Quote'I screamed: How dare you grab my girls'
By SABINA AMIDI, SPECIAL TO THE JERUSALEM POST
It was a relatively minor incident on the quietened streets of Teheran, but it is one that points to the depth of anti-regime antagonism felt even by some Iranians who consider themselves loyal supporters of the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's revolution.
In a telephone interview with this reporter from the Iranian capital, a conservative mother of six first denounced the regime for "trying to silence the people" in the wake of last month's disputed presidential elections," and then accused its leaders of trying to "hide behind their false interpretation of the Imam's [Khomeini's] teachings. This is not what he would have wanted for our country if he was still alive," she said, "and I know his prayers will helps us prevail."
She directly castigated Khomeini's successor as supreme leader, asserting, "Ali Khamenei has never understood the Imam's ways. Instead he uses violence to silence us. But the people of Iran have their eyes open, they are seeing past the lies."
And then she recounted her own encounter, earlier this week, with what she called the brutality of the security forces. "The militiamen out on the streets have all been brainwashed," she said, and told this story to underline her point:
"Just yesterday, I saw four plainclothes [members of the security forces] harassing two young men. The two young men had their hands tied behind their backs and were crying. I went to up the security forces and told then to let the boys ago, even though my two daughters were trying to hold me back. The security men grabbed us by the arms and started calling for reinforcements.
"I screamed at them: 'How dare you grab my two daughters, who have never been touched by any man, and how dare you touch me? I have never been touched by any man except my husband.' They let go of our arms and I told them again: Let the boys go."
She said the security men were preparing to drag the two young men away, nonetheless, so "I took out a picture of the Imam from my purse and the Koran. At that point five more of the riot police came... I said to them, 'Do you think this is what the Imam wanted?' I waved the Koran and told them to be afraid of God's wrath in the next life, because Khamenei's jurisdiction ends there."
The woman said that the officer apparently in charge said the pair were being arrested because they had been influenced by outside forces to destroy the regime.
"So I said to him: Then I am out to destroy the regime, the mullahs at the mosque I attend are out to destroy the regime, the ayatollahs in Qom are out to destroy the regime. And if this regime is a military dictatorship, then it should be destroyed."
She said she asked the security personnel if they had read Khomeini's texts. "They of course said no." She said she promised them that if they could find teachings of his which justified what they were doing, she would "personally help beat our fellow countrymen with batons."
At this point, the officer in charge told the others to let the two young men go, she said. "Then he pulled me aside and said, very emotionally, that he has three hungry children and a wife living in a small poor town outside Teheran. He said his salary had been tripled since the protests erupted and that he feels numb to everything around him.
"Before he left, he asked me to pray for him to make better choices in the future."
For some reason this article really appeals to me. I think it's because there's something in the story of basically a mum telling off security forces that makes me smile.
Edit: Incidentally I read today that only two of the Grand Ayatollahs in Qom have congratulated Ahmedinejad on his victory. From what I understand there's about 20 of them, most have remained relatively silent on the issue (though seem codedly unhappy with what's happened) they seem to address it in an indirect way, if at all. But I think that means that more Grand Ayatollahs have outright condemned Ahmedinejad than have congratulated him.
I think this is not true.
:thumbsup:
My bullshit alarm went off
Yeah, good article, if true. The woman, a mother, had the answers that were tough to dispute since the "security men" were out there in the first place, ostensibly to do what the mother said. But instead they had become the thugs and going against what at least some of them believe in. Even if this story is hyperbole it seems that this thinking is what some of the struggles now are in Iran.
Quote from: Tamas on July 09, 2009, 07:46:51 AM
My bullshit alarm went off
I don't know. What's the reason you don't believe it?
Quote from: Tamas on July 09, 2009, 07:46:51 AM
My bullshit alarm went off
But Twitter says it's true!
What really stands out to me:
QuoteHe said his salary had been tripled since the protests erupted and that he feels numb to everything around him.
There's been rumblings in the police that the regime has had to try and control?
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 09, 2009, 07:55:47 AM
Quote from: Tamas on July 09, 2009, 07:46:51 AM
My bullshit alarm went off
I don't know. What's the reason you don't believe it?
The whole chain letter feel.
and when she returned home theere were 4 chickens where once there were 2.
Forward this to 5 people and Isreal will be destroyed by holy fire.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 09, 2009, 07:55:47 AM
Quote from: Tamas on July 09, 2009, 07:46:51 AM
My bullshit alarm went off
I don't know. What's the reason you don't believe it?
Could be true, but then again, you would not talk like that to police of 80s Hungary which was MUCH MUCH MUCH more lenient then Iran of today. If you had any sense of survival of course.
This story is a lie
Quote from: Tyr on July 09, 2009, 08:01:23 AM
What really stands out to me:
QuoteHe said his salary had been tripled since the protests erupted and that he feels numb to everything around him.
There's been rumblings in the police that the regime has had to try and control?
Yeah that and the fact that he's from outside Tehran struck me as the most interesting points.
Quote from: Tamas on July 09, 2009, 08:05:26 AM
Could be true, but then again, you would not talk like that to police of 80s Hungary which was MUCH MUCH MUCH more lenient then Iran of today. If you had any sense of survival of course.
This story is a lie
I think you're wrong on that, from everything I've read Iran's nowhere near as bad in terms of what you can say and the oppressiveness of the police service as the Soviet Union or Soviet bloc, or even China, though that's changing.
I've read similar stories from other dictatorships and revolutions, not least the Islamic Revolution. I think largely because of their gender, it's more difficult for a regime, and certainly for individuals to beat up a middle aged woman who's telling them off, as their mum did. I mean that was the force of the Madres in Argentina and, indeed, the women across Latin America who protested in the 80s.
