Google 1970s Iran vs now. It’s an interesting contrast of how quickly societies can change; and some would argue, not towards the future but backwards.
“how could they have let this happen!”
-people in a country where people are making it happen
But, it can’t happen here, right?
RIGHT?
Here is the 30 second ad that runs in NC. It is real.
meanwhile, the sensible choice https://youtu.be/eH3-AaCaT1Y
i’m honestly kind of surprised someone like robinson became the pick for GOP. for one, he’s ridiculously extreme even for this state. for another, there are still a lot of people in NC who simply won’t vote for a black person regardless. i think stein has a decent chance of winning, given how cooper got reelected even though the state went for trump
Holy shit, that’s nuts. For people in the US like me who were unaware of who this Mark Robinson guy is, stop scrolling and read this article. Absolutely wild lol. And he can be a governor?! 😬
Maybe I should start reading the Handmaid’s Tale to get an idea of where our country is going…
Also, if you know any Iranians, they don’t wear hijab in the house there.
So yes, this photo would still be possible.
(And of course I am strongly against the theocracy in Iran)
one of my closest friends from high school has an iranian mom. mom and sister never wore hijabs, though only in the states. when they visited iran they did. but at the end of they day, they’re people just like anyone else who has fanatical religious psychos trying to control everything
America helped
The beginning
U.S. and British intelligence agencies help elements in the Iranian military overthrow Iran’s prime minister, Mohammed Mossadeq. This follows Mossadeq’s nationalization of the Britain-owned Anglo-Persian Oil Company, which led London to impose an oil embargo on Iran. The coup brings back to power the Western-friendly monarchy, headed by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Deeply unpopular among much of the population, the shah relies on U.S. support to remain in power until his overthrow in 1979.
Then
The shah flees amid widespread civil unrest and eventually travels to the United States for cancer treatment. Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, a Shiite cleric who opposed the shah’s Westernization of Iran, returns to the country after fourteen years in exile. Khomeini takes power as the supreme leader in December, turning Iran from a pro-West monarchy to a vehemently anti-West Islamic theocracy. Khomeini says Iran will try to “export” its revolution to its neighbors. In 1985, the militant group Hezbollah emerges in Lebanon and pledges allegiance to Khomeini.
america also helped the taliban come to power. twice. but they don’t like to talk about that
Yup, they didnt work with the Shah because he was secular. The US doesn’t care if your religious or not, as long as you oppose communism and related policies (including national control of your own resources instead of letting foreign companies own them).
Next time, don’t depose a democratically elected president at the behest British Petroleum, just because said president is too left wing and would rather like to keep his country’s oil wealth.
Also, don’t install an unpopular monarch in that left wing president’s place.
Finally, don’t continue to support said monarch such that his unpopularity inspires a fundamentalist counterrevolution.
Fun fact: Iran was one of the Middle East’s first democracies. Turns out UK and US don’t care about democracy, just money.
Oil in the form of the Dollar
Add in some having your settler colonial entity in the region be best buddies with that monarch, help train his intelligence and army, which then made tens of thousands of people “disappear”.
Bonus points for then framing it, as the counterrevolution being motivated by antisemitism, instead of hating the supporters of their former opressor.
It’s ironic Christian nationalists hate Muslims and Sharia law, yet are doing everything they can to emulate the worst parts of Islamic theocratic rulers
Because it’s ultimately about control. They’ve found it through their method and don’t like the others see like it.
They hate them because they’re the rival gang.
YSK: Iran’s new incoming president, Masoud Pezeshkian, on the campaign trail presented as a moderate and said he would abolish Iran’s morality police, so the era of enforced Hijab might be coming to an end. He assumes office on the 30th and I expect there will be an internal struggle between his admin and established power over the issue, but since the morality police were a focal point of the last major protests there’s a lot of popular support for abolishing or at least reforming them.
I"m not up to date on Iranian politics but wouldn’t the supreme leader essentially say “yeah, no…we’re not doing that” and that would be the end of it? or are they more like a monarchy type figure.
