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 It is not even the outdated racist cliché of casting the Persians as Africans and the Spartans as white, blue-eyed 'Chippendale dancers,' when in reality the roles may well have been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.
I am sincerely curious.
What do you think would have beeb an appropriate response to 9/11?
Should it just be ignored because our recent history is not without flaw, in your opinion?
Do you not think it dangerous to allow acts of war such as this to pass without retaliation, even when it is unclear who we should retaliate against?
A quote from Geo Washington is never out of place.I note he said the people of these states...there were no citizens of the United States,except they be the states themselves.People were citizens of the state in which they resided.
What history are you reading? Washington didn't resign.
And so the debate goes.One vote here for Madison.
Yes by the babylonians and it was the Persians who freed them. What is your point?
I'm left wondering whether the movie will include this quote,and whether it's absence from the history channel's recounting is due to the fact that it is a rallying cry for supporters of the second amendment.
...oh for god's sake. It's just a movie based on a historical event.
ping
These two events don't belong on the same page together,unless you're drawing lessons about the difference between a true republican revolution and the nightmare of democracy.
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.
The Bill of Rights is a superfluous addendum.The whole point of the American revolution seems to be lost to Mr. Kar.America is not a democracy
The author of this article claims that the institution of slavery did not exist in ancient Persia.
However, Queen Esther, exact date unknown but certainly decades after the overthrow of Babylon, mentions the possibility that her people might have been sold into slavery by the King instead of being massacred.
If slavery did not in the empire, how could this have been even a possibility?
To be perfectly fair, the term "slavery" covers a multitude of relationships, with enormous variability as to status, rights, etc. down through history. All Persians considered themselves "slaves of the King." Since the King had power of life and death over all his subjects, this was indeed true in a very real sense.
1. This speech was given on his resignation from the Army on December 23, 1783, well before the establishment of our present national government by the Constitution. While your statement was accurate at the time he gave the speech, its applicability to today is at the very least debatable.
2. In the Dred Scott decision of 1857, the Supreme Court announced that certain groups of people could never become citizens of the United States, regardless of their status as citizens of an individual State.
It has been referred to as his resignation address by the historians such as Paul Johnson because he used the address to provide the country with formal notification that he would not continue to serve as President beyond his second term.
Middle East ping.
68 grunt has the defintion--though not the actual spelling (before the Common Era). It is a way for non-Christians to use the same dating system while not acknowledging Christ as Christ and the Year of the Lord. (Before Christ, Anno Domini).
I have never met a Persian that I didn't like. They are a great people with a great history. What is often called the Golden Age of Islam is really the propagation of Persian culture and society through the relatively uncivilized Arab empire. The Islamic thugs who run the country today are as big a problem to the Persian people as they are to the rest of us.
Some of this author's logic seems a tad strained, but I do agree that the modern-day US is much more like the Persia of 480 BC than Sparta. I also think it's important to realize that, just as the Spartans were never, ever, EVER going to allow the Persians to change their society, and to stop them from engaging in infanticide and buggering off with their young, nor will the Islamists ever, ever, EVER let us change their society. Hence the fundamental folly at the heart of neoconservatism, which is really a sort of liberalism inasmuch as it is rooted in the poisonous thinking of (ugh) idealism.
Every empire collapses when it overextends itself. Remember that Alexander crushed Darius and the Persians just a century or so after the events of "300." If the Persians hadn't attempted to expand into Greece, who knows what would have happened. This is the equivalent of a modern-day Saladin rising in the Middle East, uniting Arabdom, and crushing the West, beginning a new Asian ascent. And 2500 years from now, our descendants will be watching a film all about the current Iraq war, with those "noble" insurgents fighting to defend Iraq from an 8-foot-tall, ambiguously gay George Bush. The insurgents lost, of course, but 'twas this war that showed America to be weak, and thus the tide turned...
The ruler of Persia was, whatever his merits, what we used to call an oriental despot. Submission to his rule was demanded of all his subjects. The Caliphs of Bagdad and then the Turkish sultans all folllowed this form of government. The western tradition of government has always been different amd in broad terms can be called the history of liberty. Liberty vs. Submission. That has been the dynamic that has characterized western history. Submission vs. rebellion has been the dynamic of the east. The difference is essentially that in the west rebellion ains toward order. So the goal is ordered liberty, whereas rebellion aims only for chaos in which the rebels enjoy the spoils of violent action, which then ends inevitably in the restoration of despotism.
My mistake. Your quote was from his farewell speecth in 1796, not his speech resigning command of the army in 1783.
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.