3 ms·

> Why stop there? Why not go back to when the Greeks made Darius mad and started the Greco-Persian wars? People often ask these questions as if they're unanswe

> Why stop there? Why not go back to when the Greeks made Darius mad and started the Greco-Persian wars? People often ask these questions as if they're unanswerable or as if any answer would essentially be arbitrary. What you need to do is look at contemporary global systems of inequality and consider their roots. For this it would seem British imperialism is often a sensible place to go to, in this case almost certainly.

ericmay 11d ago
That seems like a different kind of criticism, one that unfairly singles out the United Kingdom and ignores the global systems of inequality and injustice that were instantiated by broader colonial powers and conflict, whether that's the British, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Belgian, Russian, Japanese, Chinese, or Persian, for that matter. We're not talking about global systems or inequality which have innumerable reasons, but talking about Iran and their specific bad behavior and how authoritarian governments point to random historical injustices to justify their own repression.
- AlecSchueler 11d ago
  > one that unfairly singles out the United Kingdom and ignores the global systems of inequality The UK was spoken of in the particular because of its long and violent history in Iran. We could point to any number of things like Anglo-Persian oil, the 1941 occupation or the 1953 which was previously mentioned. Countries like Portugal and the Netherlands simply don't have that history in the Iranian context. Of course if we were speaking about somewhere like Indonesia then we would foreground other colonial powers. There is also of course much that should be said about broader colonial history but the question above was why do we bring up British wrongdoing rather than ancient Persian history. > but talking about Iran and their specific bad behavior "Bad behaviour" is your terminology. We're talking about why they have sanctions imposed on them. > and how authoritarian governments point to random historical injustices to justify their own repression. No-one else was talking about this but you, and it feels like it was only raised in an attempt to undermine genuine concerns about legacy issues.
  - ericmay 10d ago
    > The UK was spoken of in the particular because ... > Countries like Portugal and the Netherlands simply don't have that history ... Totally fair! But then you (or whoever made the point) can't drag in the US and Vietnam war or World War II into this and drum up some random body count and try to use that as a main point, nor can you bring up "global systems of inequality" and simultaneously try to limit additional discussion around an Iran context when we start talking about, well, global inequality and how other countries are huge contributors to that. > "Bad behaviour" is your terminology. We're talking about why they have sanctions imposed on them. I'm not following the distinction here. The reasons sanctions are imposed on them is because of their bad behavior. They're killing people in the region, trying to build nuclear weapons which we won't tolerate, and have been building up this capability to hold global oil supply hostage less they have some concessions that they want. > No-one else was talking about this but you, and it feels like it was only raised in an attempt to undermine genuine concerns about legacy issues. We're not speaking about historical facts for the sake of historical facts. You and others are speaking about why Iran is justified in some action, so it's fair to point out how those facts are weaponized. Since you are doing that, it's fair game to also explain how those past injustices (which themselves are complicated and nuanced in ways that nobody here is discussing) are used by Iran and other authoritarian regimes to create external enemies to maintain power. This is extremely well understood.

ericmay 11d ago

That seems like a different kind of criticism, one that unfairly singles out the United Kingdom and ignores the global systems of inequality and injustice that were instantiated by broader colonial powers and conflict, whether that's the British, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Belgian, Russian, Japanese, Chinese, or Persian, for that matter. We're not talking about global systems or inequality which have innumerable reasons, but talking about Iran and their specific bad behavior and how authoritarian governments point to random historical injustices to justify their own repression.

AlecSchueler 11d ago
> one that unfairly singles out the United Kingdom and ignores the global systems of inequality The UK was spoken of in the particular because of its long and violent history in Iran. We could point to any number of things like Anglo-Persian oil, the 1941 occupation or the 1953 which was previously mentioned. Countries like Portugal and the Netherlands simply don't have that history in the Iranian context. Of course if we were speaking about somewhere like Indonesia then we would foreground other colonial powers. There is also of course much that should be said about broader colonial history but the question above was why do we bring up British wrongdoing rather than ancient Persian history. > but talking about Iran and their specific bad behavior "Bad behaviour" is your terminology. We're talking about why they have sanctions imposed on them. > and how authoritarian governments point to random historical injustices to justify their own repression. No-one else was talking about this but you, and it feels like it was only raised in an attempt to undermine genuine concerns about legacy issues.
- ericmay 10d ago
  > The UK was spoken of in the particular because ... > Countries like Portugal and the Netherlands simply don't have that history ... Totally fair! But then you (or whoever made the point) can't drag in the US and Vietnam war or World War II into this and drum up some random body count and try to use that as a main point, nor can you bring up "global systems of inequality" and simultaneously try to limit additional discussion around an Iran context when we start talking about, well, global inequality and how other countries are huge contributors to that. > "Bad behaviour" is your terminology. We're talking about why they have sanctions imposed on them. I'm not following the distinction here. The reasons sanctions are imposed on them is because of their bad behavior. They're killing people in the region, trying to build nuclear weapons which we won't tolerate, and have been building up this capability to hold global oil supply hostage less they have some concessions that they want. > No-one else was talking about this but you, and it feels like it was only raised in an attempt to undermine genuine concerns about legacy issues. We're not speaking about historical facts for the sake of historical facts. You and others are speaking about why Iran is justified in some action, so it's fair to point out how those facts are weaponized. Since you are doing that, it's fair game to also explain how those past injustices (which themselves are complicated and nuanced in ways that nobody here is discussing) are used by Iran and other authoritarian regimes to create external enemies to maintain power. This is extremely well understood.