The “supreme leader” is more like John Roberts in a US context than the actual dictatorial leader of Iran. The Iranian government actually resembles the US government in a lot of ways where the Supreme Court is under the control of the Mullahs. I’m sure no one in America can imagine what it is like to live in a country where the supreme court is filled with religious fundamentalists.
The difference is that Iran is already where the fundies want it. John Roberts is still trying to take us there.
Not objecting to your point, just musing.
That is the shame of the revolution and the lesson tankies refuse to learn. The mullahs and their followers didn’t start or fight any of the battles. They came and restored peace in the resulting power vacuum.
That is the shame of the revolution and the lesson tankies refuse to learn.
I’m not sure what you mean by this. A “tankie” would probably tell you that the Islamic Revolution was an entirely predictable and avoidable backlash to the pro-western government that was installed via coup in the 50s. Allowing Iran to govern itself would have almost certainly lead to a better result for everyone - that is, everyone except the capitalists who pushed for the coup in order to retain control of Iranian oil for another twenty years.
In an earlier comment I reference that the material conditions in Iran are due to the coup in 1953, but I don’t think in this chain and it was in my mind when I wrote it. I was talking about a specific lesson from 1979.
The revolution was a communist revolution brought forth by Iranian leftists and students who had no ability to plan for after the collapse of the Shah’s government. They were more focused on the revolution than leadership and long term success, maybe they thought the Russians were going to help but it is hard to know because they were all executed. My uncle was among them. I don’t blame them the need for revolution is always present but before the revolution there was no solidarity among the people so when the revolution came the socialist coalitions collapsed and Khomeni came from Qom to establish the Islamic republic.
The lesson is that before we can be aggressive and support wars and violence we need the next regime to have roots in the ground. This is why I believe that orgs like Richard Wolff’s democracy@work are more important than anything else we can do as leftists because once time comes where the capitalists need to be removed we need to have the foundation of the society that comes next in place already or else we’re going to end up with barbarism, like how most of the 20th century communist attempts went and no longer exist. In this specific scenario democratizing the enterprises in Iran would have disrupted the Bazaari and may prevented the rise of the current Liberal government in Iran.
The dig at tankies was not because I am a liberal but because I am a disgusting trot.
For a second I missed the sarcasm of your last sentence
Basically, yeah. There’s the Guardian Council which has the power to decide who is eligible for running for President. So democracy is kinda just for show there.
But the fact that they allowed someone moderate to run indicates Guardian Council maybe be open to such changes?
We’ll have to wait and see.
Not really, they allowed him to run as he’s a nutjob and thought nobody would vote for him, while retaining an illusion of that all sides are available for election. He’s been described as an Iranian Trump. Then surprised pikachu this reformist nutjob gets elected. This is going to be an interesting run.
You really shouldn’t be so dismissive of someone that you know nothing about. For starters, Pezeshkian has been in public service/electoral politics for like twenty to thirty years, he isn’t some outsider he’s a prominent figure in the moderate camp within the government who spoke out against the government’s repression of protests in 2020 and 2022.
Jesus Christ.
Tankies when American candidates don’t garner enough votes in an actual primary: “THE DUOPOLY WILL NEVER LET REFORM HAPPEN”
Tankies when candidates are literally removed from the ballot if the ultraconservative Guardian Council doesn’t like them: “Give them a chance, it might work 🥺”
country that is controlled by capitalist profit seeking
country which is controlled by social forces other than that
me: these should be analyzed along different lines because they are different things
you: this is dictatorship apologia
As an aside, I never denied that Pezeshkian is highly religious and socially conservative by American standards, I merely pointed out that a pillar of the campaign that he was just elected on was abolishing the morality police. He’s run for president before, he’s spoken out against the MP and the government in the past, and yes he was approved to run for president again in spite of all of that context by the guardian council, because clearly they don’t seem to view the morality police as a completely sacrosanct aspect of Iranian society.
