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
17 comments:
Having not been in the decal very long and trying to catch up with all the readings I have not found a reason I can think of why I, had I been there, would not have joined the revolution. It seems to me that this was a time of change that needed to be undertaken that it would be wrong not to join. Something as large as changing the government should be taken seriously by all those affected by it. Had I believed in changing the regime at the time then yes by all means I would have been out there with my fellow men in the streets protesting. I would have opposed the government that was in place and hope that the new one that was coming to power would change the way the country was being run and peoples lives.
Having seen what came about with the fall of the Shah, in hindsight, I would not have joined in the revolution. Many things were promised by the new government and many of them were not given. This new government seemed to do much what the old one did. In the beginning there was peace between people, then as the time grew on more fighting occurred much like before.
With or without the benefit of hindsight, I'd definitely take part in the revolution against Shah because his regime was completely corrupted and unhealthy and it was time for change in Iran. The overthrown of Shah was the first step of the change and the problem was that people didn't realize that this was the beginning and just assumed everything is going to be ok if Shah's gone. Being able to see the result of the revolution, I'd have never put all my faith in one person or one group and I'd have never stop fighting. I guess getting rid of Shah gave Iranians the illusion of complete victory and while they were joyously celebrating they just decided to gave the new people in power the benefit of the doubt instead of consciously examining their ideas and ideologies.
Without hindsight, I feel I probably would have participated in the revolution because the Shah seemed to be so oppressive. However, I also am a proponent of peace so I know I would not have taken to any violent actions.
With the benefit of hindsight I think I would have fled because I really don't see myself supporting either regime.
Just to let everyone know, the above comments only count as one comment.
If I was an Iranian during the 1979 Revolution, I don't believe I would have participated in the revolt against the Shah. Most of the population in Iran, at the time, was comprised of workers, or those who were not being attacked by the reforms of the Shah. Being a working class citizen, who probably migrated into Tehran from a province, I would have been supportive of the Shah's White Revolution. The Shah wanted to create a sort of democratic state, where all citizens could be qualified to thrive and aid in the modernization efforts. I believe that, to be supportive of the Islamic Revolution would have been a step in a backward direction. My economic ambitions as an Iranian worker in 1979 would have been contradicted by the limitations of the Islamic Revolution (although Khomeni, later changed his views and wanted economic freedom for all).
If I was not supportive of the Revolution then, now that I am aware of the aftermath of the Islamic Revolution, I would not be compelled to join. For starters, I don't believe religious ideology creates the correct platform to run a government. Khomeni reminds me of another charismatic leader who rose to power in a time of crisis, Adolf Hitler.
Without the benefit of hindsight I don't think I would have participated in the Islamic Revolution. I probably would have been torn, not completely a supporter for either the shah or the Islamic Revolution led by Khomeini. Despite stories about SAVAK, political suppression and an economic decline in the 1950s that inevitably effected the middle class workers and not just the poor, as a female I don't think I would have been an advocate for a such a radical uprising, It is my understanding that neither side represented greater personal freedoms; however, the shah did allow the complete suffrage of women in 1963. One may argue that what good is suffrage if rival political parties are outlawed etc but Khomeini was not proposing to liberate.
With the benefit of hindsight I think I would have held the same stance on the revolution. Not supporting either side whole heartedly. Certainly not an active participant in bringing in Khomeini. The new Islamic government seems to do a lot of the same things but now the supreme leader has a divine right to rule rather than a US bolstered but people ordained right to run the state. Thinking about this makes me wonder about female participation in the revolution and whether they were vocal advocates for Khomeini and the Islamic Revolution. I dont know a lot about Persian culture and the Islamic stance on women but there do not appear to be many women in those documentaries we have watched in class, unless they are in morning etc.
With and without hindsight I would not have joined in the revolution and would not have supported khomeini. Although the Shah was not ideal, I would have supported him as a satisfactory, although haunted by fear, leader and would have supported a similar yet more humane person to take his place. Although I am certainly, growing up in America, very influenced by the notion of separation of church and state, which I may not have been influenced by had I grown up in Iran at that time, I would not have supported Khomeini because I think he is a man of religion who shouldn't try to become a man of politics too - 'jack of all trades, master of none'...
With hindsight, I feel that the wrongs endorsed by the Shah were in response to and insecurity from his experience with the Americans and the downfall of Mossedegh. It really did not seem that the Shah wanted to get rid of Mossadegh and it was only after a hell of a lot of prodding from the Americans that he finally agreed to work with them to get rid of Mossadegh -- I'm sure to some extent he thought (I would have thought the same) that the Americans would try to get rid of him (the Shah) as well as Mossadegh, if the Shah did not agree to work with them.
Without hindsight and with it, although the Shah was clearly paranoid and a little bit of a 'conspiracy theorist', he was also working towards a lot of very good things in his 'white revolution'. As a citizen I would have supported that attempt and hoped for its success. In addition, I would not have supported Khomeini's religious ideologies and the mindless fervor with which he moved the masses. I would have been strongly against such a change in government, although I would have also hoped for a better leader than the Shah, who was clearly crutched by his paranoia.
With or without hindsight, I would not have participated in the revolution. It is simply in my nature to attempt to stay neutral and keep off the streets as well as avoid riots. I am probably the right height to get trampled or stampeded on. So, physically, I would already have a low chance of survival should anything horrible occur (and it looks like it often did). Additionally, the footage of the Shah's military shooting at civilians does not seem a very appealing fate for me.
