This time magazine article talks about the different factors that led up to the 1979 revolution and why these things were significant.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Official DeCal Blog
35 comments:
I found a lot of things that interested me in the Times article. First of all, the author's tone is very pro-Shah. He talks very highly of him and therefore, even though I was not very informed about his accomplishments during his reign and was interested to learn more, I found myself doubting the legitimacy of his claims.
The author describes Iran as a flourishing and rich nation however from what I have read and learned, the people were living lives very contrary to that. A majority of the common population lived in poverty. A lot of the countries natural resources were being exported to foreign countries, like Israel and the US, to better western ties while the people withered.
Another contradictory concept to my ideas and knowledge discussed in the article was the portrayal of the Shah as a democratic leader who gave rights to the women and the people. From what my immediate family tells me about living under the shah's regime, the treatment of woman who did not fit in with his ideals of westernization was very unjust. For example, very similar to the forced head scar today, the Shah made it very difficult for a Muslim woman to walk the streets comfortably without worrying about being unveiled.
This article has a lot of foreshadowing as you said, and I find it interesting that Nikki above said the tone was very pro-Shah. I would have to disagree. The level of detail about amounts spent on specific luxury items seem to be a public attempt to show the extravagance of the life of the Shah. Combine that with the hind-sight that these items played a large role in the discontentment of the people in Iran (and ultimately lead up to the revolution) and I think that article quickly becomes anti-Shah.
That being said, the article does seem to describe Iran as a pretty ideal place to live for all levels of people. It's almost too perfect. Economy growing, lower class being treated fairly, women having equal rights, etc. It almost sounds like Utopia (other than the forbidden public criticism). But again, I think the author seemed to be adding some sarcasm by describing things this way.
Also, I find it interesting to compare the intimacy and level of detail the journalist here was able to attain for writing the article with what could be accessed today.
The TIME article initially appears to be Pro-Shah, describing the Shah to be the “King of Kings” of such an exotic and beautiful country. The article illustrates Iran as this Wonderland where the economy has grown substantially, literacy rates have increased, and women have gained suffrage. The Shah and his Empress then proceed to celebrate by planning to adorn the skies with fireworks and spend ungodly amounts of money on decorations and objects one would consider “unnecessary”.
Honestly, it all sounds too good to be true, that a single man deserves that much credit for feats that seem to have been blown completely out of proportion. This article, by describing The Shah as “embarrassed” by his citizens behaving like “subjects”, seem to describe Iran in such a picture perfect fashion of any Monarchy (that was obviously overthrown and then reinstalled), that there is no other way to interpret such words other than in sarcasm. The article left out the irritation of the people by the formation of a single political party, managed to ignore the fact that the SAVAK killed people and instilled a silent fear, overlooked the unhappiness of a plethora of citizens, and even called Mossadeq (a man silently highly prized by Iranians) a “crusty old nationalist”. With this article screaming the Shah’s name in pleasure, bounds of sarcasm and reasons for the Shah’s future misfortune are the dominant themes that stand out in this ill-composed article.
I know that Iran has a very rich history, but I found unnecessary to bring it up the way it was brought in this article. It almost feels condescending. What country has been prepared by its past to face a industrial or social revolution.
Although the author of the article might have brought the past of Iran to contrast it with the huge changes that have occurred, I have to question whether he is implying that this changes are good and welcomed by the Iranian People. An example is when he says, “the beaches bounce with bikinis.” Bikinis on the beach are an ordinary western thing. Right after this, the author mentions the progress and growth achieved and implies that Iranians are under control of the progress taking-place, and that the Shah was the ruler who made all this progress possible.
To someone who has had a western education, imposing western customs may seem as a good thing or good idea. However, Iran is not a western culture, and as long as the whole Iranian people have not decided to become westernized, it can’t be imposed on them and much more not so radically. That might be the reason why the Shah had a revolt against him. The Iranian people realized that the West had a relationship of interest with the Shah and that he didn’t genuinely cared about his people.