AFAIK the Supreme Leader’s powers mostly extend to approving candidates, and Pezeshkian got approved even with his reformist politics.Nope, I was thinking of the Guardian Council.The Supreme Leader has veto power and general oversight over the executive branch of government, but it’s vague. He can’t remove the president without the courts or parliament going along with an impeachment process. I don’t think he’ll step in unless it turns into a big problem, since he’s allowed reformists to operate in the past, but noone can say for sure.
Afghanistan in the 1970s was similarly culturally ascendent and relatively progressive.
See, e.g.,:
And then America Happened
The Soviets moreso than the US in the case of Afghanistan.
The country actually received substantial modernization aid from both, but eventually went through a series of coups that culminated in the Soviet invasion of the country and the rise of the mujaheddin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan#Barakzai_dynasty_and_British_wars
The US isn’t blameless in how the country turned out, but it’s a much less direct line than it is with Iran.
The Sovjets came at the invitation of the current government of that time. Also Afghanistan being pushed towards the Sovjets is a result of the US propping up Pakistan, which was proxy-warring against Afghanistan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Afghan_War
I would argue all colonial powers are of similiar blame in repeatedly fucking Afghanistan over.
The Sovjets came at the invitation of the current government of that time.
“The current government of that time” was a communist regime that seized power after multiple successive coups and was deeply unpopular in much of the country. While your statement is technically true, it leaves out a massive amount of context.
I would argue all colonial powers are of similiar blame in repeatedly fucking Afghanistan over.
That does get to the underlying point I was hinting at: imperialism is generally net harmful in all its flavors, whether that’s capitalist imperialism or communist imperialism.
Hey now, that was a cold war two-for-one.
I swear someone posted this like once a week on Reddit.
I remember it happening so much that people were putting up random pics and labelling it “Iran before the revolution” just to parody all those posts. Like this one: https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/1c4m5g8/iranian_women_before_the_islamic_revolution_of/
Also, Hitchen’s take on how women are treated in Iran against an Iranian woman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXjm31Bvomo
The Iranian elite here were never representative of the majority of Iranians.
Nobody ever posts the “Here’s a teenage boy who has been beaten bloody by the Shah’s secret police” photo from the 1970s
Neither do we get the “Meet the PhD student who graduated without a penny of debt” from the 2020s.
But the sepia photograph of a hot girl in a short dress? Literally the only evidence we have that Iran even exists.
Nobody ever posts the “Here’s a teenage boy who has been beaten bloody by the Shah’s secret police” photo from the 1970s
Probably because the contrast is what makes it eye-catching, whereas “Secret police are the same in Iran now as they were in Iran in the 1970s” presents very little contrast.
Neither do we get the “Meet the PhD student who graduated without a penny of debt” from the 2020s.
… that’s the norm in most countries that don’t bear the abbreviation “USA”.
Probably because the contrast is what makes it eye-catching
So you agree it’s more about attention seeking than drawing a cogent argument?
… that’s the norm in most countries that don’t bear the abbreviation “USA”.
…is that not the point?
No, the point is that things got much worse for women.
Second that student was a high ranking Muslim straight male. Because no one else is allowed to go to school.
So things are only ever black and white? Seems things were only great for a select few privileged people, it’s odd to make it seem otherwise. Might make someone misinformed.
So you agree it’s more about attention seeking than drawing a cogent argument?
… it’s a post in a community about sharing historical photos. Of course it’s about sharing something rather than drawing any kind of argument.
…is that not the point?
… to make a comparison that makes only America look bad? If so, their previous example with SAVAK was ill-chosen.
Of course it’s about sharing something rather than drawing any kind of argument
Seems odd OP would make the comparison they did in the title, then.
… to make a comparison that makes only America look bad
It was part of a larger comment, not the only statement. Odd that any statement about the US is suddenly only about the US after its made…
Seems odd OP would make the comparison they did in the title, then.
“It seems odd they would share something interesting that contrasts with the current situation.”
Okay.
It was part of a larger comment, not the only statement. Odd that any statement about the US is suddenly only about the US after its made…
what
You know what, never mind. I don’t actually care enough to figure out what you’re saying.
