6 ms·

Yeah the Shahs rule was a paradise for regular people...

eternalban 4y ago
Let me guess: you've never stepped foot in Iran in your life "..." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4M_EJzjItk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4M_EJzjItk
- sleepyhead 4y ago
  Let me guess you don't know how things were under the Shah. While the revolution obviously resulted in a much worse situation, the Shah was a dictator. https://historyofyesterday.com/the-shah-of-iran-was-not-a-saint-f8d78814f86 https://historyofyesterday.com/the-shah-of-iran-was-not-a-sa...
  - DSingularity 4y ago
    It doesn’t take much scrutinization to understand the underlying motivations of those who speak nostalgically of the rule of pro-western dictatorships. They come from families which used to profit from the theft of the colonized lands and were forced to flee (with whatever they managed to steal) once said lands were liberated. The westener who defends such rule are racists unable to grant the oriental people the right to live and organize in a manner of their choosing. It is a “the-white man’s burden” and into the “heart of darkness” brand of racism which justifies itself by painting the East as backwards. But why is the East backwards? Is it because the East does not buy up the hedonistic materialism that the West has always been peddling as “liberalism” and instead prefers its own culture? So ironic that the first intervention to claim a “public place for women” is one which paints the destruction of brothels negatively as a consequence of the religious gaining too much power. Is there any doubt that those who are claiming to be “enlightened” truly prefer a world where people in general — and women especially —remain objects of sexual desire which are used to herd people through endless cycles of aesthetically-driven consumerism?
    - barry-cotter 4y ago
      > The westener who defends such rule are racists unable to grant the oriental people the right to live and organize in a manner of their choosing. Now, now, some hold democracy in contempt generally, not just for foreigners. Others believe that people have a right to live and organise in a manner of their choosing, not that they must be governed in a manner pleasing to Westerners.
      - pphysch 4y ago
        > Others believe that people have a right to live and organise in a manner of their choosing "I hate the government, not the people" is a thinly-veiled neocolonial trope when applied to sovereign nations like Iran. It translates to "I don't like it when those people govern themselves".
        DSingularity 4y ago
        And then when challenged on this they will say “no no, those countries are oppressing their people and limiting their freedom”. Ignoring how those governments operate in an adversarial environment of nations where if you don’t sell out your people you face endless assignation or coup plots by the Israeli Mossad or the American CIA. People today don’t realize the extent of the present evil and the depth of the historical of the west. Take communist China. How can you ignore the fact that Britain was literally a cartel for opium sales in China? When the emperor banned opium to get ahead of the epidemic what did “Great” Britain do? Respect the sovereignty of the Chinese people?
        usrusr 4y ago
        Possibly, but not necessarily. On the other side you have that pattern of "True, they are brutally oppressed, but that must be what they all want if the oppressor is of their own ethnicity, right?" It's perfectly fine to have an opinion about the form of government in a foreign country that isn't all positive.
        pphysch 4y ago
  - _cs2017_ 4y ago
    The article you linked is written by a little known author, Abdullah Safi, who wrote articles against atheism. He clearly dislikes the Shah rule. What reason do we have to trust him? Furthermore, even if we trust him to be unbiased (I don't), he only says that people who were fighting against the Shah (the armed rebels, the Communist supporters, etc) didn't enjoy a good life. He doesn't say that the Shah gave trouble to the regular people who weren't trying to overthrow the government.
    - sleepyhead 4y ago
      I just Googled and found an article so I am sure there are better sources, however it shouldn't be controversial to say that the Shah, who came in power through a foreign coup, was a dictator. It is the reason why the revolution was able to succeed. Obviously life under the Shah was much better than after the revolution but that is not to say there were not problems before it.
