Neda's death

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

mook

The 2018-19 season was the best I've seen
Joined
Sep 16, 2008
Messages
8,309
Likes
3,944
Points
113
With all the talk about whether this is a Twitter, Facebook, Bush or Obama revolution going on in Iran, the story of Neda's assassination seems to fit in a broader context of a rising women's movement:
In the United States, the most America-centric commentators have somberly attributed the strength of recent demonstrations to the election of Barack Obama. Others want to give credit to the democracy rhetoric of the Bush administration. Still others want to call this a "Twitter revolution" or a "Facebook revolution," as if zippy new technology alone had inspired the protests. But the truth is that the high turnout has been the result of many years of organizational work, carried out by small groups of civil rights activists and above all women's groups, working largely unnoticed and without much outside help.
Since 2006, the One Million Signatures Campaign has been circulating a petition, online and in print, that calls for an end to laws that discriminate against women and the enactment of laws that provide equal rights for women in marriage, equal rights to divorce, equal inheritance rights and equal testimony rights for men and women in court. Though based outside the country, the Abdorrahman Boroumand Foundation, founded by a pair of sisters, translates and publishes online fundamental human rights documents; it maintains an online database of the names of thousands of victims of the Islamic Republic as well. In the past decade, Iranian women have participated in student strikes as well as teachers' strikes, and in organizations of Bahai, Christian and other religious groups whose members are deemed "heretics" by the regime.
Not Obama, not Bush and not Twitter, in other words, but years of work and effort lie behind the public display of defiance and, in particular, the number of women on the streets -- and their presence matters. Their presence could strike the deepest blow against the regime. For at the heart of the ideology of the Islamic Republic is its claim to divine inspiration: Its leadership is legitimate, as is its harsh repression of women, because God has decreed that it is so. The outright rejection of this creed by tens of thousands of women, not just over the past weekend but over the past decade, has to weaken the Islamic Republic's claim to invincibility, in Iran and across the Middle East. The regime's political elite knows this well: It is no accident that the two main challengers to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the Iranian presidential campaign promised to repeal some of the laws that discriminate against women, and it is no accident that the leading challenger, Mir Hossein Mousavi, used his wife, a political scientist and former university chancellor, in his campaign appearances and posters.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/22/AR2009062202387.html
 
Interestingly, Iran used to me among the most "Western" of Middle Eastern countries under the Shah. The Iranian Revolution is a case where "Change" wasn't always good. Surely, the corrupt regime of the Shah deserved and needed to be overthown, but a Theocracy wasn't the answer. Let's hope this time, Iran gets the truly democratic government they deserve.

The repression of women under the guise of religion is an obscenity.
 
Interestingly, Iran used to me among the most "Western" of Middle Eastern countries under the Shah. The Iranian Revolution is a case where "Change" wasn't always good. Surely, the corrupt regime of the Shah deserved and needed to be overthown, but a Theocracy wasn't the answer. Let's hope this time, Iran gets the truly democratic government they deserve.

The repression of women under the guise of religion is an obscenity.

More interesting is the fact that the CIA helped to overthrow a burgeoning Iranian democracy in 1953, all to help BP maintain it's oil interests in Iran. Imagine a world where Iran was allowed to profit from its own oil (rather than ship it west for next to nothing) while growing that democracy up.

This is a part of Iranian history that gets glossed over in the West and that's a mistake. Here's a link to a great Smithsonian Magazine article (modern history is more on pages 3 and 4):

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/iran-fury.html
 
Mook, thanks for the post but I disagree that Iran was the most "westernized" in terms of women's rights under the shah. The shah himself said (in an interview with the late Oriana Fallaci) that "women are nothing, have produced nothing, nothing, not even a great chef". He outlawed wearing the veil in an attempt to appear "western" to foreign powers/investors, and ordered the police to tear the veil off any woman wearing it. But for many women the veil was either a sacred religious symbol and/or what they had been taught all their lives was necessary for modesty. Many women would not step outside for fear of being assaulted and undressed by the cops. Daughters by law inherited half of a son's inheritance, and custody of minor children in case of a father's death passed to an uncle, not the mother.

Under the shah, women required a father's or husband's permission to hold a job, drive, or travel outside the country. Women made up a significant portion of the political prisoners and were tortured as severely, or more so, than the men; Vida Hadjebi Tabrizi was the most famous but there were thousands. Women technically had the right to vote but the shah's party was the only one on the ballot.