I’m not saying that countries should not help the oppressed people. What I’m saying is that a country’s people should be consulted before imposing changes for which they might not be ready, and that western countries should not meddle in other countries unless they have been asked or unless there is a justified reason to do it.
As a first generation American, with Iranian parents, this article complies with the many stories that my parents have told me about the 'golden days' of their childhood in Iran. Their tales of disco parties and free-thinking actions always conflicted with my depiction of how Iran is represented today as an anti-Western nation. When reading through this article, I couldn't help but wonder how the Shah suddenly transformed from an illiterate, social butterfly to a powerful, respected international leader. It really bothers me to think that respected nations such as the United States and Britain could get away with intruding into countries only to further cause more corruption as a means of control. I believe that this is what happened in the case of Mossadegh and the Shah.
The British exportation of oil in Iran left the country in an economic crisis. The people of Iran democratically elected Mossadegh to restore their country back to wealth, and in doing so angered many western nations who only had the 'dough' in mind. After a successful coupe, Mossadegh was kicked out, and the Shah was put back into power. With a new mature attitude, the Shah quickly and mysteriously mended the economy, set progressive new tone for the people to follow. I cannot help but wonder that the United States and Britain purposely staged a coupe to get Mossadegh out, and place the Shah in as a means of having control over the actual country of Iran. It is just too surreal to me that the motives of the US and the UK were for the good of the country of Iran. And it is no wonder that many of the poor civilians were outraged by this.
This article was written before Shah’s coronation ceremony, so of course it is going to be pro-shah to some extend. However, I think if you look closely some of the descriptions give you a good sense of how complex Iran was and still is. Religion and tradition have always played a central role in Iran, especially in villages where people are quite conservative and distant from the ever evolving world. Also, the image of Shah created after reading this article is quite confusing: Is he the savior of women or the dictator who with the help of SAVAK silenced opposing views? In the article he said: “We would have to dispense with democracy and operate by decree."
I actually find Shah’s comments very insightful in this article, especially where he says “I realized that we were not only standing still but losing ground. We had to develop or die." I believe that his intentions with the “White Revolution” was to do good for Iranians, but being an impatient man and overestimating his people’s affections for the “King of Kings” back fired. Not only people in rural Iran, but most of the people living in the cities were conservative as well. Imagine their disbelief when realizing that now women are equal to men, their wives can divorce them, and they can’t marry more than once without the consent of their wives! Shah wanted a modern Iran, but the love of tradition and religious beliefs were much deeper in Iranians than their memory of 2,500 year of monarchy.
It’s ironic how today the same problem exists but the other way around. Now with a system of government based on religion and Islamic practices, many people want a more modern Iran since the country is “loosing ground”. I wonder if Iran will ever find the right balance between modernity and tradition.
I am very curious about what the author used for his sources. He describes the countryside and development of the country extensively and it sounds like he had personally traveled around Iran. Based on the article he also seemed to have fairly intimate knowledge of the the Shah as well. I suspect his vision of Iran was significantly colored by what he was shown by the Shah.
I also think that its interesting that he brings up the Shah's police force and repression but doesn't really address it. The tone of the article continues note the Shah's progressiveness without really resolving the issue. I wonder why the author chose to bring it up at all since his final analysis still seems pretty positive.
Also I think its kind of strange that the author thinks that the Shah has grown up and is no longer a frivolous layabout. However, later in the article, the author describes the extensive luxury the Shah lived in and his numerous vacations to the seaside ect. There seems to be quite a bit of dissonance in this article between the way the author talks about the Shah and the actual details of the Shah's life.
The tone of the entire article is belittling. Two pages in, having reached a point of complete disgust, I happened to look up and notice that it was written in 1967, which made a difference. Regardless, it echoed the "gee whiz" tone of the documentary we watched two classes in. I agree with everyone before me in questioning whether the vast majority of the population were really as well off as they are presented to be. And I dislike the author's racist tone in making fun of people for not understanding how television works, and the comment about the flying carpet.