      - _cs2017_ 4y ago
        I don't think anyone claims that there were no problems in Iran under the Shah. Or in the US for that matter. FWIW, every single person I talked to who lived in Tehran during the Shah said it was great. However, I know It's a biased sample. For one, none of them were Communist sympathizers. And even more importantly, they all emigrated. Maybe if I talked to people who live in Tehran now, they'd also say it's great, who knows.
  - eternalban 4y ago
    Of course I did. I lived there and also avail myself of original source material that is entirely closed to you, such as Harvard's Iran Oral History project. & So what that he was a dictator? He wasn't dictating a course of national destruction; he was dictating a revival of an ancient nation. The historical record of Pahlavi dynasty is exceptionally clear. You just need to grab hold of the National Geographic issue dedicated to "Persia" from just before Pahlavi dynasty and compare to Iran they created 57 years later. From a complete basket case to a nation that was seen to be a threat to Western imperial structures (as soon as he helped create OPEC) in the so-called Middle East. And who was opposing him? A regressive clerical class -- a class -- that had a strangle hold over what passed for Iranian education and judiciary since the Saffavids, and their substantial network of two digit IQ illiterates that saw pictures of khomeini in the moon. And the past 44 years are exhibit A in why Iranian must eradicate the cleric from Iran and Islam once and for all. The second group, young people who where sent to West, entirely on the Iranian goverments' dime btw as all their education and room and board was covered (!), and instead of returning (like some) to help develop Iran they became "marxists", and later "Islamic-Marxists". (That last bit should shed some light on their conceptual and intellectual ability and integrity). Finally, we had the mini-army of all the descendants of various Qajar aristocracy that just wasn't happy with having an uppity soldier's family (Reza Shah) putting an end to the disaster that was Qajar dynasty. ~ p.s. for interested Persian speakers, this is a fantastic resource: https://library.harvard.edu/collections/iranian-oral-history-project https://library.harvard.edu/collections/iranian-oral-history...
    - sleepyhead 4y ago
      > So what that he was a dictator? I rest my case.
      - epups 4y ago
        Are the current leaders of Iran not dictators? Because if they are, and I think they are, your one-note argument is really weak.
        sleepyhead 4y ago
  - refurb 4y ago
    So you admit things were better (“resulted in a much worse situation”) under the Shah.
    - sleepyhead 4y ago
      That is what it says, what is your point?
theri234234 4y ago
sbmthakur 4y ago
Someone who opposes the current regime is automatically a supporter of Shah? This is a genuine question as I am not aware about Iran's politics.
- ybinator604g3 4y ago
  > Yeah the Shahs rule was a paradise for regular people... No it's not. That's a tactic the regime used to silence any opposition for a long time after the revolution. I can't tell you how many times I have turned on the TV and heard something along these lines. Nowadays, however, they have new favorite bogeymen. Shah was a garden variety dictator backed by the United States. You can find the likes of him in today's Saudi Arabia, for example. It certainly was not paradise for regular people. But Islamic Republic on the other hand is a theocratic dictatorship. It's like an octopus that wants to wrap its tentacles around every matter of people's personal lives. From their bedroom to the women's bodies to the clothes they wear. Ironic for them, as a result, the current generation who were born after the revolution are more pro-US than ever and unfortunately are even more sympathetic to Shah than one might expect; which is not surprising. So Shah's misdeeds are no excuse for the demons who have forced themselves upon the country right now. Context: I was born and used to lived in Iran in a non-Musilm family whose members were in opposition to both Shah and the new regime alike.
  - bogomipz 4y ago
    >"Shah was a garden variety dictator backed by the United States." The support of the Shah was very much an Anglo-American concern. The coup to oust Mosaddegh was much the US as it was the the UK, Churchill and Eisenhower, MI6 and CIA.
- bogomipz 4y ago
  No, not at all. The OP's comment is a false dichotomy and an unwarranted knee jerk.

