The first statement of human rights is attributed to Persia’s Achaemenid Emperor Cyrus the Great (Kurosh-e-Bozorg) . Most Iranians take deep pride in the values of tolerance and solidarity encapsulated in Cyrus’s declaration upon his conquest of Babylon:
“When I entered Babylon as a friend and established the seat of government in the place of the ruler under jubilation and rejoicing, Marduk, the great lord (induced) the magnanimous inhabitants of Babylon (Din Tir) (to love me) and I daily endeavored to praise him. My numerous troops walked around in Babylon in peace, I did not allow anybody to terrorize (any of the people) of the country of Sumer and Akkad. I strove for peace in Babylon (Ka Dingir ra) and in all his (other) sacred cities. As to the inhabitants of Babylon (who) against the will of the gods (had/were … I abolished) the corvee (yoke) which was against their (social standing). I brought relief to their dilapidated housing, putting an end to their main complaints. Marduk, the great lord, was well pleased with my deeds and sent friendly blessing to myself, Cyrus, the King, who reveres him, to Cambyses, my son, as well as to all my troops, and we all (praised) his great (name) joyously, standing before him in peace … I returned to (these) sacred cities on the other side of the Tigris, the sanctuaries of which have been ruins for a long time, the images which (used) to live therein and established for them permanent sanctuaries. I (also) gathered all their (former) inhabitants and returned (to them) their habitations. Furthermore, I resettled upon the command of Marduk, the great lord, all the gods of Sumer and Akkad who Nabonidus has brought to Babylon (su sa na) to the anger of the lord of the gods unharmed in their chapels, the places which make them happy.
Iranian dissidents are correct then when they point out that the disrespect towards and discriminatory policies enacted against Iran’s ethno-religious minorities by today’s Islamic Republic undermines Persia’s heritage of cross-cultural tolerance. Here’s a recent example of one such act of desecration:
The Iranian cultural heritage website chn.ir reported that in the framework of Tehran urban development, the Tehran municipality razed seven ancient synagogues in the Jewish neighborhood of Oudlajan in the south of the city – even though the sites had been nominated as national Iranian historic sites.
Actions like the one undertaken by the municipal government in Tehran highlight the critical importance of vigilantly renewing - in the collective conscience of the Iranian nation, at home and across the diaspora - the moral imagination of our Persian ancestors. At the same time, it may be time for those opposed to this barbaric regime to propose a new, values-driven framework to combat the IRI’s immoral misrule.
What values should stand as non-negotiable cornerstones of this new ethico-political framework?
7 Comments
April 22, 2008 at 9:41 pm
It’s unfortunate that these synagogues were demolished, but I’m not sure that the situation is as simple as: their local government doesn’t like Jews or, at least, jews worshiping around them, so they demolished their places of worship. I would also point you towards the Iranian constitution, which says that two seats of parliament HAVE to be reserved for Jews.
Also, if you read that speech you posted closely, you can almost compare it to a speech by George Bush talking about bringing liberty to the Iraqis.
“When [our forces] entered [Iraq] and established a [democratic government] in place of the [tyrant Saddam] under the jubilation and rejoicing [of the Iraqi people]…I can do that for the whole speech, but you get the point.
I admire Cyrus’s legacy - but not to the point of worshiping him like most Iranians. Why can’t we have something or someone more recent to venerate, instead of Cyrus’s legacy from over 2000 years ago? I want to be able to admire a leader that wasn’t a king or an aristocrat, but a man of the people.
peace,
barmakid
p.s. I did not take the link of your blog off for good, I was just revising my layout. It’ll be back up soon (not that it matters, I have like two visitors weekly :)) Also, I apologize for my use of the word retard; it’s just a word we grew up using around here - I don’t mean it literally. I earnestly think that what you do with special ed. children is a noble profession, and I commend you. Maybe you can enroll winston in your class jk jk. ttyl
April 22, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Two points:
1) Are you seriously going to argue that Iran’s 20,000 or so Jews have equal status under the law just because the regime let’s them have two subservient representatives in the Majlis?