The article is a good indicator of the time in which it was written, however. The tone is clearly intended to evoke a specific opinion of Iran in the readers (that of "look at this little nation and their quaint little customs and how much Progress they've made towards becoming like us!"), and it is written almost voyeuristically for western readers who have never been to Iran. The reference to Mossadegh as a "crusty old nationalist" was surprisingly colloquial, to say the least. though considering the United States' involvement in his downfall, I suppose it shouldn't be. The excitement inherent in the statement about women as ministerial under secretaries reflects the western sexism of the time. The author's name is not listed, but his outsider position is apparent, and he seems to almost be presenting the nation as cute. The reference to the Shah's multiple wives, inserted as an explanatory footnote, comes off as almost comical, as the author seems to feel the need to justify to a western audience the fact that he's had more than one. In total, I was more distracted and annoyed with the tone of the article to glean any significant historical information from it, other than an indicator of Western attitude towards Iran in the late 1960s.
Having pretty much no historical background regarding the Iranian government, while I read this TIME article, I could not understand why people turned against the Shah. Based on the article itself, the Shah was portrayed as a great leader. Compared to other rulers, he seemed to be pretty much the best Iranian ruler, for he made a lot of changes that benefitted the people. For instance I was pretty surprised at the fact that he gave women equal rights, when that is something very rare in the Middle East. I was also impressed at his “Literacy Corps” organization for education and his desire for progress. It says that he wanted to install a network of desalination plants and focused on land reforms, freeing most of Iran’s villages from landlord control.
Based on the description that the article provides, the Shah seemed to be a great understanding leader. His western ideas were visible not only through his call for reform and progress but also through his own way of living and the family activities. The way that the Shah is described and the changes that he made in Iran seem all to be beneficial for the people. In the whole article, there was only one thing that was unjust from the Shah’s part, the SAVAK.
I find it interesting that Shah was supposedly working for the people but yet he approved of the SAVAK which forbade people to criticize him. Even though I don’t know much about the bad things he did, I believe that there must had to be more than just the controlled press and luxurious life of his for people to have turned against him. If he truly had been working purely for the people, I don’t understand why he felt in need to control the press if he was sure of his honest intentions to help Iran. Overall, even though the Shah’s actions were a bit confusing and complicated he seemed to have good intentions for the Iranian people. I think that his only downfall was that even though he was trying to benefit the people he still had that natural human greed and therefore that desire for power probably influenced him to approve of the SAVAK and enjoy living a luxurious life. But then again, maybe some articles written after the 1960s would provide me with more information regarding the Shah and change my opinion.
I enjoyed reading an article from the mainstream media about Iran that does not mention nuclear weapons or Ahmadinejad. I thought this article does a fair job at putting Iranian history into the greater context of world history. Although sometimes the article is too poetic and flowery to be taken seriously, it still conveys the point that Iran is not some backwards society that the United States needs to “fix.” Iran is a country with a long and complex history. To understand modern-day Iran, its history needs to be taken into consideration and this article gives the cliff notes version of it.
While the commentary on the Shah’s coronation was interesting, I enjoyed the part on his achievements more. American government could learn something from his water policy; he is dealing with it while the U.S. consumes more water without a thought about an upcoming water crisis. He seems to be forward thinking and generally concerned for his citizens. Whether that is through heartfelt concern or political strategy, I do not know and the article does not answer.
I thought it was interesting how the Shah tries to justify his dictatorial rule and how the author justifies the Empress Fara’s lavish dress. In regards to the Shah’s rule, I think that his explanation was weak. He seems tired of responding to the question and is now just giving his pre-written answer to the media. While I’m sure the Empress does help the Shah in daily handling of the government, that still does not justify such lavish spending, especially when the article chooses to ignore what the average person’s daily clothes are like.
