Iran before the Revolution

[Dessi]

Another thread linked to this article, in which Iran recently executed 3 gay men by hanging.

Read the first comment on that article:

Originally Posted by elegantly wasted via gawker

My rents lived in Iran in the seventies before the revolution. Their photo albums during that time seem so unreal now. Iranian women in miniskirts and bellbottoms, or in overalls with tank tops underneath which was a big trend. My dad and his Iranian friends sporting disco looks and dancing to Jackson Five records. My mom, a runner, still has her "Tehran '77" marathon tshirts which she earned during races there while wearing her short shorts just like all her fellow runner friends did, male and female.

As Americans, they had to flee Iran in '79 during the revolution and the overthrow of the Shah. It's strange and very sad to look at their photo albums from that time and hear their stories, then hear about Iran today.

The Iranian people are being held hostage by their government, and it's tragic that there's no way to help them without making a much bigger mess of things.

I was born in the 80s, so my picture of Iran has always been repressive backward country with no semblance of respect for women or lgbt people. I'd never in my life heard of Iran as a liberal paradise, Iranians in miniskrits, but sure enough, first two results in a google search are:

Iran in the 70s before the Revolution
Iran: Then and Now

Holy hell, what happened to Iran? I never thought Orwell's nightmare could seriously materialize in the world, but there it is, staring me in the face.

I'm reading about the Iranian Revolution, and its just bizarre (students taking an embassy hostage, thinking it'll create a democratic republic, and does just the opposite, wtf?). Its scary because its so recent in history.

I don't know much about Iran. Please, someone tell me its going to get better, things will go back to the way they used to be.

[NewtonTrino]

For some reason I had always assumed this was a bit of an urban legend. Or at least exaggerated. I'm interested to hear from someone more knowledgeable on the subject.

[I Ratant]

There's similar items about pre-Taliban Afghanistan.
Religious nuts are downright dangerous to humanity.

[Toontown]

Large Theocratic Sibling took over Iran. Let it be a lesson to all of us. If we let it happen here, we will be regarded as the most stupid generation of all time, when sanity returns.

[MG1962]

Yeah Iran was a nation with strong Western connections, and so was Afghanistan as someone mentioned. It is hard to believe that in that same era Beruit used to be the Paris of the East, and many fashion houses would release collections there to test drive them before the boutiques of Paris would get them.

I am not prepared to be so quick to blame religion for the problem, but extremism is at the root of much of human suffering

[Virus]

Originally Posted by Dessi

Holy hell, what happened to Iran? I never thought Orwell's nightmare could seriously materialize in the world, but there it is, staring me in the face.

I don't know much about Iran. Please, someone tell me its going to get better, things will go back to the way they used to be.

The various opposition forces believed the Ayatollah was a democrat and would step down. They were wrong.

[Howie Felterbush]

An uncle of mine spent some time in various Middle Eastern countries in the sixties and seventies. He came back with a real fondness for the people and the area. He was working for a company doing oil research, but he says what he mostly did was party.

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by Virus

The various opposition forces believed the Ayatollah was a democrat and would step down. They were wrong.

Got any references for that?

[Captain Obvious]

Historical context of the Iranian revolution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Howie Felterbush

An uncle of mine spent some time in various Middle Eastern countries in the sixties and seventies. He came back with a real fondness for the people and the area. He was working for a company doing oil research, but he says what he mostly did was party.

A professor of mine spent some time in Tehran. She said she attended some of the wildest parties of her life there, and this was after the revolution. Her account was of a people who largely feel that their parents traded one oppressive dictatorship for another.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by Dessi

Another thread linked to this article, in which Iran recently executed 3 gay men by hanging.

Read the first comment on that article:



I was born in the 80s, so my picture of Iran has always been repressive backward country with no semblance of respect for women or lgbt people. I'd never in my life heard of Iran as a liberal paradise, Iranians in miniskrits, but sure enough, first two results in a google search are:

Iran in the 70s before the Revolution
Iran: Then and Now

Holy hell, what happened to Iran? I never thought Orwell's nightmare could seriously materialize in the world, but there it is, staring me in the face.

I'm reading about the Iranian Revolution, and its just bizarre (students taking an embassy hostage, thinking it'll create a democratic republic, and does just the opposite, wtf?). Its scary because its so recent in history.

I don't know much about Iran. Please, someone tell me its going to get better, things will go back to the way they used to be.

There was a big backlash against American hold over Iran, and American culture. See the link to Capitain Obvious. I am also quite suspicious of the photo, I doubt it was representative of the population. For one, you don't see anybody under 30. It is actually quite typical of photo taken among young people partying or going into trendy places. There is nobody seemingly older than 30ish. I have no doubt Iran went down the drain (a simple opinion) with fundamentalist, but I doubt the photo are representative too. ETA: some seems to be advertising post cards too. And we know all ads represent the truth, right ?

