4 ms·

> This is completely false when you're talking about Iran. I wouldn't say completely false. > An Iranian state has existed in more or less continuous form as

> This is completely false when you're talking about Iran. I wouldn't say completely false. > An Iranian state has existed in more or less continuous form as an independent polity since the breakup of the Timurid Empire in ~1500. More or less? Independent polity? You are independent or you are not independent. You can't be "more or less" independent than you can be "more or less" pregnant. It certainly wasn't independent after it was invaded and conquered by the british and soviets? It certainly wasn't independent after the british and soviets installed their own puppet to rule over iran. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran Iran, china, india, etc all love to claim thousand years whatever. Perhaps culturally, historically, etc they have a point but neither iran, china, india, etc are old states.

jcranmer 5y ago
The "more or less" applied to "continuous", not "independent." But if you really want to argue that independence is a simple binary decision... you're just flat out wrong. No, seriously. Let's take what should be a simple example: Canada. When did Canada become independent? Well... Wikipedia lists no fewer than three separate dates, and that's really understating the matter. The Canadian Confederation was proclaimed on July 1, 1867 (and this is the date that Canada celebrates as its main independence day, FWIW). This created the basic structure of the Canadian government, but all changes to it required approval by Westminster, and Canada was not allowed autonomy in several areas of law, most notably foreign policy. This changed after the Canadian dissatisfaction with British negotiation of the US-Canada border dispute in the Alaska panhandle, and Canada started entering into international agreements and treaties in its own right in the early 1900s. The Statute of Westminster in 1931 dropped all legislative oversight over Canada, except for constitutional changes which came about in 1982. So I ask you again, when did Canada become independent? Now, for bonus points, take the same criteria and ask if places such as Greenland, Bermuda, Taiwan, Palestine, Abu Dhabi, or Federated States of Micronesia are independent or not.
- dotcommand 5y ago
  > The "more or less" applied to "continuous", not "independent." Does that make a difference? You are either continuously independent or not continuously independent. > But if you really want to argue that independence is a simple binary decision... you're just flat out wrong. No, seriously. No. You either are independent or not independent. It's basic logic. > Let's take what should be a simple example: Canada. When did Canada become independent? Well... Wikipedia lists no fewer than three separate dates, and that's really understating the matter. Should be a clue to you that canada isn't independent. No country that worships the queen of another country is. I never considered canada an independent country. > Now, for bonus points, take the same criteria and ask if places such as Greenland, Bermuda, Taiwan, Palestine, Abu Dhabi, or Federated States of Micronesia are independent or not. None of these are independent countries. Not sure about abu dhabi as I don't know about about it. Nice little distraction you took us on. Funny how you completely ignored the part about iran being invaded and conquered. Instead of accepting that you were wrong, you decided to double down and take us on a tangent. Nice. I can see where this is going. That iran has not been "more or less" continuously independent nation isn't a matter of debate. It's a matter of historical and political and military fact.
  - jcranmer 5y ago
    How is the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran--that resulted in the removal of one monarch in favor of the next-in-line, the continuation of the territorial integrity of Iran, and did not result in any significant changes in the internal political structure of Iran--a complete break in the general continuity of Iran's political existence that renders Iran nothing more than a 20th century Russian/British creation, whereas the 1979 Iranian Revolution--which did many of those things (except for effecting the borders)--is not? The historical fact is that an Iranian state composed predominantly of Iranian peoples and ruled by Iranians has existed for 2 and a half millennia. And honestly, rather like China, even when Iranians are being ruled by non-Iranians, Iranian culture is still a prestige culture, especially in the Abbasid caliphate. The Iranian nation-state cannot be a mere product of British/Russian influence when it predates the existence of either of those nations (not even countries, nations), and the British and the Russians played no part in effecting the creation of said nation-state, at best merely temporarily disestablishing it. And this is why I said "more or less continuously." I'm not denying that there are disruptions to continuity--were I to do so, I would not need to modify "continuous." Instead, I'm denying that those disruptions actually matter for the political analysis.

jcranmer 5y ago

The "more or less" applied to "continuous", not "independent." But if you really want to argue that independence is a simple binary decision... you're just flat out wrong. No, seriously. Let's take what should be a simple example: Canada. When did Canada become independent? Well... Wikipedia lists no fewer than three separate dates, and that's really understating the matter. The Canadian Confederation was proclaimed on July 1, 1867 (and this is the date that Canada celebrates as its main independence day, FWIW). This created the basic structure of the Canadian government, but all changes to it required approval by Westminster, and Canada was not allowed autonomy in several areas of law, most notably foreign policy. This changed after the Canadian dissatisfaction with British negotiation of the US-Canada border dispute in the Alaska panhandle, and Canada started entering into international agreements and treaties in its own right in the early 1900s. The Statute of Westminster in 1931 dropped all legislative oversight over Canada, except for constitutional changes which came about in 1982. So I ask you again, when did Canada become independent? Now, for bonus points, take the same criteria and ask if places such as Greenland, Bermuda, Taiwan, Palestine, Abu Dhabi, or Federated States of Micronesia are independent or not.

dotcommand 5y ago
> The "more or less" applied to "continuous", not "independent." Does that make a difference? You are either continuously independent or not continuously independent. > But if you really want to argue that independence is a simple binary decision... you're just flat out wrong. No, seriously. No. You either are independent or not independent. It's basic logic. > Let's take what should be a simple example: Canada. When did Canada become independent? Well... Wikipedia lists no fewer than three separate dates, and that's really understating the matter. Should be a clue to you that canada isn't independent. No country that worships the queen of another country is. I never considered canada an independent country. > Now, for bonus points, take the same criteria and ask if places such as Greenland, Bermuda, Taiwan, Palestine, Abu Dhabi, or Federated States of Micronesia are independent or not. None of these are independent countries. Not sure about abu dhabi as I don't know about about it. Nice little distraction you took us on. Funny how you completely ignored the part about iran being invaded and conquered. Instead of accepting that you were wrong, you decided to double down and take us on a tangent. Nice. I can see where this is going. That iran has not been "more or less" continuously independent nation isn't a matter of debate. It's a matter of historical and political and military fact.
- jcranmer 5y ago
  How is the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran--that resulted in the removal of one monarch in favor of the next-in-line, the continuation of the territorial integrity of Iran, and did not result in any significant changes in the internal political structure of Iran--a complete break in the general continuity of Iran's political existence that renders Iran nothing more than a 20th century Russian/British creation, whereas the 1979 Iranian Revolution--which did many of those things (except for effecting the borders)--is not? The historical fact is that an Iranian state composed predominantly of Iranian peoples and ruled by Iranians has existed for 2 and a half millennia. And honestly, rather like China, even when Iranians are being ruled by non-Iranians, Iranian culture is still a prestige culture, especially in the Abbasid caliphate. The Iranian nation-state cannot be a mere product of British/Russian influence when it predates the existence of either of those nations (not even countries, nations), and the British and the Russians played no part in effecting the creation of said nation-state, at best merely temporarily disestablishing it. And this is why I said "more or less continuously." I'm not denying that there are disruptions to continuity--were I to do so, I would not need to modify "continuous." Instead, I'm denying that those disruptions actually matter for the political analysis.