And I remember speaking to a German girl, who was fluent in Arabic, who said that if Arabic speaking Western women ever had a problem in the Middle East they should confront the man, because it's such a taboo to touch an unknown woman (especially in this case). It's the 'have you no shame, touching me' aspect (and the general behaviour of the woman) that rings relatively true to me.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 09, 2009, 08:16:46 AM
And I remember speaking to a German girl, who was fluent in Arabic, who said that if Arabic speaking Western women ever had a problem in the Middle East they should confront the man, because it's such a taboo to touch an unknown woman (especially in this case). It's the 'have you no shame, touching me' aspect (and the general behaviour of the woman) that rings relatively true to me.
Then again all the various vice and virtue types seem to have overcome this taboo.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 09, 2009, 08:25:59 AM
Then again all the various vice and virtue types seem to have overcome this taboo.
This is generally true. I think that's always the case. The Vice and Virtue groups are able to do it though because they believe the woman's already dirty or sullied herself through the act they're punishing. Though, of course, Iran does have a lot of female police and so on so possibly it is generally rare for male police officers to touch women in the street and in terms of 'vice and virtue' Iran's nowhere near as bad as the Taliban or the Saudis. Though, again, they've been getting worse in recent years.
In this story you've a bunch of country boy militiamen beating some guys and being told off by a middle aged mum and then touching her and her daughter. That seems to me the sort of situation in which there would be a lot of shame in being shouted down.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 09, 2009, 08:16:46 AM
Quote from: Tamas on July 09, 2009, 08:05:26 AM
Could be true, but then again, you would not talk like that to police of 80s Hungary which was MUCH MUCH MUCH more lenient then Iran of today. If you had any sense of survival of course.
This story is a lie
I think you're wrong on that, from everything I've read Iran's nowhere near as bad in terms of what you can say and the oppressiveness of the police service as the Soviet Union or Soviet bloc, or even China, though that's changing.
I've read similar stories from other dictatorships and revolutions, not least the Islamic Revolution. I think largely because of their gender, it's more difficult for a regime, and certainly for individuals to beat up a middle aged woman who's telling them off, as their mum did. I mean that was the force of the Madres in Argentina and, indeed, the women across Latin America who protested in the 80s.
And I remember speaking to a German girl, who was fluent in Arabic, who said that if Arabic speaking Western women ever had a problem in the Middle East they should confront the man, because it's such a taboo to touch an unknown woman (especially in this case). It's the 'have you no shame, touching me' aspect (and the general behaviour of the woman) that rings relatively true to me.
Come on Iran has religious government militias beating people and shooting at them. For example, post-'56 Hungary also had its Workers Guard specifically formed to fight enemies of the system but the rulers never dared to actually use them on the street.
Iran is worse than most of the eastern bloc was, from what I see
Iran is not Hungary.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 09, 2009, 08:05:49 AM
Quote from: Tyr on July 09, 2009, 08:01:23 AM
What really stands out to me:
QuoteHe said his salary had been tripled since the protests erupted and that he feels numb to everything around him.
There's been rumblings in the police that the regime has had to try and control?
Yeah that and the fact that he's from outside Tehran struck me as the most interesting points.
The local police would naturally identify themselves with the protesters on the street. In Leipzig the DDR was finished when they saw that the Leipzig police were unwilling to use violence against peaceful demonstrators. At Tiananmen however, the CCP brought in soldiers from outside Beijing to do what the local militia and local police refused to do.
Sure, Iran is such a nice country.
Quote'I screamed: How dare you grab my girls'
By SABINA AMIDI, SPECIAL TO THE JERUSALEM POST
It was a relatively minor incident on the quietened streets of Teheran, but it is one that points to the depth of anti-regime antagonism felt even by some Iranians who consider themselves loyal supporters of the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's revolution.
In a telephone interview with this reporter from the Iranian capital, a conservative mother of six first denounced the regime for "trying to silence the people" in the wake of last month's disputed presidential elections," and then accused its leaders of trying to "hide behind their false interpretation of the Imam's [Khomeini's] teachings. This is not what he would have wanted for our country if he was still alive," she said, "and I know his prayers will helps us prevail."
So, basicly, what this is saying is that iranian regime is not conservative enough for this woman's taste. She is accussing the goverment of being not conservative enough and of not adhering to muslim shia values.
I would like to know how this woman feels about the US.
Quote from: Warspite on July 09, 2009, 09:11:52 AM
Iran is not Hungary.
Indeed. It's much worse. At least the Hungarians, although barbaric, have the seeds of civilization in them.
Hungarians got civilized when the Germans assraped them at Lechfeld. Otto saved their souls by killing a bunch of them.
Quote from: Neil on July 09, 2009, 10:06:36 AM
Quote from: Warspite on July 09, 2009, 09:11:52 AM
Iran is not Hungary.
Indeed. It's much worse. At least the Hungarians, although barbaric, have the seeds of civilization in them.
Hungarians had a viable civilization long before your irish forefathers learnt how to read and write. And they had to put up with the Ottoman Empire.
Quote from: Siege on July 09, 2009, 10:08:47 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 09, 2009, 10:06:36 AM
Quote from: Warspite on July 09, 2009, 09:11:52 AM
Iran is not Hungary.
Indeed. It's much worse. At least the Hungarians, although barbaric, have the seeds of civilization in them.
Hungarians had a viable civilization long before your irish forefathers learnt how to read and write. And they had to put up with the Ottoman Empire.
I'm not Irish. :huh:
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 09, 2009, 08:16:46 AM
I think you're wrong on that, from everything I've read Iran's nowhere near as bad in terms of what you can say and the oppressiveness of the police service as the Soviet Union or Soviet bloc, or even China, though that's changing.