For one I can see similar striking photo difference between what the media shows from France in the 70ish and what the photo collection of my family shows from the same time. just by virtue of being far from Paris, in the north (lille).

[Virus]

Originally Posted by MG1962

Got any references for that?

A Time to Betray. by Reza Khalili.

There's an interview with him here:

http://www.michaeltotten.com/2010/04...ary-guards.php

Quote:

MJT: Khomeini portrayed himself then as a democrat.

Reza Kahlili: Absolutely. I hope that I show that in the book. He deceived Iranians. He presented himself as a democrat. Everything he said indicated that different political parties would be involved, that the clerics would not interfere, that people would have the right to choose whatever they wanted. But he lied through his teeth. Everything he said was a lie. Nobody expected that from him because he was a figure from the 1960s. He was criticizing the Shah when nobody else dared to. Everybody thought of him as an honest, righteous man.

[Aepervius]

"Everybody thought of him as an honest, righteous man."

They must all have been very naive to think that of a religious or politician (or even both).

[Humes fork]

From my impression, Iranian immigrants are among the least religious from Muslim countries. By proportion, as many of them as of native Swedes pursue higher education.

It's sad Iran went the way it did. It has always been an influential part of the Muslim world, and had it remained on the road to modernity, other countries might have followed. Now it instead funds a theocratic "state within the state" in Lebanon, that is, Hezbollah.

Originally Posted by I Ratant

There's similar items about pre-Taliban Afghanistan.
Religious nuts are downright dangerous to humanity.

Well it's rather pre-war Afghanistan. The Taliban arose in 1994, and Afghanistan was rather messed way before then. For one, their opponents in the Northern Alliance were Islamists as well.

[Eddie Dane]

Originally Posted by Virus

The various opposition forces believed the Ayatollah was a democrat and would step down. They were wrong.

Yep, the democratically inclined opposition threw their weight behind the revolution. Not long after that they were prohibited from dancing by rural illiterates.

[Lamuella]

Captain Obvious makes a very good point. Any time we look at the 1978-1979 Iranian revolution, remember that it happened about 26 years after the UK and the USA helped to overthrow a democratically elected government in order to transfer power to an absolute monarch.

[MG1962]

Originally Posted by Virus

A Time to Betray. by Reza Khalili.

There's an interview with him here:

http://www.michaeltotten.com/2010/04...ary-guards.php

Thanks its an element of the revolution I'd never heard. Should be an interesting read

[Leumas]

If you were to enter a room and see a guy punching another in the face, would you assert that the puncher is the instigator of the aggression? Would you draw the conclusion that the puncher is thus guilty of assault? Or would you require more information about the HISTORY of the situation?

Would you reason that perhaps before you walked in on the incident there might have been some action that might have precipitated the puncher to punch the other person? Is it possible that when the HISTORY of the episode is considered that it might come to light that the APPARENT aggressor was in fact self-defending in response to an earlier attack by the other man you saw being punched and precipitately have felt sorry for?


I have posted the information below in response to another thread. But here is an excerpt of Iranian History

Quote:

In 1925, Reza Khan overthrew the weakening Qajar dynasty and became Shah. Rezā Shāh initiated industrialization, railroad construction, and the establishment of a national education system. Rezā Shāh sought to balance Russian and British influence, but when World War II started, his nascent ties to Germany alarmed Britain and Russia. In 1941, Britain and the USSR invaded Iran to use Iranian railroad capacity during World War II. The Shah was forced to abdicate in favor of his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

In 1951, after the assassination of prime minister Ali Razmara, Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh was elected prime minister by a parliamentary vote which was then ratified by the Shah. As prime minister, Mosaddegh became enormously popular in Iran after he nationalized Iran's petroleum industry and oil reserves. In response, the British government, headed by Winston Churchill, embargoed Iranian oil and successfully enlisted the United States to join in a plot to depose the democratically elected government of Mosaddegh. In 1953 US President Dwight D. Eisenhower authorized Operation Ajax. The operation was successful, and Mosaddegh was arrested on 19 August 1953. The coup was the first time the US had openly overthrown an elected, civilian government.[108]

After Operation Ajax, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's rule became increasingly autocratic. With American support, the Shah was able to rapidly modernize Iranian infrastructure, but he simultaneously crushed all forms of political opposition with his intelligence agency, SAVAK. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini became an active critic of the Shah's White Revolution and publicly denounced the government.