One big difference we are seeing now, in 1979 women participated in the uprising but they marched in separate contingents, covered head to toe, at the back of the demonstrations. Now you see men and women marching side by side and many of the women wear only the headscarf, not full veil.
 
More interesting is the fact that the CIA helped to overthrow a burgeoning Iranian democracy in 1953, all to help BP maintain it's oil interests in Iran. Imagine a world where Iran was allowed to profit from its own oil (rather than ship it west for next to nothing) while growing that democracy up.

This is a part of Iranian history that gets glossed over in the West and that's a mistake. Here's a link to a great Smithsonian Magazine article (modern history is more on pages 3 and 4):

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/iran-fury.html

Yes, very good point. Iran was not Westernized under the Shaq. I believe Iran would actually have been more Westernized under Mossedeq, but like Hugo Chavez, he made the mistake of crossing American/British business interests in the name of his people.

I saw the video of her death, and it was really horrific, this is precisely why I get so angry when I hear people supporting the war. They are Chicken hawks, as Jesse Ventura calls them.
 
More interesting is the fact that the CIA helped to overthrow a burgeoning Iranian democracy in 1953, all to help BP maintain it's oil interests in Iran. Imagine a world where Iran was allowed to profit from its own oil (rather than ship it west for next to nothing) while growing that democracy up.

This is a part of Iranian history that gets glossed over in the West and that's a mistake. Here's a link to a great Smithsonian Magazine article (modern history is more on pages 3 and 4):

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/people-places/iran-fury.html

It's not glossed over by me. The bottom line is that in the Cold War, we suppored brutal dictatorships because they were easier to control than democracies. Also, the book "Dictatorships and Double Standards" by Jeanne Kirkpatrick is a terrific read about this very topic, even 30 some odd years later.
 
Yes, very good point. Iran was not Westernized under the Shaq. I believe Iran would actually have been more Westernized under Mossedeq, but like Hugo Chavez, he made the mistake of crossing American/British business interests in the name of his people.

I saw the video of her death, and it was really horrific, this is precisely why I get so angry when I hear people supporting the war. They are Chicken hawks, as Jesse Ventura calls them.

Damn. He really has transcended basketball. Was this during the time when he was promoting "Kazaam"?
 
More interesting is the fact that the CIA helped to overthrow a burgeoning Iranian democracy in 1953, all to help BP maintain it's oil interests in Iran. Imagine a world where Iran was allowed to profit from its own oil (rather than ship it west for next to nothing) while growing that democracy up.

I would think that the world would be much worse, actually. At least from my perspective as an American.

Ed O.
 
I would think that the world would be much worse, actually. At least from my perspective as an American.

Ed O.

??

Prior to the CIA's actions, the U.S. was well thought of by the Iranian people. You seem to assume Iran would still be a radically fundamental country, but it might well have grown into a democracy if it had been given the chance.
 
Interestingly, Iran used to me among the most "Western" of Middle Eastern countries under the Shah. The Iranian Revolution is a case where "Change" wasn't always good. Surely, the corrupt regime of the Shah deserved and needed to be overthown, but a Theocracy wasn't the answer. Let's hope this time, Iran gets the truly democratic government they deserve.

The repression of women under the guise of religion is an obscenity.

Theocracy's are never the answer. Once again, it is just another religion, using and abusing it's followers for the purpose of political control. After all our history, I do not know why anybody would expect anything different.
 
??

Prior to the CIA's actions, the U.S. was well thought of by the Iranian people. You seem to assume Iran would still be a radically fundamental country, but it might well have grown into a democracy if it had been given the chance.

It was a democracy. The monarchy had been overthrown and a republic established, with an elected parliament and prime minister.
 
??

Prior to the CIA's actions, the U.S. was well thought of by the Iranian people. You seem to assume Iran would still be a radically fundamental country, but it might well have grown into a democracy if it had been given the chance.

It might have. I'm not at all commenting on the fundamental nature of Iran, though, and whether they would have been our friends or our foes if we had let them do their own thing.

What I know what would have happened is that we would not have had cheap oil for a few decades, and without that cheap oil I do not believe our country would be as wealthy as it is. It's also possible the a "free" Iran would have been dominated by the Soviet Union and they would have had access to the cheap oil instead of us.

I'll take hegemony with a few hot spots (the way it is today) to almost any "what if" scenario that people raise from the Cold War era.

Ed O.
 
2009-06-23-VKEYD.jpg
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top