My view is that this article is extremely pro-shah. It is good argument to say that Shah helped reform Iran by creating the "White Revolution." This is evident from the economic boom of the late 60's and early 70's. But their was a huge population of poor during his rule.
One of the most successful reform he created was for Iranian women. In my opinion this is very important. The author of this article seems glorify his rule. But their was many reasons why the people of Iran went to the streets to protest his rule.
Without a doubt Shahs regime never committed the cruel and unjust acts that the Islamic Republic is committing today.
This article definitely shows a different perspective to Iranian history. It makes the Shah seem like an economic hero, bringing wealth to all classes, peasant or urbanite, villager or laborer. TIME paints Iran to be an ambitious country, full of potential, and its very far from foreshadowing a revolution in the coming decade. In this TIME article, Iran is in midst of celebration and economic prosperity...However, as we've seen in class, the next few decades are plagued with revolution, war, and civil disobedience.
Wow there's no question in my mind that this article is mainly a pat-on-the-back for the king. It was, in all fairness, written right before the shah's big celebration.
What struck me most about this article is the positive spin that was put on aspects oft seen in a critical light today--fifty some years later. I took note of several of these points, which touch on material covered in past classes.
First of all, (my favorite), the author called Mossadegh a "crusty old nationalist." !! That is certainly not what his droves of followers saw him as--and that does not adequately describe his popularity and substantial weight which caused the temporary exile of the shah. But that was all that was said of this character.
The shah's fast-forward westernization efforts, which were paired with equally sudden efforts in economic development had left the country in a state of shock, and had precipitated the key unexpected societal shifts that would pave the way to the revolution. These circumstances were discussed in class as forced and drastic--therefore alienating key sectors of Iranian society, e.g. landowners and religious clergy. But in the article, the shah was applauded for his "enlightened" measures and pro-west attitude--essentially equating his friendliness with western powers with foresight and rationality.
What the article praises as great reforms and progress, one could today call selling out.
For example, when the author pointed to high foreign investment in Iran, it was in approval. Today, and even at that time, many see this openness to foreign companies as a surrendering of Iran's power and rights to its resources.
In another example, the "57 countries" visited by the shah, which were touted in TIME as effective diplomacy, can be seen in a very different light as excessive expenditures, often for publicity purposes rather than substantive reasons.
Lastly, what was the most clear indicator of the author's standpoint, was his hearty approval of the shah's distaste for Nasser. Nasser being the ultimate example of splitting with and standing directly in opposition to the forces and entities of the western world, the author's decision to include this as a positive quality in the shah is to shed light on the shah's unwavering and perhaps unquestioning reverence of western powers.
These are problematic assumptions, and I believe that over time, this article's relevance has decreased as peoples' understanding of the deeper subtleties of Iran's history has increased.
For what it sounds like, well at least according to this article, is that Iran, somehow at least, is now a flourishing country. Said to have an economy which is "growing at the rate of 12% a year, and the per-capita income of its 26 million people has nearly doubled—from $130 to $250—in the past ten years," Iran, contradictory to popular opinion, has become, among the shadow of the medias illustration, a country which is rebuilding.
So what this comes down to is how the media, specifically American media, has portrayed Iran and allowed a distorted image to exemplify Iran.
I found this article really interesting for many reasons.
First, as it was written prior to the 79 revolution, it does not present a teleological description of the Shah's actions during the White revolution, which are often explained as necessarily leading to 1979 events.
Second, it is the epitome of Western orientalism when Middle Eastern issues are concerned. As many of the comments have noticed, the article is pro-Shah. But there is a clear reason for that. In fact, the article praises all that the Shah does to westernize his country, be it the economic reforms, or the new legislation on marriage.
