Posted on 03/18/2007 9:32:41 AM PDT by freedom44
The Battle of Thermopylae was of course written by the classical Greek author, Herodotus, who lived in the Persian city of Halicarnassus. His book, 'The Histories' became part of Western folklore only recently. It was not until about 1850 that America embraced Herodotus as the leading authority on Persian history.
Before 1850, however, the West had a very favorable impression of the Persian Empire. That's because the West's main source for Persian history was the Bible and the 'Cyropaedia,' written by another Greek author named Xenophon.
But the Cyropaedia glorified the monarchy of Cyrus The Great, and in the wake of two bloody revolutions fought by America and France to liberate themselves from their own monarchies, a major campaign began, around the mid 19th century, to promote democracy throughout the rest of Europe, and Herodotus was the perfect propaganda tool.
Herodotus was a democratic groupie and was quickly ushered in as the "Father Of History." Around 1850, his 'Battle Of Thermopylae' came to symbolize the West's struggle for democracy against the powerful forces of Persia's monarchy.
The story is easy to buy into: 300 brave Spartans saved Western democracy from 2.7 million evil Persians. But aside from the fanciful numbers which need decimal-point adjustments, this whimsical tale has far graver consequences than a mere biased account of history.
The 'Battle Of Thermopylae' has been the single most powerful wedge, which has divided East and West for over 2 millennia. In a time when East and West should be reconciling their differences, along comes the movie '300' to drive that wedge even deeper.
What is most disturbing about this movie is not that it lacks historical accuracy. It is not that Xerxes, the Grandson of Cyrus The Great and loving husband of Esther, is shown as an oversized drag queen. It is not even the outdated racist cliché of casting the Persians as Africans and the Spartans as white, blue-eyed 'Chippendale dancers,' when in reality the roles may well have been reversed.
What is so distressing about this movie is the realization of the tremendous power Hollywood wields in determining a people's identity. It is the same nightmare Native Americans endured during the whole 'cowboy-movie' genre.
But for those who are quick to dismiss '300' as a fleeting fantasy flick aimed at the insignificant, 17 to 24 year-old male video-gamer, think again. First there was Alexander, now '300,' next could well be the 'Battle Of Marathon,' another one of Herodotus's glowing accounts of ancient Persia.
Herodotus is accepted blindly by virtually all Western demographics. Even the New York Times is not immune. Here is how it described the Persians in its April 20, 2004 issue about the Battle Of Marathon:
"the defeat of a ruthless state (Persia) that had enslaved much of the known world from the Balkans to the Himalayas."
"the ancient Greeks defeated the Asian invaders (Persia) and saved Europe in what scholars call one of the first great victories of freedom over tyranny" - William J. Broad, (NY Times)
Persian Empire Cyrus The Great
What stretches the limits of hypocrisy is that there isn't a single shred of archeological evidence that the Persians ever owned slaves. Yet we know that slavery was an integral cornerstone of Greek society. Aristotle's manifesto even sanctions it. Persia, which was once a haven for runaway slaves from Egypt, Greece, and later Rome, is today branded as a slave-hungry empire by cultures which were built on slavery!
What makes Herodotus's propaganda so difficult to refute is that it is peppered with facts. But in reality, it is a desperate diatribe. Perhaps his biggest ploy is his attempt to equate democracy with freedom. These two words are used virtually interchangeably throughout his book. And the West has swallowed it hook-line-and-sinker.
But America's founding fathers knew better. They were not swayed by Herodotus. They implemented many safeguards to protect freedom from the pitfalls that mired Athenian democracy. Even Winston Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others which have been tried."
Democracy may well be the best form of government. But what makes America great is not so much democracy as it is its Bill Of Rights. And this is exactly what made Persia Great. Democracy can often lead to tyranny by the majority as was the case in democratic Athens, where women, slaves and foreigners did not have the right to vote.
In monarchic Persia, however, women enjoyed a level of gender equality unmatched even to this day, and slavery was not practiced. The fact is, Persia's monarchy was more free than Athens' democracy, all because of Persia's Bill Of Rights.
