Best not to forget. Once forgotten, it's almost pointless to try to teach again.
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 It is not even the outdated racist cliché of casting the Persians as Africans and the Spartans as white, blue-eyed 'Chippendale dancers,' when in reality the roles may well have been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.
'300' bashers, however, seem to identify with its "Persia". Why? There is no "Persian Empire" any longer, and people who feel compelled to "defend" it against the inaccuracies of a MOVIE BASED ON A COMIC BOOK just seem to protest too much.
Best not to forget. Once forgotten, it's almost pointless to try to teach again.
Our Declaration was penned in his hand.
BCE = Before Christian Era.
A long, long time ago,
a battle was fought,
and stories were told about it.
Two thousand years later someone wrote a comic book,
that was loosly based,
on the stories that were told,
about the battle that was fought,
a long, long time ago.
Then someone made a movie.
that was loosly based,
on the comic book that was written,
that was loosly based,
on the stories that were told,
about the battle that was fought,
a long, long time ago.
Now people want to complain,
that the movie that was made,
that was loosly based,
on the comic book that was written,
that was loosly based on,
the stories that were told,
about the battle that was fought,
a long, long time ago,
... is not historically accurate.
Believe it or not,
"Blazing Saddles"
is not an accurate portrayal of the old west.
Every piece of art (especially films) are a mirror of THEIR time.
As another poster pointed out, Islam's invasion of Persia changed Persia profoundly to the worse...
The noble attempt of the Pahlavi Shahs to revive the pre-Islamic Iran ultimately failed.
Before 1979 the Image of Iranians internationally was very positive, it was seen as exotic and glamorous, post-1979 it's barbarbic and dangerous. The Islamic Revolution changed the West's perception.
We see the Persians in "300" as reflections of the post-1979 "Iranians"... they therefore represent the Khomeinist threat and not the ancient Persians of the Bible, romantic figures of Omar Chayyam or the Pahlavi-era Iranians.
|
Yes so unfortunate but true.
b4 common era
No not to the intellectual ivory towers, it stands for Before the Common Era to them.
Excellent post! That quote effectively summarizes the attention and admiration for the Spartans and the battle of Thermopylae.
Domesticated animals and enslaved humans and a vast number of people were needed to work on projects of agriculture, warfare and monumental construction. State owned slaves in the mines (Olmstead, 1948: 74 ff), and they were well paid (Dandemaev and Lukonin, 1989: 161-2), but they had the status of livestock moveable property (op. cit 153). The household of the Great King maintained a large retinue of slaves who functioned as plowmen, millers, cow herds, shepherds, winemakers and beer brewers, cooks, bakers, wine waiters and eunuchs (Dandamaev and Lukonin, 1989: 158, 170). Of the slaves at Persepolis, 12.7% were boys, and 10% were girls (Fortification Tablets). Dandemaev and Lukonin (1989: 160–1), concluded that these slaves lived together as families but they were also moved around the empire in what amounts to job lots. Documents record the movements of between 150 and 1500 slaves from one site to another. In Babylon, Egypt and the Greek cities of Lydia, the arrangements predating the Persians were kept. Slaves were usually acquired through warfare (Falcelière et al, 1970: 433), and were known as "the booty of the bow" (Dandamaev and Lukonin, 1989: 156). The peace established by the Great King would have effectively dried up this source. However, the Great Kings enslaved satrapies and cities which rebelled (Dandemaev and Lukonin, 1989: 170). Slavery was usually seen as a hereditary state, the children of those slaves maintained private stocks. Household slaves could be bought (Herodotos, vm, 1os). There was a privately owned slave labour force doing menial tasks. In Babylon, debtors could sell themselves into slavery (Olmstead, 1948: 74 ff), but this quickly died out under Persian rule (Dandemaev and Lukonin, 1989: 156). Everyone from the highest nobles down were defined as bandaka (the slaves of the Great King) (Kurht, 1995: 687), or 'those who wear the belt of dependence' (Wiesehoefer, 1996:31). This meant that taxation was due in money, precious metals, goods, military service and labour.
http://hsc.csu.edu.au/ancient_history/societies/near_east/persian_soc/persiansociety.html
Considerable looking around on the web found lots of Iranian-run sites proclaiming the absence of slavery in ancient Persia, but without any documentation for the claim.
I found the last two sentences of the quote above particularly enlightening. In Persia, as in all absolute monarchies and dictatorships, everybody except the monarch/dictator was by definition a slave. The Persian Empire's rule was often benevolent relative to those empires which preceded and followed it, but slavery is still slavery even when the slave is treated well.
The essence of individual freedom is that the government is unable to do certain things to you. The Great King of ancient Persia had no constraints at all on his actions.
I disagree with the author's assertion. The fact is, for the past 60+ years the United States government has dedicated itself to manipulation and control of the world asserting itself as an empire despite the warnings of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.
For more information, I suggest you and read the book "The Sorrows of Empire" and "Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire" both written by former C.I.A. analyst Chalmers Johnson.
Any semblence of the United States retaliating for the events surrounding 09/11 are unjustifiable due to the U.S. government's actions of intervening militarily and politically in places like the Middle East and, yes, sending foreign aid to countries like Israel, Egypt and the like which radicalizes and provokes people, like Muslims, to become terrorists.
If our own history of resisting the British Empire is any guide, people ultimately will never and should never submit to be ruled by another.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know. You all are going to insult me with insinuations that I am "disloyal to our country/troops" or are "un-American" but, hey, the truth hurts.
Connect the dots,genius!
Spartan society was nothing more than ruling homos. At a very young age, boys were sent to learn about being a "man". He was taught not only combat techniques, but was also buggered by teachers and students alike. This was suppose to form a relationship with his comrade...they were to become manly men first.
...as well as "democracy" and "gender equality."
Esther chapter 7:
"3 Then Queen Esther answered, "If I have found favor with you, O king, and if it pleases your majesty, grant me my life—this is my petition. And spare my people—this is my request. 4 For I and my people have been sold for destruction and slaughter and annihilation. If we had merely been sold as male and female slaves, I would have kept quiet, because no such distress would justify disturbing the king."
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.