Some extracts of this article would be funny if they were not pathetic (i'm thinking of the description of these iranian villagers when they first saw a movie...). And what to think of this quote : "(Iranians) expect their Shah to act like a king and treat them as subjects. When he appears in a village, they fall to earth to kiss his feet, a custom that causes him much embarrassment." This quote sums up all the spirit of the article: "The Shah is a good ruler because he is europeanized and a bit embarassed by his people's love for obsolete and anti-modern traditions. Moreover he has to be the leader of an autocratic regime, because, anyway, his people is not really attached to democracy : they like to be treated like subjects (and consequently not like citizens)...."
However, despite all its, sometimes shocking, flaws, this article is really interesting, when put in perspective with what would happen ten years after its redaction. Thanks to the author's description of the White Revolution reforms, we can understand, by contrast, how the Shah provoked discontent among several fringes of its population: the landowners, the clergy (as some of the new laws stepped in the religious domains), the democrats, and basically all the iranians that became more and more unhappy at the Shah's connivence with the West.
What this article cannot foresee is that the discontent created was partly mitigated by Iran's economic success due to the Shah's reforms. However this was no longer true ten years later, when Iran was affected by the economic crisis of the late 70s
Not being of Iranian descent myself but having been raised in a community with many Iranian-American neighbors and friends, I found this article to be a very interesting read. Growing up, my friend’s parents seemed to often describe Iran and the Shah's reign in a manner quite similar to this. Funny as it may sound, as a child I imagined Iran to look quite like the article describes. Of course, with the events currently unfolding in Iran and the realization that many of my friend’s parents were perhaps a wee bit biased, it is clear that this article conveniently skips over much of the discontent and harsh tactics employed by the Shah. However, I think it is crucial to understand that because the article was written in 1967, during which Iran's economy was rapidly expanding, it may have been especially hard for foreign journalists to really comprehend the brewing dissension.
Also to mention, referring to Mossadegh as a "crusty old nationalist" was probably not the brightest idea. I think by writing Mossadegh off in this manner reveals a bit of ignorance on the writer’s part because it discounts Iran's democratization process and the general significance of Mossadegh's electoral victory. Conveniently so, the writer does seem to understand enough about Mossadegh's popularity when mentions that it really "woke up" the Shah, which leads one to believe the article as pro-Shah.
From what I have gathered so far, whether from the readings or class, it seems that the Shah did have good intentions; however, his approach seems to have not been suitable for Iran. No matter how many people were lifted out of poverty or the economy’s GDP expanded, the Shah would always be an illegitimate leader in many eyes. And to his own fault, most likely out of fear of losing power, the Shah’s harsh tactics used to silent voices of discontent seemed to strengthen the opposition.
The Times article was extremely interesting though the first point I noticed was that it was definitely written from the perspective that the Shah was an exceptional leader, which the US would of course want to illuminate. The US I am sure would not want a an article talking about the negativity that the Shah has done when they put him in power. While it is without question there were many positive developments I think it also goes without question that those positive developments mean nothing if the people have resentment against the leader who created them. Also it has become difficult since it seems there are many who are against the Shah because he was put into power by the US and his tight regime. Yet it also seems there have been very few regimes that do not uphold absolute power. Regardless of the matter however the very biased opinion of the author was a little unsettling and did lead to some personal uncertainties.
Also it was irritating to see how quickly Mossadegh was brushed over when it was lack of power that stirred such animosity toward the shah. Also it was a point where the people had elected a democracy which is what the US is constantly pushing for less developed countries and yet when Iran did we decimated it. It seems to me that one cant speak about the Shah without speaking about how he came to power. If the Shah also had not spend his youth with "flashy cars" and endless money perhaps his people would have had more respect for him.
While it does seem economically wise there were many positive accomplishments, it seems he had his own people turned against him from the beginning. I think if the article had been unbiased and given straight facts without embellishment; it would have been much more convincing. Something to not be forgotten however is that what came after the Shah was perhaps worse since there werent as many economic achievements it seems. Perhaps I am wrong.