Let me guess: you've never stepped foot in Iran in your life "..." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4M_EJzjItk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4M_EJzjItk

sleepyhead 4y ago
Let me guess you don't know how things were under the Shah. While the revolution obviously resulted in a much worse situation, the Shah was a dictator. https://historyofyesterday.com/the-shah-of-iran-was-not-a-saint-f8d78814f86 https://historyofyesterday.com/the-shah-of-iran-was-not-a-sa...
- DSingularity 4y ago
  It doesn’t take much scrutinization to understand the underlying motivations of those who speak nostalgically of the rule of pro-western dictatorships. They come from families which used to profit from the theft of the colonized lands and were forced to flee (with whatever they managed to steal) once said lands were liberated. The westener who defends such rule are racists unable to grant the oriental people the right to live and organize in a manner of their choosing. It is a “the-white man’s burden” and into the “heart of darkness” brand of racism which justifies itself by painting the East as backwards. But why is the East backwards? Is it because the East does not buy up the hedonistic materialism that the West has always been peddling as “liberalism” and instead prefers its own culture? So ironic that the first intervention to claim a “public place for women” is one which paints the destruction of brothels negatively as a consequence of the religious gaining too much power. Is there any doubt that those who are claiming to be “enlightened” truly prefer a world where people in general — and women especially —remain objects of sexual desire which are used to herd people through endless cycles of aesthetically-driven consumerism?
  - barry-cotter 4y ago
    > The westener who defends such rule are racists unable to grant the oriental people the right to live and organize in a manner of their choosing. Now, now, some hold democracy in contempt generally, not just for foreigners. Others believe that people have a right to live and organise in a manner of their choosing, not that they must be governed in a manner pleasing to Westerners.
    - pphysch 4y ago
      > Others believe that people have a right to live and organise in a manner of their choosing "I hate the government, not the people" is a thinly-veiled neocolonial trope when applied to sovereign nations like Iran. It translates to "I don't like it when those people govern themselves".
      - DSingularity 4y ago
        And then when challenged on this they will say “no no, those countries are oppressing their people and limiting their freedom”. Ignoring how those governments operate in an adversarial environment of nations where if you don’t sell out your people you face endless assignation or coup plots by the Israeli Mossad or the American CIA. People today don’t realize the extent of the present evil and the depth of the historical of the west. Take communist China. How can you ignore the fact that Britain was literally a cartel for opium sales in China? When the emperor banned opium to get ahead of the epidemic what did “Great” Britain do? Respect the sovereignty of the Chinese people?
      - usrusr 4y ago
        Possibly, but not necessarily. On the other side you have that pattern of "True, they are brutally oppressed, but that must be what they all want if the oppressor is of their own ethnicity, right?" It's perfectly fine to have an opinion about the form of government in a foreign country that isn't all positive.
        pphysch 4y ago
- _cs2017_ 4y ago
  The article you linked is written by a little known author, Abdullah Safi, who wrote articles against atheism. He clearly dislikes the Shah rule. What reason do we have to trust him? Furthermore, even if we trust him to be unbiased (I don't), he only says that people who were fighting against the Shah (the armed rebels, the Communist supporters, etc) didn't enjoy a good life. He doesn't say that the Shah gave trouble to the regular people who weren't trying to overthrow the government.
  - sleepyhead 4y ago
    I just Googled and found an article so I am sure there are better sources, however it shouldn't be controversial to say that the Shah, who came in power through a foreign coup, was a dictator. It is the reason why the revolution was able to succeed. Obviously life under the Shah was much better than after the revolution but that is not to say there were not problems before it.
    - _cs2017_ 4y ago
      I don't think anyone claims that there were no problems in Iran under the Shah. Or in the US for that matter. FWIW, every single person I talked to who lived in Tehran during the Shah said it was great. However, I know It's a biased sample. For one, none of them were Communist sympathizers. And even more importantly, they all emigrated. Maybe if I talked to people who live in Tehran now, they'd also say it's great, who knows.
- eternalban 4y ago
  Of course I did. I lived there and also avail myself of original source material that is entirely closed to you, such as Harvard's Iran Oral History project. & So what that he was a dictator? He wasn't dictating a course of national destruction; he was dictating a revival of an ancient nation. The historical record of Pahlavi dynasty is exceptionally clear. You just need to grab hold of the National Geographic issue dedicated to "Persia" from just before Pahlavi dynasty and compare to Iran they created 57 years later. From a complete basket case to a nation that was seen to be a threat to Western imperial structures (as soon as he helped create OPEC) in the so-called Middle East. And who was opposing him? A regressive clerical class -- a class -- that had a strangle hold over what passed for Iranian education and judiciary since the Saffavids, and their substantial network of two digit IQ illiterates that saw pictures of khomeini in the moon. And the past 44 years are exhibit A in why Iranian must eradicate the cleric from Iran and Islam once and for all. The second group, young people who where sent to West, entirely on the Iranian goverments' dime btw as all their education and room and board was covered (!), and instead of returning (like some) to help develop Iran they became "marxists", and later "Islamic-Marxists". (That last bit should shed some light on their conceptual and intellectual ability and integrity). Finally, we had the mini-army of all the descendants of various Qajar aristocracy that just wasn't happy with having an uppity soldier's family (Reza Shah) putting an end to the disaster that was Qajar dynasty. ~ p.s. for interested Persian speakers, this is a fantastic resource: https://library.harvard.edu/collections/iranian-oral-history-project https://library.harvard.edu/collections/iranian-oral-history...
  - sleepyhead 4y ago
    > So what that he was a dictator? I rest my case.
    - epups 4y ago
      Are the current leaders of Iran not dictators? Because if they are, and I think they are, your one-note argument is really weak.
      - sleepyhead 4y ago
- refurb 4y ago
  So you admit things were better (“resulted in a much worse situation”) under the Shah.
  - sleepyhead 4y ago
    That is what it says, what is your point?

theri234234 4y ago

sbmthakur 4y ago

Someone who opposes the current regime is automatically a supporter of Shah? This is a genuine question as I am not aware about Iran's politics.

ybinator604g3 4y ago
> Yeah the Shahs rule was a paradise for regular people... No it's not. That's a tactic the regime used to silence any opposition for a long time after the revolution. I can't tell you how many times I have turned on the TV and heard something along these lines. Nowadays, however, they have new favorite bogeymen. Shah was a garden variety dictator backed by the United States. You can find the likes of him in today's Saudi Arabia, for example. It certainly was not paradise for regular people. But Islamic Republic on the other hand is a theocratic dictatorship. It's like an octopus that wants to wrap its tentacles around every matter of people's personal lives. From their bedroom to the women's bodies to the clothes they wear. Ironic for them, as a result, the current generation who were born after the revolution are more pro-US than ever and unfortunately are even more sympathetic to Shah than one might expect; which is not surprising. So Shah's misdeeds are no excuse for the demons who have forced themselves upon the country right now. Context: I was born and used to lived in Iran in a non-Musilm family whose members were in opposition to both Shah and the new regime alike.
- bogomipz 4y ago
  >"Shah was a garden variety dictator backed by the United States." The support of the Shah was very much an Anglo-American concern. The coup to oust Mosaddegh was much the US as it was the the UK, Churchill and Eisenhower, MI6 and CIA.
bogomipz 4y ago
No, not at all. The OP's comment is a false dichotomy and an unwarranted knee jerk.