motivated by access to Iranian oil for its participation in the coup. It is my belief that Iran would've been in better shape had neither of the two powers intervened in the domestic affairs of Iran in 1953, which was being governed by a democratically elected, popular leader with the country's interests as his priority.
1. Without the benefit of hindsight . . . I strongly detest revolutions. When I think of them all I can picture are the people who get caught in the cross-fire and those purged afterwards by the new government. Rather, I prefer gradual change: it generally means less death. The only positive revolution I can think of is the American one, which was had a unique set of circumstances which can not be replicated in this generation (ie. great physical distance from opposing force, low-powered artillery, etc.). Then again, this can just point to my American bias, or emphasize that the victor's are the ones who write history.
Despite this inherent distaste, I would most likely have participated. From the documentary we watched, it is apparent a good majority of revolutionaries had much different expectations for the ideals of the succeeding government. Believing I could create real change for the betterment of my society (plus the mob mentality), by installing a new government, would have been too tempting to resist.
2. With the benefit of hindsight, I probably would still have participated, just not in the traditional sense. It would be hard to resist participation, because of the political environment in Iran. First I would evacuated my family and then returned to sabatoge the ayatollah's faction. I would have--possibly foolishly--tried to promote a different faction to power. Both the Shah and the Supreme Leader's governments were/are inadequate and harmful to the people of Iran, so it feels ridiculous to passively accept the Ayatollah's victory.
1. I recently read Shirin Ebadi's "Iran Awakening" and was surprised that she supported the revolution, until I learned what a crazy hotchpotch of radically different concerns and ideologies it was. For this reason I think I would definitely have been a part of it, probably coming from the liberal left and worried about torture and freedom of political expression.
2.Ahh, hindsight. I agree with Kris it would be untenable to partipate in the same way. The lack of any kind of overriding positive vision (apart from getting rid of the Shah) seemed to doom the revolution. I don't think I would have participated, rather I would have probably fled the country and moved to the tropics...
1. Similar to whodatninja, I probably would have participated in the revolution. If I were an Iranian back then, I would have been pissed off at the Shah and his concessions to West, making Iran a puppet state for the Western Powers. Not to mention the Shah was a flawed leader who would have been hard to respect or look up to.
2. In hindsight (assuming I'm still hypothetically an Iranian), my answer would remain the same. I think Khomeini is the lesser of two evils. Although I think Khomeini represented less social freedom, he more importantly represented more national freedom. I think national sovereignty is a more important first step, given that a sovereign nation can always settle its domestic issues later (without foreign powers interfering).
Without the benefit of hindsight, if I were an Iranian in 1979, I WOULD NEVER EVEN THINK ABOUT PARTICIPATING IN A REVOLUTION AGAINST THE SHAH. The development the Shah introduced to the country of Iran in his White revolution can never, in my opinion, be accomplished by the curent government of Iran. Not only was suffrage extended to women, but individuals were able to dress freely and enjoy economic development that was unmatched by any other country in the middle east at the time. Some might argue that such reforms went against the conservative orthodox of Iranian culture and should have never been introduced by the Shah. For those people, the freedoms granted by the Shah were attempts at westernizing the country. Therefore, if you have problems with them, I suggest you go live in the current Iran and enjoy the limited freedoms! Furthermore, the Shah also granted large concessions of land to the Iranian peasantry. Some might argue that the Shah was opppressive? I want to note that the country of Iran was faced with a power struggle. The religious clerics did, and always will, have a large voice in the operations of the Iranian government, as evident in the government structure. Therefore, the Shah, in aims of developing an efficient state bureaucracy, had to employ strategies such as using his special police, Savak, to force the populace to submit their loyalty to the shah. Some people talk quite hypocricitically when they say the Shah was oppressive. He acted in a manner that was required if he was to efectiveley manage the state and coordinate its populace. If an American was to support his priest and for example talk about removing the president from power, they wouldn't last for long. Yes, even in America. In this modern day and age, a country can not compete on a national scale if it continues to operate the way Iran does. Its economy is faltering, and its societies freedoms are drastically restricted. This is something alot of people didn't expect when they engaged in the revolution...for example, the Kurdish people participated in the revolution and what did they get? They had their women rapped, their sons heads cut off and their men dragged through streets. They shouldve thought about what a religious bias in government power would bring to them. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE KURDISH IS A LITTLE SOMETHING FOR EVERYONE WHO SAID THEY WOULD PARTICIPATE IN THE REVOLUTION. Khomeini thanked the Kurdish people for helping him come to power in a nice way, right? From a personal standpoint, the Shah brought respect to the country of Iran. With his swagger and majestic palace and clothes, he was a force to be reckoned with on the global level. I mean the man wore shorts and played tennis and went to Disneyland. Khomeini was old and noobish. I am in no way saying this perspective is true, but one should walk ask Iranian in los angeles, chicago or san jose what their perspective was and they would say the same.