Indeed.
The reason the current events are such a big deal is that the world expected Iran to behave democratically as it normally does. If it was just a regular dictatorship doing a business as normal election rig it wouldn't be such a issue.
QuoteAnd I remember speaking to a German girl, who was fluent in Arabic, who said that if Arabic speaking Western women ever had a problem in the Middle East they should confront the man, because it's such a taboo to touch an unknown woman (especially in this case). It's the 'have you no shame, touching me' aspect (and the general behaviour of the woman) that rings relatively true to me.
Don't a lot of Arabs have messed up double standards with western women though?- at the extreme "they're probably already unclean so its fine to rape them!"
Quote from: Neil on July 09, 2009, 10:31:46 AM
Quote from: Siege on July 09, 2009, 10:08:47 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 09, 2009, 10:06:36 AM
Quote from: Warspite on July 09, 2009, 09:11:52 AM
Iran is not Hungary.
Indeed. It's much worse. At least the Hungarians, although barbaric, have the seeds of civilization in them.
Hungarians had a viable civilization long before your irish forefathers learnt how to read and write. And they had to put up with the Ottoman Empire.
I'm not Irish. :huh:
He wants your pot of gold. he can't help himself.
Quote from: Tyr on July 09, 2009, 10:35:09 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 09, 2009, 08:16:46 AM
I think you're wrong on that, from everything I've read Iran's nowhere near as bad in terms of what you can say and the oppressiveness of the police service as the Soviet Union or Soviet bloc, or even China, though that's changing.
Indeed.
The reason the current events are such a big deal is that the world expected Iran to behave democratically as it normally does. If it was just a regular dictatorship doing a business as normal election rig it wouldn't be such a issue.
:lol:
The world expected the election to be rigged, as it in fact was. The reason that the current events are a big deal is because the supporters of the candidates were fighting it out in the streets. Only naive, anti-Western morons like yourself think that Iran behaves in a manner that would be considered 'democratically'. The standards of democracy are a bit higher than that.
Quote from: Neil on July 09, 2009, 10:39:20 AM
:lol:
The world expected the election to be rigged, as it in fact was. The reason that the current events are a big deal is because the supporters of the candidates were fighting it out in the streets. Only naive, anti-Western morons like yourself think that Iran behaves in a manner that would be considered 'democratically'. The standards of democracy are a bit higher than that.
Its a stretch to call them a democracy on a par with the west given that the candidates have to be OKed before they can run and the powers of the Supreme Leader and all that but once the election is under way they do indeed behave democratically. Only naiive, racist morons think that Iran behaves in a manner that would be considered a totalitarian dictatorship.
You shouldn't overlook that Ahmajinedad's very getting into power in the first place was a complete fluke that came about due to democracy.
Quote from: Tyr on July 09, 2009, 10:46:12 AM
but once the election is under way they do indeed behave democratically.
It's been a while since rioters and armed thugs were out contesting the vote in most democracies.
Quote from: Neil on July 09, 2009, 10:48:26 AM
Quote from: Tyr on July 09, 2009, 10:46:12 AM
but once the election is under way they do indeed behave democratically.
It's been a while since rioters and armed thugs were out contesting the vote in most democracies.
It's the same in Iran. Hence this year being such a big event :contract:
Quote from: Tyr on July 09, 2009, 10:49:51 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 09, 2009, 10:48:26 AM
Quote from: Tyr on July 09, 2009, 10:46:12 AM
but once the election is under way they do indeed behave democratically.
It's been a while since rioters and armed thugs were out contesting the vote in most democracies.
It's the same in Iran. Hence this year being such a big event :contract:
Saddam won 99% of the vote without riots and whatnot. Saddam's Iraq was apparently a better democracy than Iran.
Quote from: Tamas on July 09, 2009, 08:44:20 AM
Come on Iran has religious government militias beating people and shooting at them. For example, post-'56 Hungary also had its Workers Guard specifically formed to fight enemies of the system but the rulers never dared to actually use them on the street.
Iran is worse than most of the eastern bloc was, from what I see
Okay. The death toll has been very low, from what we can gather. The militias are beating people but there's been relatively little shooting. So far this is less violent than the Prague Spring or even the Romanian revolution and I imagine Hungary in 1956.
In terms of freedom generally the Iranian state is differently set up than the Eastern bloc but, for example, there is more freedom of speech and assembly, there are genuine open-ish debates. Or, at least, there were until charitably a month ago, more fully about 5 years ago. Iran has several openly reformist newspapers for example that deviate from the regime's line with relative regularity and with relative regularity they are closed down.
The Iranian system has always tried to fuse theocracy with democracy. Iran has a relatively strong republican tradition and generally their elections, by the stage of voting, have been free and fair. Candidates the regime couldn't work with were removed before they got near a ballot paper which is what makes this all so odd. Neil is just wrong when he says everyone expected the vote to be rigged; they didn't. Elections in Iran have historically been rigged before the vote took place and it's surprising that the Iranian regime chose to sacrifice their legitimacy, given that Khomeini's system was designed with the idea that authority stems from God but accountability from the people.
Iran's always allowed limited freedoms to let people blow-off steam so that something like this wouldn't happen. The reason people are protesting is because the election rigging seems symptomatic of a move from Iran's previous unusual system of government to something that more completely resembles the Eastern bloc style.
Ultimately when did the Eastern bloc ever hold a competitive election? When did the candidates debate and different groups, with different opinions hold rallies? Could, in the Eastern bloc, '3000 exemplary women' sign a petition against the analog to Ahmedinejad?