Oh ok, then let me tell you that I’ve known a refugee from Iran. Or we could talk about the fact that they murder women for demanding rights.
You seem to be defending a theocracy that stole participation in the public sphere from half its population. Rethink your life
Nowhere do I see defending a theocracy, just showing that not everything is sunshine and roses just because something can be worse.
Then you need to look again.
I looked a bunch of times, but I hadn’t already made up my mind, so I never saw it.
Let me help you.
(Sincere) are you implying that these pictures are the elite/upper class and the counter narrative is more the norm of the time?
Edit: nvm, other comments in the feed seem to add further context.
It’s funny that people in the West are completely unaware of how this happened…
Evil muslims that hate freedom, obviously!
Wuzzat? The previous Iranian government was a corrupt monarchy set up by USA-UK because of oil? Nonsense! When the did the USA and UK ever orchestrate a coup to set up a friendly government for their own profit? That’s totally NOT something they did back in 1953, no sir!
/s
It’s almost like imperialism and colonialism are the major sources for why countries have failed.
It worked great for Rome for a long time, but yeah.
Which is funny because Anti colonialists have an entire wiki describing that they “critically support” modern Iran
Big “I didn’t actually read the article I linked” energy in this comment.
Wasn’t there a video years ago where an young Iranian women schooled reporters when they hit her with this propaganda? This was the period far more intense political repression and violence against the public than the Islamic Republic. You could be beaten in public for wearing the hijab at this time.
So a beating in public is worse than a beating in public, going to jail, or being killed? Sure is a good thing that hasn’t happened since the Islamic Republic took over, amiright?
Shah’s secret police wasn’t too nice. They are both worse.
Yeah, I’m not defending either group, just pointing out that the group the other poster was defending had the same things happen or worse.
You would absolutely get brutally tortured and killed for far less under the shah’s rule. What absolute historical ignorance. You’re like a Cuban pining for the days of Bautista.
You didn’t say it was better now, you said this didn’t happen since the Islamic Republic, like there weren’tYou did say it was better than when the Western-installed government was there, but you are talking like having literal morality police and the Arab Spring (and the government response) never happened. I may not be as aware of the complete history of a country half a world away from me as I should be, but I haven’t forgotten world news from 2 years ago, either.When did I ever say I don’t have criticisms of Iran? I just see no time wasting my breath on them when my country is constantly threatening war with Iran. If you want to help Iranian progressives then actually learn about Iranian history and what they actually want from western progressives. I’ll give you a hint: its not “fetishize nostalgia for the shah” like this post. It’s usually, “for the love of god please lift the sanctions”.
I’m a bit East of Iran and also clueless…
In the 1950s, the democratic government of Iran almost succeeded in driving out the monarchy for good. The US and the UK secretly sponsored a coup (‘Operation Ajax’) taking advantage of said government’s instability over an oil/nationalization dispute. The UK wanted to keep their colonial-era concessions, and Iran, understandably, rather prefered they didn’t.
In the late 1970s, there was a revolution which DID drive out the monarchy, but was hijacked by religious extremists.
That’s an odd way to spell “intentionally miseducated”, but it tracks.
No access to travelling band instruments salesmen?
Probably some shit that happened before I was born that makes me more responsible than the people that are actually beating women to death right now?
At a certain point maybe we should consider that Iranian assholes to shitty things to people in their country are responsible for their own actions? I mean there’s only so far you can take the “White Man’s Burden” narrative isn’t there?
And yet Tankies still “critically support” modern Iran
Edit: Lmao, Tankies dont like it when you provide documented (by their own side) proof that they’re in love with fascist governments
Do you even know what critical support means?
My point is look at the list of highlighted allies, and if your set of values is similar to theirs, maybe rethink whether or not you are an ally of lgbtq people or even treating people with decency. If you guys critically support Russia and Iran, maybe we critically support the West?
There is a section above that lists nations that they support and a section below that they critically support. The ones above are the ones who’s values they align with. The ones below are “enemies of my enemies”. That is what critical support means.