With hindsight, I would stick to my original status. What did he do? Read this passage from iranchamber.org: Ayatollah Khomeini in his 10 years of leadership established a theocratic rule over Iran. He did not fulfil his pre-revolution promises to the people of Iran but instead he started to marginalize and crash the opposition groups and those who opposed the clerical rules. He ordered establishment of many institutions to consolidate power and safeguard the cleric leadership. During his early years in power he launched the Cultural Revolution in order to Islamize the whole country. Many people were laid off, and lots of books were revised or burnt according to the new Islamic values. Newly established Islamic Judiciary system sentenced many Iranians to death and long-term imprisonment as they were in opposition to those radical changes.
As a Berkeley student, I feel like I probably would have participated in the revolution becuase of what it first represented. They were contesting the Shah's oppressive rule becuase he was leading a very one-sided government. Everyone deserves basic human rights.
Looking back now, I do not think the revolution was the best of ideas, becuase of what it turned into. The type of government that the Shah has was by no mean sufficient, but I don't think that the strict Islamic Republic is either. They are both two extremes. I don't think that is the way a country should be run.
Iran is clearly an international target and there are many Iranians who seem to be fed up with the strict social rules. I'm not an expert, but there is obviously a problem with the system that needs to be addressed.
1. Without hindsight, I would most likely have followed the majority of Iranians and participated in the revolution. The shah was very oppressive. He censored the people and would use all the money for the military; rather than building a foundation for the people to modernize. With everything that he did, I would have supported the revolution in hopes that things would get better.
2. With the benefit of hindsight, i feel as if i would not have necessarily followed the revolution because an extreme islamic republic, like the shah's regime, calls for an intense push towards one side. The shah's regime wasn't beneficial for the people. He went about modernizing society the wrong way. He was too extreme. With Khomeini, again, there is too much of an extreme, not to mention betrayal. In essence, there must be a balance. I do feel, for the most part, Khomeini's rule is an improvement, but ultimately, i feel there must be less of an extreme.
Withought the benefit of hindsight, I probably would have joined the revolution. After the Shah's promises of the White revolution were not upheld, I would certainly be angry enough to join for future change. Also, the thoughts that Iran was selling out to the U.S. would not help the situation at all. Money being spent in unimportant places would also convince me to join. thus, a revolution would be what I needed as an Iranian. Also, partcipating in something that can bring good feels like a moral duty in some ways.
With hindsight, I still believe I would have joined. Although revolutions are not always the smartest way to bring about change, in a country where people have been dictated and oppressed for so long I do not really see any better choices. Both leaders failed to provide adequately for their people, and provided two extremely different but equally ineffective regimes. I feel it would be hard not to join a political revolution if the end could provide a better outcome. (Which is what makes a revolution so intoxicating). I feel that with the benefit of hindsight I would have tried to move away from the chaos to a more oganized place, but that, of course, is easier said than done.
Post a Comment