If we aren't discussing riots and protests, then I do feel that a change in government was definitely needed, but the Islamic party's use of secrecy was blatant manipulation of the people. Even if there is a clause that makes it okay to lie in order to propel the Islamic cause further, I think it was only indicative of the lack of transparency that would perpetuate in the new revolutionary government, and even today.
What's frustrating is the lack of "truth" available. There is no objective view. If there were, this discussion (as all things)would be much easier.
In short, I don't think I could have supported any regime and would have tried to get a visa to the US ASAP.
Without the benefit in hindsight, if I was alive and residing in Iran in 1979 I would have definitely participated in the Revolution against the Shah. I think I would have been more active during the first stage which was when there was an alliance between the liberal, leftist, and religious groups who all wanted to oust the Shah. A shah ruled Iran from 1501 until 1979; I believe that the government should be run by the people to insure freedom, equality and justice. The leaders should be willing to stand with the people and provide them with the means to obtain food, clothing, health care and a decent education. The Shah abandoned his people and went on “vacation” during the US backed coup which overthrew Mossadeq and he was using state money to fund a ridiculously expensive lifestyle (ex. the party thrown to celebrate the monarchy’s anniversary). But now with the benefit of hindsight I am not exactly sure; either way the revolution would have occurred. The second stage, the Islamic Revolution, began to focus too much on Khomeini and aided in the ayatollah's rise to power. The 1979 Revolution ultimately resulted in the overthrow of the monarchy and the establishment of the Islamic Republic. The movement created a leader and lost sight of its original goals. It seems as though the revolution happened so fast with out giving the leadership time to strategize and develop a collective plan of action and vision for Iran. They used Khomeini strategically but he was given too much power which resulted in a government religiously and ideologically different from the Shah’s regime but has exhibited a definite parallel in regards to Iranians freedom of speech.
1. Without the benefit of hindsight, if I were an Iranian in 1979, I don't believe I would have participated in the Revolution against the Shah because I am a pacifist. I don't agree with rioting or violence and prefer to solve disputes through more peaceable means, like conversation (unfortunately, in politics, conversation rarely leads to peace).
2. With the benefit of hindsight, my answer does not change. I try to be a pacifist in every situation. If the situation does not allow for pacifism, I flee. Call me a coward, call me whatever you will, I am simply being honest.
I don't think I would have joined the revolution with or without hindsight. However, I do think I would have taken some more diplomatic action or left Iran during this oppressive time. I think a more constructive way to handling the Shah would have been to create an movement to put pressure on the international community. Especially the US, Western Europe and the Soviet Union.
With regards to the first question, I believe that I would have participated in the Revolution against the Shah. It is very difficult to say what I would have done if I were there, but if I were to pick, I believe that I would have joined the crowds in the streets in protests and rebellion and tried to overthrow the Shah. If I had the money and the means, I would do what my parents did and that was get the hell out of Iran. In other words, I do not think I would have been ready for such a large change and I do not think others really would have known what they are getting themselves into. With that being said, I would have been set on leaving and settling somewhere that is politically and economically stable, such as the US, England, France, Canada, etc. However, with no choice, I would have gone with the crowd that wanted to overthrow the Shah because, like them, I would have believed that the country needs a change and needs to get rid of the man who can't say "No" to the United States. I would question the Shah's dedication to his people and would believe that everything he did was for his or his own family's benefit. In other words, I would have believed that he abused his power for his own personal gain, instead of looking out for the people of the country that he was ruling. For that reason, I believe I would have opposed the Shah if I were to stay in Iran.
With the benefit of hindsight, my answer does change, but not entirely. What I mean by that is that if I still had the means to leave, I would have since a lot of things turned out to become pretty fucked up after the overthrow of the Shah. Nobody really knew what they were getting themselves into. The majority of those in favor of the Revolution simply wanted to overthrow the Shah and didn't think twice about how things would pan out under Khomeini's religious rule. In short, the Iranian people were shocked as everything that occurred did not meet their expectations. Part of the reason that explains that is because the Iranian people did not know what to expect and the other part is because they blindly went into protests without considering the possible downfalls of Khomeini's regime. With that being said, in hindsight, I would have never been in favor of overthrowing the Shah had I known the outcome of Khomeini's religious regime. But, the funny thing is that people often unite for a particular cause that many may regret in the future and only in hindsight can you really say what a terrible decision that may have been. So, with that being said, it's really hard to say what was right and what was wrong at the time because nobody knew and that makes the situation all that more difficult and complicated.
PS...I wasn't sure how to do the posts originally and I posted this same blog in my personal blog page...goes to show how much I know how to use these pages...
I would have not participated in the revolution against the shah, like maggiejoon im a pacifist and the use of violence on both sides was so extreme, I would have probably fled the country.
The benefit of hindsight emphasizes the fact that it would have been in my case the right decision to leave the country.
When looking at that current situation, i would say no. I would have liked the Shah to stay in power. i believe that with a strong relationship with the US, that Iran would have benefited with Western technology and engineering. But I am also saying that because I am an American and that is how I was brought up. If i was put in that situation where a majority of the population wanted change, i could see myself joining the crowd by not wanting a foreign influenced ruler controling my country.
Post a Comment