Don't get me wrong Iran's not free by any stretch of the imagination. Its dictatorship has hitherto been buttressed by limited arenas of freedom (a limited free press, a restricted free vote) but it's not as oppressive as say China or the Eastern bloc. The protests are happening because it now looks like it's moving in that direction.
QuoteDon't a lot of Arabs have messed up double standards with western women though?- at the extreme "they're probably already unclean so its fine to rape them!"
Well this is somewhat true. Having said that the German girl I met said that's true, but it sounded to me like a shame culture. She said a guy had pinched her arse in Marrakesh I think and she turned round to him and started saying 'have you no shame, haven't you a mother and sisters, a wife?' That sort of thing. The crowd turned on the guy, women shouted abuse at him, men told him to get out and he basically had to leave. The market seller near her then offered her, very respectfully, some pastries and tea and apologised to her saying that the other man was no true Muslim, no true Moroccan and so on.
It's worth pointing out, though that she dressed 'respectfully' so the crowd may have been more sympathetic on that point. I mean she was more conservative in dress than half the Moroccan women I saw in Casablanca.
Quote from: Neil on July 09, 2009, 10:54:17 AM
Saddam won 99% of the vote without riots and whatnot. Saddam's Iraq was apparently a better democracy than Iran.
:blink: :rolleyes:
Quote from: SheilbhWell this is somewhat true. Having said that the German girl I met said that's true, but it sounded to me like a shame culture. She said a guy had pinched her arse in Marrakesh I think and she turned round to him and started saying 'have you no shame, haven't you a mother and sisters, a wife?' That sort of thing. The crowd turned on the guy, women shouted abuse at him, men told him to get out and he basically had to leave. The market seller near her then offered her, very respectfully, some pastries and tea and apologised to her saying that the other man was no true Muslim, no true Moroccan and so on.
It's worth pointing out, though that she dressed 'respectfully' so the crowd may have been more sympathetic on that point. I mean she was more conservative in dress than half the Moroccan women I saw in Casablanca.
:lol:
Sounds like a funny situation.
Not sure what is good about this. If true, she convinced security forces to disobey their orders by appealing to religious authority.
Isnt the real problem in Iran that it is ruled by religious authority?
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 09, 2009, 11:05:07 AM
Not sure what is good about this. If true, she convinced security forces to disobey their orders by appealing to religious authority.
The interesting point in the wider context is the stuff about the militia getting three times normal pay and being outside of Tehran. If that's true it's telling.
The reason I liked the story is because it's someone's mum yelling at people doing bad stuff. It's like stories about nans fighting off muggers. That's all.
Quote
Isnt the real problem in Iran that it is ruled by religious authority?
Not necessarily. Look Iran's a religious society, all of the Middle East is a religious society and religion pervades the culture. You know the response to 'when does the train leave?' is 'four thirty, God willing'. When you're asked how you are the standard response is fine or good, or whatever 'glory be to God'. If you're not well then there's a saying 'praise be to God, who alone is praised in adversity'. The Middle East is just a lot more religious and that religion has permeated into every bit of the culture and language.
I'd argue the religious authority is what makes this revolt so interesting. If this were a bunch of students who wanted a secularist liberal state it would be crushed, because it would be alien to the culture, which may well develop into a liking for a secularist liberal state. What makes this revolt threatening is that it's lead by people whose revolutionary, republican and Islamic credentials are almost impossible to question. That's why they've appropriated the religious slogans of 1979. It's very difficult for a religious state to shoot down protestors shouting 'Allah o akbar'.
I think Iran's problem is that it's dictatorial, not that it's theocratic. If Yazdi became Supreme Leader, then the problem would be religion. I also suspect that even if Iran were to emerge as a secular, liberal democracy that Khomeini and Mossadeq would still be put in a very high mythologised position as sort of 'fathers of the nation' because they were Iranian nationalists and Khomeini overthrew the Shah.
The most liberal democratic I see Iran getting in the foreseeable future is the religious leaders being reduced to the Iranian equivalent of the British monarchy- technically still supreme leader and all that but not actually exercising that power.
This isn't going to happen with the current unrest though of course. Just a best case. I'd agree that it must stay a Islamic Republic.
Urban Iran is secularising very much, the vast majority of Iranians I meet are irreligious. Iran is also becoming increasingly urban; which bodes well for the future. For the time being though the conservative elements in the countryside still hold a lot of power, they got Ahmajinedad in and they look set to keep him there.
Quote from: Tyr on July 09, 2009, 10:46:12 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 09, 2009, 10:39:20 AM
:lol:
The world expected the election to be rigged, as it in fact was. The reason that the current events are a big deal is because the supporters of the candidates were fighting it out in the streets. Only naive, anti-Western morons like yourself think that Iran behaves in a manner that would be considered 'democratically'. The standards of democracy are a bit higher than that.
Its a stretch to call them a democracy on a par with the west given that the candidates have to be OKed before they can run and the powers of the Supreme Leader and all that but once the election is under way they do indeed behave democratically. Only naiive, racist morons think that Iran behaves in a manner that would be considered a totalitarian dictatorship.
You shouldn't overlook that Ahmajinedad's very getting into power in the first place was a complete fluke that came about due to democracy.
it's not the way the elections are run in Iran that makes it not a democracy, though it's a part of the issue.
It's the fact that they have a 'supreme leader' above everything who (theoretically, and often practically) has the power to issue edicts as he pleases, all by way of that velayet doctrine.
In other words: just having elections does not make countries democratic, just like putting a jacket on a monkey doesn't make it into a stockbroker (though there's doubts there)
Quote from: Neil on July 09, 2009, 10:31:46 AM
Quote from: Siege on July 09, 2009, 10:08:47 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 09, 2009, 10:06:36 AM
Quote from: Warspite on July 09, 2009, 09:11:52 AM
Iran is not Hungary.