What about the fact that they have to clearly mark their small businesses as belonging to a religious minority (“aghaliat mazhabi”)? What about the fact that their schools have to have a Muslim administrator? What about the fact that they have to follow sharia norms in public? Or the fact that the Iranian population is daily bombarded with anti-semetic messages from the state-owned media? Oh, and I almost forgot, the IRI hosted a holocaust denial conference attended by, among others, David Duke!
2) The comparison between Cyrus the Great and G.W.B. is absurd as well. I won’t challenge you on your assertion that G.W.B.’s message of liberation smacks of falsity because the invasion was an act of imperialism — that’s for a different time and place. But let’s assume you’re right on the invasion of Iraq by the Coalition: your comparison still doesn’t stand because Cyrus’s conquest of Babylon occurred 2,500 years ago! Back in the day, all of the classical empires engaged in, well, imperialism! What’s remarkable about Cyrus’s mode of multicultural tolerance is precisely that it emerged 2,500 years ago.
I do agree with you that we need new leadership and new role models. At the same time, I understand why Iranians cherish their pre-Islamic legacy precisely because it’s so vulnerable under this regime.
April 23, 2008 at 12:53 am
Hello Sohrab,
You know, I was debating whether or not to include a disclaimer that just because they have two seats in parliament doesn’t make up for the kind of discrimination they deal with (it was just surprising to me when I found out that they reserve two seats). So no, the 50,000 Jews in Iran have a lot to work for and a lot to be upset about; as do Bahais, Christians, Zoroastrians, Kurds, Azeris, Baluchis, Turkmen, and other minorities. To be sure, the regime has tainted Persian history with their form of government; never has Iran been entirely Muslim and never has it been entirely Iranian (Persian) - in fact, only 50%-60% of the current population is ethnically Persian.
And to be sure, you are right about the remarkableness of Cyrus’s form of “multiculturalism” in that it emerged 2,500 years ago. So you can say it was contextually remarkable, it’s just that I’m so upset with the fact that we constantly have to refer to Cyrus and the crew to rationalize the post-Achamenian disasters, i.e. the Safavids, Qajars, Pahlavis, and now the Islamic Republic.
In fact, it’s the Safavids who are responsible for this Shiite, mythological mess we’re in. So we can give contextual credit, but outside of this context I’m going to stand by my comparison with G.W.B. - no matter how repulsive that might be to nationalistic Iranians. Should you further challenge my assertion, I will elaborate on my comparison. But there is a sentence in your post that compels me to ask: Do you really believe Georgy boy really went to Iraq to liberate the people? Hmm….
April 23, 2008 at 5:25 am
Barmakid,
Cyrus was an “imperialist” - no question about it. Take, for example, the architecture of Persepolis. What you’ll notice is that there is nothing inherently Achaemenid or “Persian” about it; in fact, Persepolis is really an architectural pastiche/collage of the architectural styles of the various peoples and ethnicities (Babylonian, Sumerian, Assyrian, etc.) the Achaemenid Empire subjugated to its rule. So, in a sense you are right to point out that Cyrus’s declaration comes from a place of imperial confidence, and not of solidarity with the oppressed Babylonians
As for G.W.B.: look, I think that he and the so-called neocons wanted to re-assert American military, political, and cultural primacy in an increasingly multi-polar, confusing world. At the same time, I think there was an idealistic kernel at the heart of their project, i.e. they really did think that the Iraqi people would greet Coalition troops with flowers because they’d been liberated. I think it was an underplanned, badly executed move, but I personally can’t see there being a cynical imperialist impetus as its primary driving force. I think this question will be debated for years to come, so who knows…
April 23, 2008 at 9:11 am
“As for G.W.B.: look, I think that he and the so-called neocons wanted to re-assert American military, political, and cultural primacy in an increasingly multi-polar, confusing world. At the same time, I think there was an idealistic kernel at the heart of their project, i.e. they really did think that the Iraqi people would greet Coalition troops with flowers because they’d been liberated. I think it was an underplanned, badly executed move, but I personally can’t see there being a cynical imperialist impetus as its primary driving force. I think this question will be debated for years to come, so who knows…”
First of all, the neocons were not attempting to reassert anything. American military, economic and political power was (and still is) unmatched. There was no multi-polar world, or the potential for one (especially not because of some sporadic nationalistic movements). After emerging as the victors in the Cold War and establishing a uni-polar global power structure, these neocons were attempting to utilize this newly gained status. And there was not just a kernel of idealism in their planning; it was their premier impetus.