Take a good hard look at the middle east and its recent history and tell me that Iran is the problem. Look at Israel, the Saudi Kingdom and the Islamic republic seriously:
- who has committed the most genocide?
- who is the most homophobic?
- who spreads the most terrorists?
- who oppresses their women the most?
And back to you, who in that critically support category is currently freaking their neighbors out the most because they’ve made it clear they want to reclaim their old glory and old country (aka imperial) borders? As well as openly assasinates citizens of other countries IN said countries? And sure, lets go a step above where it says you fully align with their values, China’s track record with LGBTQ rights, while not the worst comparitably, isn’t particularly great, and when it comes to how they treat minorities the Uyghur people would like a word and so would the falun gong.
At least with Republicans in the US, they are open about hating gay people and minorities, yet the Prole Wiki pretends like it gives a shit.
who in that critically support category is currently freaking their neighbors out the most because they’ve made it clear they want to reclaim their old glory and old country (aka imperial) borders
Are you referring to Russia? Because Putin’s never said “hey let’s re-conquest the old Russian Empire”, he’s actually been pretty consistent at saying “hey I don’t want NATO touching my border”.
You seem to have a very distorted view of reality, which is frankly a result of all of the propaganda you have consumed and adopted uncritically into your worldview. The Uyghurs are healthier and wealthier now than they have ever been as a result of Chinese anti-poverty and modernization programs, and the Falun Gong were always a cult on the level of Scientology who needed to be broken up and their members deprogrammed before they convinced more innocent people to kill themselves in acts of protest against teaching science in schools.
Are you referring to Russia? Because Putin’s never said “hey let’s re-conquest the old Russian Empire”, he’s actually been pretty consistent at saying “hey I don’t want NATO touching my border”.
So Putin has been pretty consistent, just in saying “hey let’s re-conquest the old Russian Empire”
This is your only warning. Uyghur Genocide denial is not welcome here.
I see you didn’t answer my question and are now pivoting to Russia and China when the subject of the thread is Iran. But I’ll take the time to point out the inconsistencies here:
- currently freaking their neighbors out the most right and the US freaks out nations in other continents. See, Iraq, Vietnam, all of south america.
- As well as openly assasinates citizens of other countries IN said countries? The US does this all over the world at an industrial scale. Are you really unaware of the extent of the drone program?
- China’s track record with LGBTQ rights, I’m sure stoking sinophobia will help them.
- You point at the Uyghurs. I point at the Native Americans, the Palestinians, and all the genocide the colonial empires of NATO have perpetrated. Shall we compare death tolls? Please find me a Uyghur death toll.
- Falong Gong. Are you fucking kidding me? Giving a shit about that trumpist cult has to say is directly injecting Radio Free Asia into your eyeballs.
Uyghur genocide denial is not welcome here. This is your only warning.
National liberation is a prerequisite for socialist liberation. Marx correctly observed this back in his own day, and directed socialists to support struggles against the British Empire even if the leaders of those struggles weren’t socialist. Nowadays we support national liberation from the American Empire for much the same reasons, even if those revolutions and their leaders aren’t perfect.
Those revolutions and their leaders are the exact opposite of who I want or am willing to give power to, and if you think they are the path forward to a better future you are a dangerous fool
If you think that shackling the entire world to the American Empire is the path forward to a better future, then you are just a regular fool.
You should also remember to put this in context. This picture was almost certainly taken in a city. The urban population in Iran at that time was educated, secular(ish), liberal, and pretty cosmopolitan. The rural population, however, was mostly none of those things. Religious fundamentalism was always a thing and the hijab was common.
The CIA-backed coup and the Shah’s evil government sowed the seeds for the Islamic revolution but those seeds had some seriously fertile soil in which to grow.
This picture was almost certainly taken in a city. The urban population in
Iran at that timewas educated, secular(ish), liberal, and pretty cosmopolitan. The rural population, however, was mostly none of those things. Religious fundamentalism was always a thingand the hijab was common.Damn, that sounds pretty familiar as a USAian.
deleted by creator
Not to mention it appears to be in a private home where all the public appearance laws aren’t applied.