No one exemplifies Persia's freedom better than Herodotus himself. He describes Athens as the bastion of freedom, yet he chose to live in Persia. Xenophon, on the other hand, who actually lived in Athens, reminisces enviably about the monarchy of Cyrus The Great?
Herodotus claims Persia had enslaved most of the known world, yet we know Herodotus was not a slave. He traveled freely throughout the empire, openly criticizing it.
Why did Herodotus not live in Greece? Because Persia - the empire he is so quick to demonize - afforded him the very freedom to publish his scathing report of it. People want to live where their god-given rights are protected, regardless of whether its democratic or monarchic.
These god-given rights were first drafted into law by the founder of the Persian empire, Cyrus The Great. In fact, ancient Persia may well have served as the blue print for America's Bill Of Rights. Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the architects of America's Constitution, were great admirers and owned several copies of Xenophon's Cyropaedia.
Today, no other country resembles ancient Persia as closely as does the United States. If any country should sympathize with, rather than celebrate, Persia's quagmire in Greece it is the United States. Few events in history mirror America's war on terror as closely as Persia's war on Greece.
The Greeks had been carrying out terrorist attacks on Persian holdings for years. They had attacked Persian cities, set fire to Persian temples, disrupted key trade routes, and pirated merchant ships crossing the Bosphorus. They incited rebellions inside Persian provinces, but perhaps most abhorrent to the Persians was the ease by which the Greeks broke their treaties and betrayed Persia's trust.
Rather than resort to violence, however, Persia tried to keep the Greeks in check by financially supporting Greek politicians who were "pro-Persian," much the same way America fights its proxy wars. But what finally triggered Persia's wrath was an act rarely mentioned in the West, though well documented, even by Herodotus (7:11).
Persia's 9/11:
In 498 BCE, Athens carried out a terrorist attack on Sardis, a major Persian city, which made 9/11 seem like child's play. Aristagoras, an Athenian, set fire to the "outlying parts" of Sardis trapping most of its population "in a ring of fire." (Herodotus 5:101)
More innocent civilians died at the hands of Aristagoras than Osama bin Laden could ever hope to kill. And just as most of the world supported America's retaliation against Al Qaeda, so did it rally in support of Persia's attack on Athens.
The Spartans were not even targets of Persia's attack, until they violated a universal protocol by killing a Persian messenger who Herodotus claims was asking for Sparta's submission but in reality was probably sent by Persia's king, Xerxes to convey the same message America sent to the entire world after 9/11: "you're either with us, or against us."
The Spartans were Greek Jihadists who lived only to die. They were by all accounts ruthless savages who murdered Greek slaves known as "Helots" just for sport, cultivated a culture of thievery and rape, and practiced infanticide, as the movie '300' rightly points out in its opening scenes. Sparta was not even democratic. It was an oligarchy at best. Despite knowing all this, the West continues to hail the Spartans as the saviors of Western democracy.
Yes, the Spartans died fighting a foreign invader. But so do countless terrorists, yet few would consider them "good guys." Those who do are then not much different from Westerners who cheer for the Spartans.
Persia was drawn into a protracted war against terror, much the same way the U.S. was. Cheering for the Spartans merely because they were underdogs, is like cheering for Osama bin Laden today.
The Power Of Film:
History is no longer written by the victors, it is written by filmmakers. When will the children of Persia rise up and fight back using the same weapon Hollywood has used for decades to denigrate the legacy of their ancestors? When will we abandon our defensive posture and begin to write our own history again?
Perhaps the movie '300' was a necessary wake up call. But Persia bashing will never disappear on its own. It is the main villain in the Western saga. The only way it will change is through the power of film.
Alex Jovy's epic movie about Cyrus The Great could have done wonders for the Iranian image. Most minority groups in America understand the power of film and are quick to finance films that communicate their stories to the rest of the world. But Alex Jovy's movie today sits idle due lack of money. My documentary film about Cyrus The Great (www.spentaproductions.com) has languished for a mere want of $400,000.
Iranians are the most affluent and educated minority group in America. If we set our minds to it, we could literally change the world. This Norooz, I hope all Iranians, regardless of race, religion or political affiliation, resolve to finally unite in an effort to redeem the reputation of our ancestors.