Indeed. It's much worse. At least the Hungarians, although barbaric, have the seeds of civilization in them.
Hungarians had a viable civilization long before your irish forefathers learnt how to read and write. And they had to put up with the Ottoman Empire.
I'm not Irish. :huh:
That's what you think.
Quote from: Siege on July 09, 2009, 10:08:47 AM
Hungarians had a viable civilization long before your irish forefathers learnt how to read and write.
So they had a viable civilization long before 1950?
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on July 09, 2009, 12:01:33 PM
it's not the way the elections are run in Iran that makes it not a democracy, though it's a part of the issue.
It's the fact that they have a 'supreme leader' above everything who (theoretically, and often practically) has the power to issue edicts as he pleases, all by way of that velayet doctrine.
In other words: just having elections does not make countries democratic, just like putting a jacket on a monkey doesn't make it into a stockbroker (though there's doubts there)
:mellow: I said as much. It was only Neil who called them a democracy.
All I said was that once the elections are up and running they are usually handled democratically.
It's not a democracy and any suggestion of that is just wrong. But nor is it a out and out authoritarian dictatorship. Discussing it as if it is one or the other is a wrong way of doing things, its a unique nation with a strange semi-democratic, theocratic government (or governments some would say).
Quote from: Tyr on July 09, 2009, 01:11:23 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on July 09, 2009, 12:01:33 PM
it's not the way the elections are run in Iran that makes it not a democracy, though it's a part of the issue.
It's the fact that they have a 'supreme leader' above everything who (theoretically, and often practically) has the power to issue edicts as he pleases, all by way of that velayet doctrine.
In other words: just having elections does not make countries democratic, just like putting a jacket on a monkey doesn't make it into a stockbroker (though there's doubts there)
:mellow: I said as much. It was only Neil who called them a democracy.
All I said was that once the elections are up and running they are usually handled democratically.
It's not a democracy and any suggestion of that is just wrong. But nor is it a out and out authoritarian dictatorship. Discussing it as if it is one or the other is a wrong way of doing things, its a unique nation with a strange semi-democratic, theocratic government (or governments some would say).
:face:
sometimes letters start to dance on their own.
I said nothing then :p
Looks like the Riots are starting again. This is what Khamenei will have to deal with now; random, hugely popular riots.
Quote from: Neil on July 09, 2009, 10:48:26 AM
Quote from: Tyr on July 09, 2009, 10:46:12 AM
but once the election is under way they do indeed behave democratically.
It's been a while since rioters and armed thugs were out contesting the vote in most democracies.
Jaron & Katmai are offended. :mad:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 09, 2009, 04:43:33 PM
Jaron & Katmai are offended. :mad:
I'm offended by your face.
Neil is as Jewish as they come.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 09, 2009, 04:43:33 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 09, 2009, 10:48:26 AM
Quote from: Tyr on July 09, 2009, 10:46:12 AM
but once the election is under way they do indeed behave democratically.
It's been a while since rioters and armed thugs were out contesting the vote in most democracies.
Jaron & Katmai are offended. :mad:
Since when do our people riot?
Quote from: Jaron on July 09, 2009, 05:27:50 PM
Since when do our people riot?
Last Mexican Presidential election, the loser took over Mexico City for like a month.
Quote from: Valmy on July 09, 2009, 12:58:57 PM
Quote from: Siege on July 09, 2009, 10:08:47 AM
Hungarians had a viable civilization long before your irish forefathers learnt how to read and write.
So they had a viable civilization long before 1950?
:huh:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogham
That civilization died long ago. Western Civilization was only really came about in the dark ages.
I vote that story is fake.
It must pain you to see your people suffering like this, Siege. But don't worry, I'm sure the the riots will die down soon and all your semite brothers can get back to the rigors of every day life: goat herding, beheading people, and of course - finding new wells to poison.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 10, 2009, 08:18:09 AM
That civilization died long ago. Western Civilization was only really came about in the dark ages.
Disagree. Western Civilization is the sum of the human societies which can trace an unbroken path through history (usually through the Catholic Church and Roman Empire) to the three pillars, Rome, Greece and Israel.
Quote from: Jaron on July 11, 2009, 05:52:46 AM
It must pain you to see your people suffering like this, Siege. But don't worry, I'm sure the the riots will die down soon and all your semite brothers can get back to the rigors of every day life: goat herding, beheading people, and of course - finding new wells to poison.
Persians are aryan, dude.
Quote from: Jaron on July 11, 2009, 05:52:46 AM
It must pain you to see your people suffering like this, Siege. But don't worry, I'm sure the the riots will die down soon and all your semite brothers can get back to the rigors of every day life: goat herding, beheading people, and of course - finding new wells to poison.
:lmfao:
Iran=Aryan. Land of the Aryans, you MEXICAN!
Quote from: Queequeg on July 11, 2009, 10:40:43 AM
Quote from: Jaron on July 11, 2009, 05:52:46 AM
It must pain you to see your people suffering like this, Siege. But don't worry, I'm sure the the riots will die down soon and all your semite brothers can get back to the rigors of every day life: goat herding, beheading people, and of course - finding new wells to poison.
:lmfao:
Iran=Aryan. Land of the Aryans, you MEXICAN!
Yeah, but they're both Muslims, or derivatives thereof.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 11, 2009, 10:40:43 AM
Quote from: Jaron on July 11, 2009, 05:52:46 AM
It must pain you to see your people suffering like this, Siege. But don't worry, I'm sure the the riots will die down soon and all your semite brothers can get back to the rigors of every day life: goat herding, beheading people, and of course - finding new wells to poison.