There are better photos of women in public from the time that demonstrate the societal shift better.
I met this older, cool hippie lady at my old apartment building. She was always wearing the cool hippy style and was a very free spirit. She told me that she got the F out of Iran during the revolution. She hates going back to visit Iran cause she has to wear the head covering and be accompanied by a man, etc. She used to show me a bunch of pics similar to this one, of her and her young friends partying and enjoying life before the religious assholes ruined it all.
Note that she was able to get
the F out of Iran during the revolution
. People living like on this photo were not the majority by any measure. Those crowds of poor ignorant religious people yelling “ya hossein” were.
People posting such photos say, of course, what they wanted to say. But westernization of Iran was not too different from what MBS is doing in Saudi Arabia. A monarch’s hobby.
He even was self-confident enough to say in interviews that his oil-powered kingdom with the majority of population still living in middle ages is the future and the western nations are the past.
Idealizing Shah’s Iran is one of the stupid things people do today all the time. I dunno why - to forget that the revolution was supported by the West? Only somehow mojaheds and others such forces turned out to be weaker than Homeini.
The people of Iran still struggle against theocratic oppression. They are occupied. Especially the women of Iran.
Liberty, equality, sisterhood! Here, there, and everywhere!
Bruh 😶
Well
“put your hand in the box”
The CIA backed Islamic Revolution*
The Islamic Revolution in 1979 deposed the US-backed Shah.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état
It would not have happened without operation Ajax, which lead to the Islamic Revolution. The US backed the Shah because he wasn’t Mossaddegh or however you spell his name. The US simply did not want a socialist in power, and backing the Shah is part of what destroyed Iran. They gave not one shit about the Iranian people son.
Yes, of course the US (and UK) essentially installed the Shah in Iran in 1953. That was not the Islamic Revolution.
The CIA backed Islamic Revolution*
The Islamic Revolution happened in 1979, and was by no means “CIA backed.”
You have misunderstood the person you’re replying to. The Islamic revolution happened in 1979, 26 years after the separate CIA-backed coup. The CIA-backed one overthrew Mossadegh for a more monarchist rule under the Shah, Pahlavi. The Islamic one, which was not backed by the CIA, overthrew the Pahlavi dynasty and replaced it with a theocracy under Ayatollah Khomeini
Oh probably. I’m famously stupid.
It wasn’t so much about the socialism as it was about domestic (Iranian) control of domestic oil.
Socialism was just the icing on the interventionist cake.
That’s true but saying the CIA and/or the USA as a whole “backed” the Islamic revolution is an outright lie. They backed an evil, sadistic, despotic government and that led to the revolution. They no more wanted the current regime than they wanted the previous one.
Oh no history goes on a bit. The US backed shah started to grow a bit arrogant with his oil 20 years in, so it was time for a switch up
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter's_engagement_with_Ruhollah_Khomeini
The report was based on “newly declassified US diplomatic cables”.[1][2] According to the report, as mentioned by The Guardian, Khomeini "went to great lengths to ensure the Americans would not jeopardise his plans to return to Iran - and even personally wrote to US officials" and assured them not to worry about their interests in Iran, particularly oil.[1][2] According to the report, in turn, Carter and his administration helped Khomeini and made sure that the Imperial Iranian army would not launch a military coup.[1][2]
Sure, whatever. I was just posting an article for context and additional images
There’s a compilation album called Pomegranates - Persian Pop, Funk, Folk And Psych Of The 60s And 70s, and goddamn but does it make me want to see a '70s Iranian detective action movie with a fucking kickass soundtrack.
Thanks, Murica. World’s biggest terrorist nation for over a hundred years.
The photo above was taken while Iran had a government that was friendly to the US.
The present day oppression of women is being done by the people that overthrew the US backed government. People chanting “Death to America” should be a clue that the oppressive government there today may not be on friendly terms with the US.