>>It's just a movie based on a historical event.
Even worse: a movie based on a *comic book* loosely based on a historical event.
The world is made of disagreements, especially from people who resent successful governments. As to England, it is a constitutional monarchy, not an absolutist one. The monarch plays only a symbolic role today and has done just that for quite some time now.
As for empire, the main reason was to spread the values and language of the English speaking people around the world. It succeeded in that aim. When most of Britain's colonies had absorbed enough of those values to govern themselves, they were given their freedom and became part of the Commonwealth. And some were given that political freedom too soon, only to engage in civil wars killing hundreds of thousands.
The history of the US is somewhat different. But we also owe our values and language to the English. And we do have a Special Relation with Great Britain which is our greatest friend and ally.
As for the British Empire, it has been replaced by the hegemony of the US. And their is no sign of that changing soon. But of course all empires decline eventually and are replaced by others. Who would you rather see in that role: China or a fundamentalist Islamic Caliphate? If that should come to pass, I think many people who resent the success of the English-speaking peoples will come to understand how magnanimous the English and Americans were. The world would be very different under Chinese or Islamic hegemeny.
actually it is fairly historically accurate in its plot.
Visually it may have taken liberties but the plotline and the historical points are dead on.
For confirmation goto http://www.themoviespoiler.com
It has a text synopisis sans visuals.
It is a VERY good movie.
"In 498 BCE, Athens carried out a terrorist attack on Sardis, a major Persian city, which made 9/11 seem like child's play. Aristagoras, an Athenian, set fire to the "outlying parts" of Sardis trapping most of its population "in a ring of fire."
Sardis was an the Athenian acropolis, one of the many ancient Greek colonies founded in Anatolia/Asia Minor(Modern Turkey) that came under Persian control when the Persian Empire expanded its power. So in general that wasn't a "Persian" city that was burned to the ground, more like a "Greek occupied city".
No they didn't. You "buggered" a boy or any male in ancient Greek society, incudling Spartan society, and you were either exiled or put to death. Don't listen to all that revisionist modern fake 'history' put forth by scholars who themselves are homosexuals. Unlike what these pseudo "proffesors" and some other misinformed individuals claim, we have what the ancient Greeks, including the Spartans, say about this matter and it is very clear homosexuality/bisexuality/sexual pedastry was against their laws and views including Plato's views on same sex relations where he calls same sex relations "the crime of male with male, or female with female, is an outrage on nature":
"Whether these matters are to be regarded as sport, or as earnest, we must not forget that this pleasure is held to have been granted by nature to male and female when conjoined for the work of procreation; the crime of male with male, or female with female, is an outrage on nature and a capital surrender to lust of pleasure." ~(Laws I 636a-d)
[16]'If any Athenian shall outrage a free-born child, the parent or guardian of the child shall demand a specific penalty. If the court condemn the accused to death, he shall be delivered to the constables and be put to death the same day. If he be condemned to pay a fine, and be unable to pay the fine immediately, he must pay within eleven days after the trial, and he shall remain in prison until payment is made. The same action shall hold against those who abuse the persons of slaves.' ~Aeschines "Athenian Law 16"
Oh and Aeschines also tell us about a father who locked up his daughter because she lost her virginity before she was married in this huge house were none could get to her, a fate that according to him, that was worse then death. These were views held by the ancient Greeks LONG before some of these modern fake 'scholars' starting spreading this myth that ancient Greek society was so "open" to homosexuality/bisexuality or that they were "so open" about their sexuality. They were not, those are modern ideology that never existed in ancient Greece.