:lmfao:
Iran=Aryan. Land of the Aryans, you MEXICAN!
Don't you mean Mexican't?
Quote from: Viking on July 11, 2009, 07:59:32 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 10, 2009, 08:18:09 AM
That civilization died long ago. Western Civilization was only really came about in the dark ages.
Disagree. Western Civilization is the sum of the human societies which can trace an unbroken path through history (usually through the Catholic Church and Roman Empire) to the three pillars, Rome, Greece and Israel.
There's a big break in the path when the Mediterranean societies collapsed in the west and were overrun by Germans. The Mediterranean civilization survived longer in the east but was was itself destroyed and an eastern civilization grew in it's place made up of Slavic and Turkic cultures. Western civilization has as much to do with ancient Greece as classical Greece had to do with the Mycenaean Greece.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2009, 07:16:45 AM
There's a big break in the path when the Mediterranean societies collapsed in the west and were overrun by Germans. The Mediterranean civilization survived longer in the east but was was itself destroyed and an eastern civilization grew in it's place made up of Slavic and Turkic cultures. Western civilization has as much to do with ancient Greece as classical Greece had to do with the Mycenaean Greece.
The West survives that invasion through the Roman Catholic Church and it's institutions and traditions. The Germanic tribes usually established themselves as a new upper class in the Roman territories they conquered. The local population retained their culture and language, which is witnessed by the Lombards ending up with a Latin derived Italian speaking kingdom, the Visigoths with a Latin derived Spanish speaking kingdom and the Franks with a Latin derived French speaking kingdom. The Saxons and Arabs were more through when taking over land. I suggest you read some Henri Pirenne (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Pirenne).
QuotePirenne's thesis takes as axiomatic that the natural interests of the feudal nobility and of the urban patriciate, which came to well-attested frictions in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, were in their origins incompatible. This aspect of his thesis has been challenged in detail.[3]
Traditionally, historians have dated the Middle Ages from the fall of the Roman Empire in the 5th century, a theory Edward Gibbon famously put forward in the 18th century. Pirenne challenged the notion that Germanic barbarians had caused the Roman Empire to end, and he challenged the notion that the end of the Roman Empire should equate with the end of the office of Emperor in Europe, which occurred in 476. He pointed out the essential continuity of the economy of the Roman Mediterranean even after the barbarian invasions, that the Roman way of doing things did not fundamentally change in the time immediately after the "fall" of Rome. Barbarians came to Rome not to destroy it, but to take part in its benefits; they tried to preserve the Roman way of life.
According to Pirenne[4] the real break in Roman history occurred in the 7th century as a result of Arab expansion. Islamic conquest of the area of today's south-eastern Turkey, Syria, Palestine, North Africa, Spain and Portugal ruptured economic ties to Europe, cutting the continent off from trade and turning it into a stagnant backwater, with wealth flowing out in the form of raw resources and nothing coming back. This began a steady decline and impoverishment so that by the time of Charlemagne Europe had become entirely agrarian at a subsistence level, with no long-distance trade. Pirenne says "Without Islam, the Frankish Empire would have probably never existed, and Charlemagne, without Muhammad, would be inconceivable".
Pirenne used quantitative methods in relation to currency in support of his thesis. Much of his argument builds upon the disappearance of items from Europe, items that had to come from outside Europe. For example, the minting of gold coins north of the Alps stopped after the 7th century, indicating a loss of access to wealthier parts of the world. Papyrus, made only in Egypt, no longer appeared north of the Alps after the 7th century: writing reverted to using animal skins, indicating an isolation from wealthier areas.
Pirenne's Thesis has not entirely convinced all historians of the period. One does not have to entirely accept or deny his theory. It has provided useful tools for understanding the period of the Early Middle Ages, and a valuable example of how periodization schemes are provisional, never axiomatic.
Don't forget the survival of western civilization hidden away in Ireland too.
This doesn't support your "unbroken line" theory though.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2009, 01:31:48 PM
This doesn't support your "unbroken line" theory though.
I think there is a middle ground. Materially and culturally the Greeks were very different from the Mycenaeans; the alphabet was completely different, so was a lot of the religion, language and even style of warfare, with the vast majority of Mycenaean history forgotten or mythologized, while in Western Europe Latin was never forgotten, even if Greek (the more important language) arguably was, and many Western European (or, for that matter, Eastern European and Middle-Eastern Rulers as well) rulers saw themselves as successors to the Caesars.
That guy, Henri Pirenne, was kind of cool:
QuoteHow involved Pirenne was in the Belgian resistance is not known. What is known is that Pirenne was questioned by German occupiers on March 18, 1916, and subsequently arrested. The occupying army had ordered striking professors at the University of Ghent to continue teaching. Pirenne's son Pierre had been killed in the fighting at the Battle of the Yser in 1914. The German officer questioning Pirenne asked why he insisted on answering in French when it was known that Pirenne spoke excellent German and had done postgraduate studies at Leipzig and Berlin. Pirenne responded: "I have forgotten German since 3 August 1914," the date of the German invasion of Belgium, part of Germany's war plan to conquer France.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 12, 2009, 01:47:34 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2009, 01:31:48 PM
This doesn't support your "unbroken line" theory though.
I think there is a middle ground. Materially and culturally the Greeks were very different from the Mycenaeans; the alphabet was completely different, so was a lot of the religion, language and even style of warfare, with the vast majority of Mycenaean history forgotten or mythologized, while in Western Europe Latin was never forgotten, even if Greek (the more important language) arguably was, and many Western European (or, for that matter, Eastern European and Middle-Eastern Rulers as well) rulers saw themselves as successors to the Caesars.
