Posted on 03/05/2015 4:32:24 PM PST by SJackson
[Iran’s Foreign Minister, Javad Zarif] Renews Vow to ‘Annihilate’ Israel, NBC Buries Lede
03/05/2015 7:24:52 AM PST · by E. Pluribus Unum · 4 replies
Breitbart.com ^ | 03/05/2015 | Joel B. Pollak
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3264509/posts
Don’t want to beat it to death, but you may be misunderstanding me. I’m not questioning that there were Iranians who saved Jews, I acknowledged that. 25,000 people are honored at Yad Vashem as Righteous Among The Nations from most of Europe, even a few from outside of Europe. However the commendable actions of Sardari, even if he saved 2,000 rather than the hundreds most sources cite, hardly qualifies Iran as a haven of the Jewish people. Zarif’s contension.
“It is of course nonsense, as all actual historians know. In fact, all Persians considered themselves the slaves of the King of Kings, and were proud of it.”
I’d be interested in a couple of independent links (not based on or related to Herodotus description).
“hardly qualifies Iran as a haven of the Jewish people. Zarif’s contension.”
Yes i agree with that.
P.S. - am unsure what you mean by ‘slave’ in the context of Cyrus, in relation to ‘slaves’ being proud of their King of Kings.
The word ‘subject’ like a British subject in a monarchy system comes to mind, and would be much more correct.
Other words such as ‘dependence’ also comes to mind. As do prisoners (of war) regarding what you suggest to be slavery.
Slave as in trading people existed when Cyrus came to power. Mostly in the lands he conquered thereafter. He was against slavery as he clearly states in his human rights charter. Furthermore he was pro religious freedom.
Today, i can be called a slave of my employer because i am dependent on him/her to earn income. If i have debts i can’t pay then i can be called a slave too. I’ll have to either serve a prison term or at least do community, no pay work. I can be called a slave.
As for Herodotus, ‘actual’ modern historians take his descriptions with a very large grain of salt.
According to Pierre Briant (in his publication From Cyrus to Alexander): “It is hard to separate history from fairly tale in Herodotus”.
I’ve read Herodotus and he seems real confused about many things he observed during his adventures, especially in iran.
His descriptions were written from his a Greek perspective, and just as bias as those presumably written to favor Cyrus.
There is more about pre-islamic iranians & how/why slavery was not part of iranian (persian) social or cultural structure. Maybe more on that later.
Not easy to find. As stated, the web is overrun with the meme that ancient Persians were abolitionists.
http://www.academia.edu/9989249/Slavery_in_Islam_vs._Late_Antiquity
http://bigpicturehistory.com/the-history-of-slavery/
http://www.hierarchystructure.com/ancient-persian-social-hierarchy/
http://slaverebellion.org/index.php?page=slavery-as-an-ancient-world-institution
http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Parthian.html
https://www.suu.edu/faculty/ping/pdf/PersianEmpireandAthens.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Slavery_in_Iran#Disputed
However, here was perhaps the best site: http://histclo.com/act/work/slave/anc/sa-spe.html
It should be noted that some of the above sites are discussing periods of Persian/Iranian history later than the Achaemenid, such as Parthians or Sassanids. However, all later Persian dynasties revered the Achaemenids and claimed to be reproducing their way of life.
It should also be noted that the Acheamenid Empire, by its very policy of ruling lightly, left local institutions such as slavery largely untouched in the provinces.
Don’t get me wrong, I thought 300 was really silly. The Persian/Greek wars were not between slave and free peoples. They were between peoples ruled by an absolute monarch and ruled by an aristocracy, albeit often a pretty large aristocracy. I also am aware that by the standards of previous and later empires the Achaemenids were quite tolerant and kind to their subjects.
However, the Persians were very clear about the whole absolute monarch bit. More or less by definition, all subjects of a truly absolute monarch are his slaves. He can at will dispose of their libes, their families and their property. History has many examples of the Persian kings doing exactly that.
The whole subject is also obscured by the fact that we speak of “slave” and “free.” But those are concepts that didn’t always apply in the ancient world. Many people lived in legal conditions that were in between or didn’t fit neatly into either category. Also, many slaves, especially of the King became wealthy and powerful.
Found some better info. Here’s a good description. When Cyrus and the Persians conquered the Middle East, they were still quite primitive. Their social institutions, including slavery, were not well defined. They quickly got over that and imitated the customs of their new subjects in Babylon and elsewhere.
http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/barda-i
Moe critically, much of the meme that the Persians were abolitionists is based on the Cyrus Cylinder. Found a translation. Pretty tough to extract the 13th Amendment from it, IMO.
http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/articles/c/cyrus_cylinder_-_translation.aspx
IOW, I think people read into the Cyrus Cylinder and the other very limited documentation from that period what they want to believe. Most of these are probably anti-Western leftists. Some perhaps are Iranian nationalists, though they’re faced with the dilemma that if they claim pre-Muslim Iran was slave-free they have to admit Islam brought the institution in.
None of this should be construed as making the Greeks or Romans look better. Both societies, especially Rome, were much more heavily based on slavery than any of the pre-Muslim Iranian societies.
“According to Iranian government figures, roughly 8,800 Jews live in the country, out of a total 26,000 Jews in the entire Middle East outside Israel.”
80,000-8,800 = 71,200 emigrants
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/iranjews.html
“Under the Phalevi Dynasty, established in 1925, the country was secularized and oriented toward the West. This greatly benefited the Jews, who were emancipated and played an important role in the economy and in cultural life. On the eve of the Islamic Revolution in 1979, 80,000 Jews lived in Iran. In the wake of the upheaval, tens of thousands of Jews, especially the wealthy, left the country, leaving behind vast amounts of property.”
“Most of these are probably anti-Western leftists. Some perhaps are Iranian nationalists, though they’re faced with the dilemma that if they claim pre-Muslim Iran was slave-free they have to admit Islam brought the institution in.”
Actually, a lot of anti-Cyrus propaganda started to be spread after mullahs regime took over in iran & continues to date. They called Cyrus a despot, a thug and a homosexual. Because the mullahs detest the monarchs in iran, particularly pre-islamic ones. Or those such as the Pahlavis who tried to diminish the influence of mullahs & islamic rule in iran. The mullahs even attacked Cyrus’ tomb in iran, wanting to destroy it. People there formed a human chain around the tomb and eventually the islamic thugs after much stone throwing & persuasion left. This was back in 1980s.
Sadly, some westerners have simply picked up mullahs propaganda, without understanding much about iran’s pre-islamic culture, how it changed post-islam and regurgitate mullahs propaganda. This is combined with those who have pro republic and anti-monarchy beliefs.
In more recent yrs the mullahs regime has learned to capitalize on pre-islamic heritage of iran WHEN IT SUITS THEM. Yet they still despise the Kings.
I absolutely agree with those who say slavery was a well established practice by Babylonians, Medians and basically carried over culturally and socially with Mohamad & his islamic gangs.
It’s a real shame that alexander, muslim arabs & the monghols destroyed libraries & much written documentation in iran after their invasion. Hence now we’ve few reliable documentation & must look to other sources to draw an accurate, balanced conclusion.
You’re right, Cryus largely left the provinces alone to self-rule. Kinda like a federation style system. But the fact that he was against slavery & pro religious freedom is already established. He paid ‘ransom’ to not only free the jews but also decreed that jews go back and rebuild their temple. His successor Darius implemented that decree & actually helped finance it too. Deeds in this case speak louder than words.
Thank you for the links. I’ve seen most of them. I’ll look into others later.
Depending on your definition, that defines just about every King in history, certainly every conqueror.
Though possibly not the homo part.
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.