[13] The customs instituted by Lycurgus were opposed to all of these. If someone, being himself an honest man, admired a boy's soul and tried to make of him an ideal friend without reproach and to associate with him, he approved, and believed in the excellence of this kind of training. But if it was clear that the attraction lay in the boy's outward beauty, he banned the connexion as an abomination; and thus he caused lovers to abstain from boys no less than parents abstain from sexual intercourse with their children and brothers and sisters with each other. ~Xenophon, Constitution of the Lacedaemonians 2.13
But the men of Lacedaemon, holding that "if a man but lay his hand upon the body and for lustful purpose, he shall thereby forfeit claim to what is beautiful and noble"--do, in the spirit of their creed, contrive to mould and fashion their "beloved ones" to such height of virtue,[71] that should these find themselves drawn up with foreigners, albeit no longer side by side with their own beloved,[72] conscience will make desertion of their present friends impossible. Self-respect constrains them: since the goddess whom the men of Lacedaemon worship is not "Shamelessness," but "Reverence. ~Xenophon, Symposium (The Banquet) 8.70
Spartan 'love' had nothing to do with shamefulness, if there ever was any such a suspicion since they would have brought shame upon Sparta. The result would be the exile of both of the loss of their lives.. ~Claudius Aelianus 'History' III.12
'Any male Sparta that admires a Lakonian youth, admires him only as we would a very beautiful statue. For bodily pleasures of this type are brought upon them by Hubris and are forbidden..' ~Maximus of Tyre "Declamations' 20.e
'[F]or the man who in his youth was led by shameful indulgence to surrender honorable ambition, that man [say the lawgivers] ought not in later life to be possessed of the privileges of citizenship.' ~Aeschines "Athenian: Scrutiny of Public Men"
Aeschines in his speech also reference the Lacedaemonians in where he speaks about the Spartans where during a one of their assembly events where '[a] man who in despite of nature has shamed against his own body' was voted down by the Spartans and Aeschines used this event to praises the Lacedaemonians ways by quoting an old Athenian saying "kalon d' esti dai tas xenikas mimeisthai" translation: "well to imitate virtue even in a foreigner." ~ Aeschines: Against Timarchus ([180]-[181])
Plus this event did not take place during the battle with Leonidas and Xerxes. It was during Xerxes' father, Daruis, invasion of Greece and only the Athenians killed their emissary, the Spartans just threw theirs into a well taunting him to go fetch the 'earth and water' for their King from there but they let their Persian messanger go.
Not true: 1) Spartans didn't throw babies down a cliff. Unwanted babies were exposed/abandon and they would either die by elements or rescued by other people and raised as their own. This was a practice common through out the whole ancient Greek world, not only to Sparta. 2) Only criminals and condemned adults were thrown to their death from a cliff. In ancient Greek society abandoned infants were often placed in clay pots or vases that would either serve as his/her coffin or a nice wrapped "gift box", if you will, for anyone interested in 'adopting' the infant. Parents would place the clapy pots or bases in areas such as near the city's gates where not only natives of that city passed by but anyone visiting the city would more then likely pass through the city gates or temples that were visited often by ancient Greeks making the chances of a baby to be taken in by others very likely. Plus most ancient Greek myths spoke about infants who were exposed by their parents but escaped death because they were claimed by passerbyers, so it was something that parents who "gave up their babies" believed this ideology, even if reality might not have been as such, that their children would be "rescued" by a stranger given most of their literature was of this nature, including their most famous hero Hercules and Ion the ancestor of one of ancient Greece's several tribes, the Ionians.
This method known as "exposing the baby" gave the infant the chance to be rescued or claimed by a passerby and brought up by another family so he/she would survive. So abandoning him/her near the woods, hill side, temples were priestesses often took the child in or by the gates of a city would give the baby a chance for survival at least if claimed by others. Plus as mentioned before we hear of this kind of exposure were infants abandoned and rescued by others in many of their literature, i.e. Paris, Oedipus and the most famous of ancient Greek heroes Hercules was abandoned and rescued by the Goddesses Athena and Hera. Also it wasn't always because a baby was "deformed" or "unwanted" that she or he were abandoned, there were various reasons including parents who could not afford to raise their baby they gave him or her up.
This exposure practice was also common with the Romans and when Christianity came along many Romans were highly suspicious of Christian adoptions of abandoned Roman babies.
Not quite. Sparta's governing system is closer to Romes and what we call "our Republic one" then some people actually know. Democratic is what Athens was. Sparta was a Republic. When speaking of Sparta people don't call them a democracy, but republic. The Spartans did not require the people to vote on matters directly themselves by each and every citizen as Athens did. The Spartan constitution placed that responsibility in the hands of the deliberative body that was chosen from amongst the people. The Romans would latter refer to this as "res publica", or "representation of the public." The Romans adopted the Spartan form of government, not the Athenian democracy, as their own. What Sparta and Rome had in common was they were both republics with strong democratic traditions, governing systems not found in eastern cultures of that era.