Also as to the Shah's belief in westernization it is a bit unsettling to attempt to change into something which is very differnt from ones roots. I think maybe it was a little drastic and also perhaps it could have been incorporated so that women felt comfortable dressing as they seemed fit and neither feeling uncomfortable. I believe neither extreme is socially helpful.
It is very interesting that an relatively liberal magazin like Time is writing an article about a monarch, almost without touching on the subject of democracy. The tone in the article is very pro-Shah and it describes all the good things he has done for the country.
When the article is touching on the subject of democracy and the lack of political reform in Iran, it somehow conclude that the Iranians can't get both water and democracy, and the Shah is actually providing them with water.
This way of reasoning is very close to the way communists used to, and still do to some extent, argue when defending the USSR, China, Cuba or other communist countries. This way of putting democracy as an antithes to economic development is, however, very unhistorical since we seen that a lot of countries have developed even though they have been democracies.
It is also interesting to notice how the author in an admiring way points out the Shah's different reforms to improve women rights. What this right to vote actually mean, in a country ruled by authoritarian monarch, is, however, left unaswered.
It was interesting to get a more in depth look at the main policies, and despite the fact that this article is ridiculously biased towards the Shah, I believe it did illustrate the fact that the Shah really helped Iran come into the modern day. He implemented many policies that helped give back to the people, by educating them and allowing them to own their own land. I believe many of the policies were made with the people’s best at mind, but perhaps some were a little too western for the people of Iran to accept at the time (mostly the power to women and away from the church). However, this article was laughable in it bias towards the Shah. It had a sentence of not-so-harsh criticism against the Shah, surrounded by tons of praise. One thing that I thought was especially ridiculous was, in the first part of the article it speaks of how “The Shah has worked hard to alleviate his country's poverty,” yet the poor still had to pay the government for the land they got from the landlords, and numerous Iranians still lived in miserable poverty. Also, at the end it talked of the millions of dollars being thrown into his coronation ceremonies as if this was acceptable and lauded by all the people, but I’m sure the people would have been able to celebrate much more if the money had gone to them in some direct or indirect way (like construction of run-down areas)
Progress usually comes at a cost when countries try to "catch-up." I like the article because it displays the narrative of the day.
After all, the Berkeley yearbook from 1935 talks about what a great place it would be to live in the Soviet Union. Apparently progress/modernization has a romance to it. But, this is also the same yearbook that credited Nazi Germany with being a country on the cusp of modernization and athletic prow less. This just goes to show how a leader or country could be admired one day and an enemy the next.
While it has been mentioned that the author of this article is on the side of the Shah, it seems as if it's not that certain. The author seems to realise the complexities of the issues in Iran at that point of time. So while at times it does seem to portray the Shah as a visionary figure, it does not trivialise the mistakes that he thought the Shah made as well.
Also, the author called Mossadegh a 'crusty old nationalist', which doesn't seem to accurately describe what his supporters (most of the population, I believe?) would have felt. He seems to downplay the popularity and influence that Mossadegh had in Iranian politics at that point of time. I wonder what it could be due to, given how TIME actually honoured Mossadegh at some point of time as well. Mossadegh was brushed over too quickly, unjustifiably.
The actions of the Shah also seemed to have been interpreted by the author with biased. The author seems to see the actions of the Shah under romantically-coloured-lens: which is that the Shah was a revolutionary figure. So westernisation, secularisation, economic reform, and effective diplomacy were mentioned and touted as enlightened measures without actually taking a close look at the real impact and reception of those actions in Iran. Also, the fact that the Shah was a monarch (instead of a democratically-elected leader) seems to have been downplayed by asserting that he was an enlightened leader.