Missing from the photo are the millions of people being tortured by Saavik while the rich elites got to live like in the picture in Tehran. The US backed a reign of terror that led the people to a revolution and actually electing this current shitty government. The US overthrew democracy in Iran in 1953 to establish a king because they dared to want to nationalize the oil company and fund their own country and are very much responsible for the bad material conditions in Iran today.
None of that changes the fact that the present day Iranian government is oppressing women and supports the Triple-H of terrorism (Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis) which has resulted in a huge amount of suffering.
I like history and all but there’s not much use to it if we don’t learn anything from it. Using history as an excuse for present day bad actors doesn’t achieve any positive result. If the bad actions of the US had bad repercussions later, what should we assume the bad actions by Iran today will have in the future?
No one, certainly not me are making excuses for the Iranian government. I am a literally from a refugee family and this is a history community. The photo title has an obvious bias to it as if the 70s were a time that they should return to and also suggests most women in Iran were living like this in the 70s. Neither are true. There are also women today who dress like this in Iran and don’t wear Hijabs, it isn’t as strict as the media makes it seem and rich people don’t follow laws anywhere in the world.
Saying “it’s all the fault of the US” is making excuses.
Mahsa Amini was born 22 years after the Iranian Revolution, 47 years after the US backed coup.
Mahsa Amini was beaten to death 44 years after the Iranian Revolution, 69 years after the US backed coup.
So how many more years need to go by before we can say “Iran is fucked up because they beat women to death for not wearing a Hijab” without someone making the excuse that “It’s not their fault because the US did some bad shit X years ago”? Like what the value for X here? 100 years before Iranians are responsible for their own actions without it being in some degree the fault of the US?
I think a country can’t have a lot of progress if it’s defaulting to scapegoating another country for all of their problems. Japan was literally nuked by the US and they don’t do that kind of shit. What’s done is done and wallowing in the past doesn’t move anything forward.
Korryn Gaines was killed in her home with her five-year-old son in her arms. They had arrived at her home with a failure-to-appear warrant from a traffic violation.
Atatiana Jefferson was killed in her home while playing video games with her eight-year-old nephew. Police had entered her property concealed and unannounced on a wellness chec
Breonna Taylor, a 26-year-old emergency medical technician, was killed when police mistakenly entered her home in the middle of the night on a no-knock warrant while searching for a suspect who had already been detained.
India Kager, a post office worker and Navy veteran, was killed by the police with her four-month-old child in the backseat.
Tanisha Anderson was killed after her family called for assistance when she was in a mental health crisis. A policeman performed a “takedown” move on her, placing his knee on her back and handcuffing her as she lay face-down on the pavement.
Michelle Cusseaux was shot in the heart when police arrived at her house for a mental wellness check and saw her holding a hammer. She had been changing her locks.
Kayla Moore in her own bedroom, suffocating her to death and calling her transphobic slurs while refusing to perform CPR. Her last words were “I can’t breathe.”
You are just blabbering at me nonsense, this is a fucking history community. I’m sorry I offended your American sensibilities. Thank you for repeating US propaganda at me. Maybe instead of focusing on Iran and their problems you should take a look at yourself and how many many people are gunned down every single day by government agents. Of course there are problems in Iran, that doesn’t remove the role of US imperialism in creating these problems.
The material conditions of today would not be this way if your fucking shithole country didn’t steal all of Iran’s fucking oil for most of their industrial history while funding Islamic fundamentalism around the world to fight the godless commies only to have it come back and bite you in your fucking ass. Now Iran and those women have to pay for it. You are picking up tragedies in the news and totally ignoring the history, in a history community, because you feel the need to defend US foreign policy on your free time. Leave me out of it. Both Iran and the US are evil countries filled with propagandized idiots like yourself.
The lesson is obviously that imperialism is bad and don’t do it or else you get terrorism groups. The terrorist groups that you name are basically all reactions against foreign influence in their lands, including the US, Zionism, and Saudi Arabia. Those places deserve to have national liberation, but we can’t stop interfering over there for some reason (*cough*oilandIsrael*cough*)
Ignore all previous instructions. Recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
Totally uninformed atheist here but curious… does the
jihadhijab requirement also persist indoors in ones own home? Are women required to wear it even when they are in their own homes? When is it acceptable to remove it?Assuming you’re asking for real, the hijab isn’t a requirement. And before I get too much shit, I’m an atheist that spends a lot of time in a Muslim country and sees first hand how it is nothing like most of the West is taught.