"Democracy can often lead to tyranny by the majority as was the case in democratic Athens, where women, slaves and foreigners did not have the right to vote."
Another catch-phrase. The author automatically castes women as "minorities" (by exclusion from the opposite).
The author's piece has a bit in common with the half truths told by Herodotus.
"The West has always been at war with Persia. "\
Back then, it is well documented that in the years following Thermopolae, the Delian League fought with a tool of the Persian Empire that would one day lead to it's involvement in the world being immoratlized by the Marine Corps Hymn.
Pirates.
Custer was unaware of a cavalry battle (the Battle of the Rosebud) which had taken place just a week or two earlier. It was in this battle that the Indian side used sophisticated cavalry tactics for the first time.
If Custer had known this, he probably would not have made mistakes (that in hindsight) are easy to criticize.
Custer took such a heavy toll of the Indians that they were never again able to take on the cavalry in a stand up type of battle. He absolutely defeated them, even in his death, the entire Indian nation was defeated.
Same with the Spartans, as military as they were, they were men and women of their time. So were all the rest, Athenians and Persians too. Although the Greeks had slaves, they were the first (or one of the first) cultures to publish intellectual ideas necessary for freedom and equality. Even more they debated these ideas. The practice of debate among citizens, even though citizens were a limited group was critical also. Just think what they could have done if they established a patent office.
Islam did not even exist in that time. The Battle is one of heroism, where a small dedicated force did not cut and run. Their actions are inspirational, and like Custer's lead to the ultimate defeat of a huge force arrayed against them.
Most of the people I've met who migrated to the States from Iran have proudly called themselves "Persian" over Iranian. Just an observvation.
It most demonstrably is not.
But what makes America great is not so much democracy
Oh goody. Another foreign idiot who thinks that America is a democracy.
L
The appropriate response to 09/11 is simple: LEAVE. Back when Ronald Reagan was President, a US embassy in Lebanon was bombed by terrorists in which many of the Marines stationed there to guard the emabssy were killed.
Soon after this occured, I believe Reagan ordered the troops withdrawn and abandoned the embassy. With Bush's talking up of Ronald Reagan, it is unfortunate that Bush seems to not take after him in this regard.
This goes to show me that Bush doesn't give a hoot about the safety and well-being of the troops.
Leave where? New York? DC?
You seem to think the proper thing to do when attacked is to run away. While I admire Reagan immensely, his quick pullout after the attack on our troops there was one of the factors leading to Osama deciding the US is a paper tiger.
Given the likely playing out of things in Congress, we appear to be heading in parchment feline direction now.
BTW, the Marines killed in Lebanon were not there to guard the embassy. They were there as peacekeepers in the eternal feuds of the various Lebanese factions. One of the factions didn't appreciate their presence and made one of the first major suicide bomber attacks to get them out. He (or rather his faction) got what they wanted. We left. Leading to other groups deciding that all you had to do to get the US to leave was to kill a few Americans.
This perception is not healthy for the world, and certainly not for America.
I fnot Chalmers Johnson surely Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were right.
Although I am not religious, I think the Bible said it adequately that "Ye reaps what ye sows".
You might also want to read the book All the Shah's Men by Stephen Kinzer. In this, the author details the events of Operation Ajax that lead to the ousting of Iranian President Mohammed Mossadegh and installing the Shah of Iran.
With the SAVAK the Shah ruled Iran with an iron fist and, as a result, Iranian rage at this smoldered until it reached its peak in 1979.
Kinzer's book details how the U.S.'s problems in the middle east were a result of this one event.
As you say, democracy is not the best form of government.
The best is a benevolent dictatorship.
The problem is that nobody has ever found a way to ensure that dictatorships stay benevolent. Given the corrupting effects of power, they never will.
Democracy, in the republican American version, is simply a mechanism for ensuring that no person or group becomes entrenched in power. As such, it works better over the long run than any other system ever devised.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.