A great deal of the Roman stuff was forgotten though. Roman law didn't become common again in Europe until like the 10th century or so. England never went back. While west Europeans idolized and tried to emulate the late classical civilization it was emulation of the other. The way a son looks up to a father in awe. Western European, Eastern European, and Arab civilizations can all trace ancestry and influences back to the Classical Mediterranean civilization but they are not all the same civilization. To say that Western civilization is the same as Mediterranean civilization would be to say the arab and eastern European civilizations are in fact off shoots and illegitimate heirs.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2009, 01:31:48 PM
This doesn't support your "unbroken line" theory though.
Pirenne's thesis is that while the Western Empire's political and military power does end the German Barbarians don't burn the villas and forums, they move into the villas and sell their stolen artifacts in the forum. He claims that the economic infrastructure of the Western Empire doesn't end til the 7th century, 200 years after the end of Romulus Augustulus. In that period the Catholic Church transmits Western Civilisation to the new rulers of Europe.
Quote from: Queequeg on July 12, 2009, 01:47:34 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2009, 01:31:48 PM
This doesn't support your "unbroken line" theory though.
I think there is a middle ground. Materially and culturally the Greeks were very different from the Mycenaeans; the alphabet was completely different, so was a lot of the religion, language and even style of warfare, with the vast majority of Mycenaean history forgotten or mythologized, while in Western Europe Latin was never forgotten, even if Greek (the more important language) arguably was, and many Western European (or, for that matter, Eastern European and Middle-Eastern Rulers as well) rulers saw themselves as successors to the Caesars.
I'm a bit rusty on it but iirc it's more or less accepted that the Myceneans spoke greek. At least that is what the deciphering of lineair B (iirc) told us.
Quote from: Viking on July 12, 2009, 02:29:58 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2009, 01:31:48 PM
This doesn't support your "unbroken line" theory though.
Pirenne's thesis is that while the Western Empire's political and military power does end the German Barbarians don't burn the villas and forums, they move into the villas and sell their stolen artifacts in the forum. He claims that the economic infrastructure of the Western Empire doesn't end til the 7th century, 200 years after the end of Romulus Augustulus. In that period the Catholic Church transmits Western Civilisation to the new rulers of Europe.
the Barbarians don't even 'end' the empire. Most, if not all, barbarian successor-states recognised the surpemacy of the empire (usually the west. Only the Ostrogoths saw their empire as being under the empire of the east iirc)) until well after the Empire ceased to be. The western empire was in effect the zombie of the times.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2009, 02:13:28 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on July 12, 2009, 01:47:34 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2009, 01:31:48 PM
This doesn't support your "unbroken line" theory though.
I think there is a middle ground. Materially and culturally the Greeks were very different from the Mycenaeans; the alphabet was completely different, so was a lot of the religion, language and even style of warfare, with the vast majority of Mycenaean history forgotten or mythologized, while in Western Europe Latin was never forgotten, even if Greek (the more important language) arguably was, and many Western European (or, for that matter, Eastern European and Middle-Eastern Rulers as well) rulers saw themselves as successors to the Caesars.
A great deal of the Roman stuff was forgotten though. Roman law didn't become common again in Europe until like the 10th century or so. England never went back. While west Europeans idolized and tried to emulate the late classical civilization it was emulation of the other. The way a son looks up to a father in awe. Western European, Eastern European, and Arab civilizations can all trace ancestry and influences back to the Classical Mediterranean civilization but they are not all the same civilization. To say that Western civilization is the same as Mediterranean civilization would be to say the arab and eastern European civilizations are in fact off shoots and illegitimate heirs.
Well I don't claim that western civilization is the same as mediterranian civilization or that arab or eastern european civilization is part of the greater western whole.
As for the Orthodox East, it got conquered by an outside civilization which did not adopt it's culture. The Franks learned latin, became christians and started drinking wine. The Turks didn't learn greek, they didn't convert and they kept their love of the flesh of goats and sheep. The same applies for the Mongols in Russia. None of the Western Institutions effectivly survived the Turkish and Mongol conquests. While the Patriarchate survived under the Turks in name, it didn't in practice. The Russian Orthodox church survived after the conquest of Kiev, but that as well didn't survive in as it was. You don't have the same sort of turmoil which overturns ALL institutions at once in the west as happened to the Orthodox East.
The Arabs however don't draw legitimacy from Rome/Greece/Israel at all. They have Arabia. Now the argument I'm expecting now is that somebody will mention the Arab speaking philosophers which studied and preserved the Greek Philosophers. Well, on the whole the Arab Philosophers (with one or two iberian exceptions) dealt with the ancient greeks ala carte. Selecting the parts which they felt were consistent with Islam, rather than dealing with the whole.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on July 12, 2009, 02:32:09 PM
I'm a bit rusty on it but iirc it's more or less accepted that the Myceneans spoke greek. At least that is what the deciphering of lineair B (iirc) told us.
Linear B writes in proto-greek. That is correct.
Quote from: Viking on July 12, 2009, 02:47:36 PM
Well I don't claim that western civilization is the same as mediterranian civilization or that arab or eastern european civilization is part of the greater western whole.
it might be handy to state that western civilisation as it came to be is based on the economical, political, technological and philosophical developments made by -generally- the peoples living in those lands that are part of the 2 great trade-networks of the Late Medieval and Early Renaissance periods. Basically the late Hansa-network and the Flanders-Northern Italy axis, but including London, Paris and a few other european metropolises of the time.
Add into that some flavour caused by an attempt to emulate an idealised classical period (first roman, then greek, and eventually a mix) as well as the christian component.