From beginning to end the article offers an extremely pleasant perspective of the Shah and his regime. The article in summary, gives commentary on the “progressive” actions of the Shah, connecting Iran’s glorious Persian past to its monumental modern industrialization (in reference to the article’s 1960’s stance). It is quite interesting to view this telling through the eyes of someone who knows what is to come and who know much of what is not mentioned or discussed in this article. Due to this I found it difficult to read this article so glorifying the Shah without mention of the Mosadegh government, removed by outside sources, bringing an end to so many dreams and hopes, never allowing a history that could have been.
Also, while reading the first portion of the article I found the author’s usage of describing industrialization over areas with ancient history actually quite tragic, because in essence it seemed as though the writer was describing how these changes were defaming the past, destroying the past. The overall portrayal of the Shah truly did ignore many of the truths of his regime. Although a remarkable period, the Shah did use the SAVAK to maintain a cruel control over the people, he was installed by foreign powers/assistance, and he did live a life of luxury according to the article which has to be seen in contrast to most of the country.
Overall it is interesting to read an article from 1967, it allows for a understanding of how for example a Times reader in the United States would view the Shah in a positive manner after reading such an article as this.
I missed this article. Please, can someone tell me in which edition of the Times it was published.
I have to agree with the other posts that this article did seem pro-Shah. The article claims that the late industrialization and social reforms in Iran are bringing to it "the first real taste of prosperity." This actually makes sense considering it was the CIA that placed the Shah and power and would do anything to support their "puppet." The article describes the nation to be economically thriving. However, that goes contrary to some of my preconceived notions that Iran is very impoverished and exported their valuable natural resources to the West, while the people within the country could not prosper off this wealth. The article seemed to give too much credit to the Shah despite the fact that it was mostly the U.S. involvement that staged a coup so as to keep the oil market open to the West. Even though the economy did boom in the 60s, there still remained a high percentage of poor. The economic prosperity is said to have been caused by the Shah's reforms, however it seems to me that the Shah was just a means for the U.S. government to retain the oil markets. So would it be safe to say that the booming economic prosperity was due to the exports of oil that the CIA coup pushed?
Not being Iranian and thus not having any relatives that lived under the Shah's regime, I found it somewhat difficult to not completely respect and love the Shah after reading this article. I understand that it was written in 1967, after Iran's incredible advancement in the global economic front, but I found the article quite biased. From what the families of almost all my Iranian friends say, the Shah was a somewhat despotic leader. In hindsight, my opinion is that he met his overall goal of greatly progressing the country, even though it might have been in a despotic fashion.
I found very interesting the perspective adopted by the Times article in the 60's compared to what we can nowadays read in it.
Obviously, the context was very different and the Cold War was a great incentive for the Western World to praise Iran and the Shah. Indeed,his attempts for westernization are strongly highlighted in this article whereas the symptoms of autoritarism are barely mentionned.
I would like to quickly enumerate them in order to contrast with the general pro-shah perspective of the article. As a matter of fact, the Shah "operated by decrees", had his own political police, organized false Parliament elections, controlled the press and punished any critics to the Shah. The author also use a very meaningful comparison: "the guiding principles of the Shah's government were almost a substitute for the nation's outdated 1906 constitution", which show how the Shah increased the authoritarian aspect of the monarchy.
Finally, it's always interesting to think about all the kings or Presidents who were very progressive economically but prefered to achieve their goals without bothering with democracy.
This article was very interesting. I like the author's writing style as well as the way he glamorizes the Persian Empire. He describes Iran as a wealthy country essentially because of their rapid economic growth. This statement can most definitely be argued against. Ever since sanctions were imposed on Iran due to their defiance of International Law when dealing with their nuclear arsenal, their economy has essentially been crippled. Inflation is rampant and their unemployment rate has continually grown as the young population continues to grow yet more jobs are not created to fill this void.
The article also argued in favor of the Shah and stated that he was an effective democratic leader who facilitated the country in many aspects. I would have to argue against this. The shah was put in place by a US-British ploy in order to reap oil benefits. He is not a democratic leader, but rather, a tyrant who ruled without the political mandate of a majority of his country. He wanted to modernize the country and he eventually went too far from traditional Iranian lifestyle. Iran is primarily a Muslim nation, and the fact that the Shah tried to introduce Western ideals in a region that has been Muslim for hundreds of years, and attempt to eradicate certain Islamist beliefs clearly shows that he was not working for the will of the Muslim populace.