Please don’t make me go through how the British were bogged down in Iraq for over 40years; don’t make me go through how Iraq is an artificial nation-state created only to serve western interests. The U.S. foreign policy establishment realized this, yet they were kicked and shoved into war by the Bush administration.
How you cannot understand that there were “cynical motives” - which I would refer to as U.S. national interest - is beyond me. Allow me to put this into context for you:
The Philippines (1898-1946; 200,00o casualties; purpose of occupation was to maintain a foothold into the East Asian region -against Germany and Japan - and protect their bases on Hawaii; also a main concern was access to Phillipine markets so U.S. domestic overproduction could maintain a maximum amount of outlets for its exports).
The same kind of motives were behind the following military occupations by the U.S. The Dominican Republic (1924); Nicaragua (1933); Cuba (1934); Haiti (1934. And do I have to remind you about Mossadeq and the cynical motives behind that?
There was never a debate - it’s simply a continuation of the past 150 years of foreign policy (not to mention the only thing a nation-state can do when hundreds of other nation-states are trying to do the same, and it’s actually quite destructive); yet there are those who choose to cling on to their ideologies, cultivate their allegiances, and rely on their presuppositions.
peace,
barmakid
April 23, 2008 at 5:43 pm
barmakid (what does that mean anyway?),
Your anti-Americanism is so extreme as to be irrational. You view all of modern history through a naive, judgmental prism in order to create a paranoid, anti-American, “anti-imperialist” narrative.
April 23, 2008 at 7:47 pm
My friend, I have not one oz. of anti-Americanism in me. You do the necessary research and tell me if anything I said was not a matter of fact. Please, I implore you to find one thing that was not a matter of FACT.
And I subtly hinted that America cannot be entirely blamed for what it does. The U.S. came into existence in the context of the nation-state (in fact, the U.S.’s rise to power was shaped by European nation-state rivalries). The establishment of the nation-state was the product of prolonged European war and was intended to prevent further warfare (The Treaty of Westphalia). Well, it hasn’t; instead it has intensified war and nationalism and has set 100+ nations against each other looking for resources and geostrategic advantages. That’s what I meant when I said their motives are not cynical, but actually natural.
That’s the problem with people like you, when you hear something that doesn’t accommodate your presuppositions you start labeling; anti-Americanism this, liberal that, communism this, socialism that…blah blah blah.
Again, find me something I said that was not at matter of fact. If you want to label me as ant-American that’s fine, Republicans do it all the time. But you should know, I have been educated in the U.S., I have worked in politics in the U.S. (city and state level). I have interned for the State Department(and will be a foreign service officer in the near future, hopefully:)) and have worked only in the public sector after graduating. I am a U.S. citizen, I just don’t display my citizenship in an ignorant way like your friend Lawyer (btw, I said those hurtful things to him because he was being a fool and he deserved a fool’s response).
In case you’re interested, let me provide you with a list of books that will elucidate what I am trying to get across to you; The Grand Chess Board by Zbigniew Brzeznski; The Assassin’s Gate by George Packer (great book about the Iraq war, maybe the best), The Cambridge History of American Foreign Relations Vol. 1 -4, In the Belly of the Green Bird by Nir Rosen (another exceptional book on Iraq).
Present affairs always have a context my friend, and that context may span hundreds of years or just a couple; so when you call me anti-0American based on my analysis of history and throw the word “imperialism” back at (which I rarely use) it reminds me of what a 19th century political scientist once said, “The only thing we have learned from history is that we haven’t learned anything from history.”
So in conclusion, if you wish to stand by your accusation of anti-Americanism, please give me one example of something I said that was “irrational” or “naive.”
peace,
barmakid
p.s. instead of me writing more about what barmakid means, I would just wikipedia it - there’s a good explanation there.
Leave a Reply