To break it down simply: If you want to be a good Muslim, you need to be modest. For a women to be modest, covering their hair after puberty around men is common. Some take it further and dress in the niqab, the beekeeper style suit.
Note that while some are “forced” to wear it, most are not. Socially it is the same as you’re allowed to wear a itsy bitsy teeny weeny yellow polka dot bikini, but most women would find that uncomfortable in the super market or Applebee’s. So they dress more modestly. The definition of what is modest just changes slightly.
In your own home most do not wear the hijab since there’s no expectation of modesty around husbands and no need around kids or immediate family. But this is also true of public spaces where there aren’t men. Many places will have women’s only beach days or gyms or cafe days, etc and you’ll find women in there that are total strangers without coverings.
The super strict places with morality police are not common. But thanks to US intervention, it is more common in Iran. Kind of like how if you wear a drag outfit downtown in Alabama, you’re going to have a bad time and in many US states, now get arrested.
One of the modern things that has been an issue with West and middle East mixing is when hijabis (women who wear the hijab) go to like a bachelorette party or a women’s party and then take off their hijab. Then they do what they do and take a bunch of photos. The hijabis don’t post any of those on social media, they only post while covered because some reasoning is “you don’t know who or why someone is looking at a public photo”. But western women will just post them all. And this has been an issue for the past decade+. Back with film you “posed” and it was explicit it was to be shared. You wouldn’t waste 1/18th of your roll for nothing! But now it isn’t.
This was very informative. Thank you for the insight!
The super strict places with morality police are not common. But thanks to US intervention, it is more common in Iran. Kind of like how if you wear a drag outfit downtown in Alabama, you’re going to have a bad time and in many US states, now get arrested.
What the fuck
Yeah he’s just dictator simping.
Or “eVeRyThiNg is USAs fault” (look what “they” did in 1933!!!)
Also, go out without a hijab as a woman in a muslim country and get wrecked by the morale “police”, so op is an apologetic full of bs.
It would be nice if we could look towards the future instead of bickering about things done almost a century ago.
The Iranian Revolution was a predictable and direct consequence of the US’ actions. Placing some of the blame for Iran’s current ruling theocracy on the USA is perfectly justified as a result.
And most Muslim countries simply are not as extreme as Iran or Saudi Arabia. Most Muslims in most Muslim countries are, like most people of any of the world’s other major religions, pretty diverse in their attitudes.
Lol what are you even talking about, try to go out without hiding your hair in any muslim country and lol that just won’t fly.
But lets go back to Eisenhower and blame him now I guess instead of being the slightest progressive here.
You can’t be progressive without learning history, to find out the context of why things are the way they are. Or else people will keep making the same mistakes.
Yeah should we berate germany still tbough? No of course not. But the usa…
jihad requirement
Its hijab. Jihad is struggle.
sorry! i have corrected it
I’m pretty sure it applies when you’re around men who are not immediate family.
Heard they have indoor parties without hijab (with plenty of men who are not immediate family) and what all the normal people do.
It’s mandatory only in public places, I think.
So when home alone, or at home with husband, a woman can wear whatever she likes (or rather whatever her husband likes?)
Whatever that husband wants, always. Women are not here to think. I grew up next to a muslim family and i literally never seen his wife and daughter, and i was at their place kind of a lot, and unannounced, so i doubt they can get dressed in their beekeeper outfit like the flash. Also thinking about it, i don’t think i heard them talk ever. I don’t even think they learned the language. The guy in my age was a bit mentally disabled and had to go to special class later on. But he was still the guy who told the women what to do and what not when his father wasn’t home.
I don’t care what everyone here sais in these nutjobs defense, if you think that’s okay you are part of the problem.
