Before 1979 the West had a pretty favorable impression of Iran, too.
GGG
Before 1979 the West had a pretty favorable impression of Iran, too.
Very interesting article. If it reveals a few twists the west has turned into our view of history, it also may suggest that freedom is much more culturally unique than Americans would like to believe -- and may possibly even be quite exclusive. Perhaps we should avoid trying to liberate the world and concentrate on defending what is already liberated.
There is a little bit of truth to this but some nonsense too. The Spartans were certainly not Africans. My classics professor said that although most of them were probably black headed, they were Doric Greeks and were often thought of as tall and blond as opposed to the Ionians who were shorter and had a Mediterranean complexion.
I've never understood the fascination Americans have with the Spartan society. From all the descriptions I have ever read about it, it doesn't sound like a place you'd want to live.
Ok, so a few of them died in a hopeless battle. So what? Custer led his men to a very stupid death. This doesn't make him a hero even though I'm sure his men fought bravely.
My documentary film about Cyrus The Great...has languished for a mere want of $400,000.
Beware the wrath of a poseur scorned!
I despise people who use the term BCE, using the term tells me that they are so politically correct that they are beyond redemption.
Interesting article (despite the wadded panty syndrome).
And is their not still a strain of Persian nationalism running through the place...and at common foe-hood with our Wahhab enemies??
My point? The guy has a point! Many!
The author needs to get with the program. The West has always been at war with Persia. The UK has always been our friend. France has always been a nation full of cheese eating surrender monkeys.
If the author wanted Westerners to agree with him, he should've written his stupid article pre- 1979 when Iran (Persia) was still our friend. Then he may have gotten a bit more support.
Iran in the present tense is not what Persia was in the past tense. Islam happened, and there went Persia. Conflating the two is in error.
'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.
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.
|
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!
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."