The end result is basically the place where:
the basic tools of modern capitalism were created (nothern italy, in lesser amount low countries -at least initially)
where the printing press was developed/spread
where the Reformation and Contra-Reformation faught their greatest battles
where the Renaissance began
where the age of science and reason began
etc.
In effect the birthplace of Western Civ is a pretty restricted area, neither catholic nor protestant, with a penchant for earning money and killing kings.
wether or not the above has any worth is debatable, but I'd wager that if were really able to say where western civ came to be it'd be pretty close to the region pointed at.
Quote from: Viking on July 12, 2009, 02:47:36 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2009, 02:13:28 PM
Quote from: Queequeg on July 12, 2009, 01:47:34 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2009, 01:31:48 PM
This doesn't support your "unbroken line" theory though.
I think there is a middle ground. Materially and culturally the Greeks were very different from the Mycenaeans; the alphabet was completely different, so was a lot of the religion, language and even style of warfare, with the vast majority of Mycenaean history forgotten or mythologized, while in Western Europe Latin was never forgotten, even if Greek (the more important language) arguably was, and many Western European (or, for that matter, Eastern European and Middle-Eastern Rulers as well) rulers saw themselves as successors to the Caesars.
A great deal of the Roman stuff was forgotten though. Roman law didn't become common again in Europe until like the 10th century or so. England never went back. While west Europeans idolized and tried to emulate the late classical civilization it was emulation of the other. The way a son looks up to a father in awe. Western European, Eastern European, and Arab civilizations can all trace ancestry and influences back to the Classical Mediterranean civilization but they are not all the same civilization. To say that Western civilization is the same as Mediterranean civilization would be to say the arab and eastern European civilizations are in fact off shoots and illegitimate heirs.
Well I don't claim that western civilization is the same as mediterranian civilization or that arab or eastern european civilization is part of the greater western whole.
As for the Orthodox East, it got conquered by an outside civilization which did not adopt it's culture. The Franks learned latin, became christians and started drinking wine. The Turks didn't learn greek, they didn't convert and they kept their love of the flesh of goats and sheep. The same applies for the Mongols in Russia. None of the Western Institutions effectivly survived the Turkish and Mongol conquests. While the Patriarchate survived under the Turks in name, it didn't in practice. The Russian Orthodox church survived after the conquest of Kiev, but that as well didn't survive in as it was. You don't have the same sort of turmoil which overturns ALL institutions at once in the west as happened to the Orthodox East.
The Arabs however don't draw legitimacy from Rome/Greece/Israel at all. They have Arabia. Now the argument I'm expecting now is that somebody will mention the Arab speaking philosophers which studied and preserved the Greek Philosophers. Well, on the whole the Arab Philosophers (with one or two iberian exceptions) dealt with the ancient greeks ala carte. Selecting the parts which they felt were consistent with Islam, rather than dealing with the whole.
You used the term "unbroken line" if not to the mederiterranian civilization of Greece, Roman et al then to what?
Quote from: Viking on July 12, 2009, 02:47:36 PM
Well, on the whole the Arab Philosophers (with one or two iberian exceptions) dealt with the ancient greeks ala carte. Selecting the parts which they felt were consistent with Islam, rather than dealing with the whole.
So did the Christians for most of the period. And before that other philosophers tended to only cite Aristotle or Plato when they agreed with their point in some way too. When did Europeans stop dealing with the Ancient Greeks a la carte?
The force of Arab philosophers of the time wasn't that they dealt with the Greeks' philosophy 'as a whole' which I think is almost impossible, but that they felt in a position to add and augment Aristotle's theory at a time when Europe wasn't. Philosophically, with the exception of the divine Scotus, Europe was preserving Aristotle.
Although I know a Greek philosophy specialist who admires the Arabs and Catholics for their preserving and adding to the knowledge about Greeks but also roundly condemns them as having fucked up our view of Aristotle for centuries.
QuoteWhile west Europeans idolized and tried to emulate the late classical civilization it was emulation of the other.
This is true for the Medieval period. It was emulation tempered by a view that the greatness of Classical civilisation wouldn't be regained. By the Renaissance people start to see themselves more as equals with their classical antecedents and consciously preen in a classical fashion. Actually many stop seeing the distance. For example, I believe Montaigne who wrote a number of letters to Cicero as an equal.
I'm not entirely sure a phrase as large and all-encompassing as 'western civilisation' is terribly useful for any period of history. I certainly don't think such a thing can be said to exist now. The other period I would have a huge qualm about using the phrase in relation to would be the Medieval because I think 'western civilisation' is rather reductive of something that's actually far more interesting.
I dunno, but I got the feeling that the Renaissance was the worst in regards to the inferiority complex Europe had toward. After all this is the point in time where they were damning their own great accomplishments of the high middle ages. Aristotle was all the rage while mediveal writers were seen as rustics. They seriously debated if they could ever attain the greatness of Greece and Rome up until the 17th century.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 12, 2009, 07:02:28 PM
I dunno, but I got the feeling that the Renaissance was the worst in regards to the inferiority complex Europe had toward. After all this is the point in time where they were damning their own great accomplishments of the high middle ages. Aristotle was all the rage while mediveal writers were seen as rustics. They seriously debated if they could ever attain the greatness of Greece and Rome up until the 17th century.
The Renaissance named itself the 'rebirth' of civilisation and what the previous age the 'dark ages' and the 'Medieval' period (that is defined by being between Classical civilisation and the rebirth of Classical civlisation).
I think the Renaissance is generally thought to include the 16th century, though it's different for different countries and different art forms :mellow:
I don't know where I lost you here.