I thought that the article did a great job of describing Iran’s economic standpoint in the late 1960’s and then channeling into the current situation with the Shah. I also found the article to be, in total, pro-Shah as it focuses on how he developed Iran’s economy at the rate of 12%. The article praises his pro-Western ideology, which is very interesting because it was this philosophy that was frowned upon by many Iranian citizens. At this point in time, Iran was filled with two main social groups, one group that valued tradition over modernization, and another younger group that praised rebellion and fought for equality. These two groups would eventually combine under the philosophy that the Shah was a “Western Puppet” leading to the start of the Iranian Revolution. What I found interesting was that the article goes into detail about the Shah’s policies that were praised by the people but barely brushes over the policies that most people did not approve of, such as his use of the Savak, also known as the Secret Police of Iran. At the end of the article, the author tries to justify any sense of dislike the Iranian people have for the Shah, as a “necessity in Iran”.
This article takes on a very interesting tone in its description of the Iranian social climate. Other posters debated whether or not the tone of the article was pro-Shah. However, it seems from the following descriptions of the Iranian economic sphere are a little sarcastic. The author doesn't take a very aggressive stance against Iran, but highlights its major problems without sacrificing the feel-good tone.
First, I have to say I feel very lucky to live in a decade where TIME articles do not read like sycophantic poetry (i.e, "roses first bloomed and nightingales sang".
Aside from that, the theme of the article was clear: The Shah is bringing about great economic changes to his country, even if it is at the cost of a little bit of democracy. On the one hand, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Democracies and ailing underdeveloped nations do not usually go hand in hand. In the view of this newspiece, democracy is not something Iran can afford at the moment (1960s) if it wants to emerge as an independent industrialized nation. I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with this point of view. If the Shah were to tackle land reform, angering the 'thousand families'and also bring about more political freedom and less censure than he wouldve been ousted from the throne long before 1979. Bringing about 12percent annual growth rate to the economy is no small task, and it did raise Iran's standard of living drastically.Yet, the thousand families weren't those being silenced by the Shah's ruthless politics, as evidenced by the thousands of political prisoners the Shah jailed. Is any degree of economic growth and wealth worth losing a small portion of freedom?
To TIME, yes. According to the article, though, Iran may not have a democratic republic but at least it is lucky enough to have such a benevolent leader, who only wants the best for his people.
Oh, and the extravagant 7 day coronation ceremony? The Shah reluctantly agrees because the Iranian people are very strict about formality and NEED to be shown they are inferior. "They expect their Shah to act like a king and treat them as subjects" (WHERE DID THIS JOURNALIST DO THEIR RESEARCH!?)
Although keeping in mind the article was written well before the 1979 revolution, a few things caught my eye and seemed to be in conflict with what we've learned in class. Firstly, on page two, the article hails the Shah for investing in development while his Arab neighbors had invested in weapons and equipments. Yet, as we've learned in class, Iran's military was at one point of the largest in the world. Additionally, as much as the article talks about how self-reliant Iran had becomes, much material aid was still being supplied to the Shah's regime, particularly from the United States.
The other aspect of the article that struck was the seemingly naive tone of the writer. While hailing the progress the Shah had for society, the article only briefly addresses the lack of democratic values or institutions within the country. Using the excuse of Cold War politics is an arguable justification, but other reasons cited included a historical ad cultural precedence in Iran for authoritarian rule, and that the democratic institutions that had been in place had fought the Shah in reforming Iran. After learning what I've learned in class, I can't imagine that the Iranian, especially after Mossadegh, had a deep seeded cultural attachment to being ruled over with no political representation.
Post a Comment