Khomeini was arrested and imprisoned for 18 months. After his release in 1964 Khomeini publicly criticized the United States government. The Shah was persuaded to send him into exile by General Hassan Pakravan. Khomeini was sent first to Turkey, then to Iraq and finally to France. While in exile, he continued to denounce the Shah.

Also see the original post for another similar situation in another troubled area of the world today.

[TimCallahan]

One hopeful point is that in all the countries in Europe where theocratic states ruled in the 1600s, their oppression created such a backlash that most of those states today are very unreligious. I have little hope for Afghanistan's tribes embracing anything modern. However, I suspect, particularly in light of what has happened in Tunisia, Libya,Egypt and Syria, that the Iranian theocracy will eventually fall.

[Schrodinger's Cat]

I have a friend in his early thirties who moved here from Iran just a few years ago. He paints a very interesting picture. He comes from a wealthy family, and stated there is a big youth underground culture in urban areas of Iran. They have parties, go to underground clubs, do drugs, drink, and have sex. He stated the black market in Iran is huge, and it's far easier to get drugs and other illegal things there (not just drugs and alcohol, but things like books, movies, music, etc) than it would be to obtain illegal things in a place like America. As they are wealthy, if they get caught doing something they weren't supposed to (drinking, being in mixed gendered company), their families would just pay to get them out of jail and the charges dropped. Though if they caught doing something really forbidden - like being caught having sex with a woman you weren't married to rather than just being in the same room with her - the consequences may be a lot more dire.


He's actually played me some really cool Iranian techno music that is popular in their underground club and party scenes.

The counter culture youth that you see in Western countries is still present, just much more clandestine.

I have a few friends from Middle Eastern countries where alcohol is illegal, but they said all their parents kept alcohol at home and served it at private parties. They stated that there would be big trucks that would drive around that essentially had a full liquor store in the back, with a huge selection of Western selections of alcohol. They said the ban didn't seem to really be enforced and people talked about drinking pretty openly. Of course these also were people from wealthy, urban families, so I don't doubt that things are a lot different for other classes of their society.

It really is sad to see how far countries like Afghanistan and Iran have fallen in a few short decades.

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by TimCallahan

One hopeful point is that in all the countries in Europe where theocratic states ruled in the 1600s, their oppression created such a backlash that most of those states today are very unreligious. I have little hope for Afghanistan's tribes embracing anything modern. However, I suspect, particularly in light of what has happened in Tunisia, Libya,Egypt and Syria, that the Iranian theocracy will eventually fall.

The REACH OF MAN in the 1700 was nothing compared to what we have today. Despots, including religious ones, have at their disposal today means to detect, hedge and squash any organized revolt. Combine that with External “Assistance” and you can see why the prospects for anything really happening are quite grim.

By the way... I don't hold an optimistic future for the Libyan etc. revolts. In fact I am quite sure that the results will come back to haunt us in a decade or so just as the Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan ones did, and these troubles will begin just after the current main troubles are quenched. In a similar manner to how the moslim troubles started right after the cold war was over.

[godless dave]

It wasn't quite a liberal paradise. Criticizing the government, or even being suspected of criticizing the government, could get you a visit from the Shah's secret police and a long stay in prison if they didn't just shoot you.

[Halfcentaur]

Whoa, reading one of the sites with the pictures,....

Quote:

When you want to destroy a society, you try to break it from within. That is what the Islamists did. What the Soviets tried. That is what our enemies have been trying here. They have tried to break America’s confidence in itself which was once unparalleled. They have tried to make Americans question every move they make. They tried to make everyone believe we’re the bad guys, so we won’t fight back when they try to destroy our government. Now we have people in government trying to undermine our constitution and rights in every way, and these people were educated in the ways of Marxists. In fact, over 70 self professed socialists in Congress now. Many members of this administration have socialist or leftist ties. Many, if not most of the Republicans and Democrats in Congress and the Senate are advancing big government.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

For some reason I had always assumed this was a bit of an urban legend. Or at least exaggerated. I'm interested to hear from someone more knowledgeable on the subject.

What did you think was an urban legend?

For context, in the then and now photos, the pictures from the 1970s look typical.

The "now" with Ahmadinejad is a bit misleading. There are plenty of women who dress like that but many others push the envelope.

I've had a thing about Iran since the '70s, followed the revolution and visited in 2003 when it looked like things would open up in a major way. In two weeks I encountered no anti-American sentiment. It's full of young people who like to have a good time. They lead different lives in public than in private. Don't believe any pictures issued by the government; they will be vetted for propaganda purposes. Visit http://theiranian.com, read the graphic novels of Marjane Satrapi and for the longer haul check out "Guests of the Ayatollah" by Mark Bowden.

The specific rage against America was because we offered hospitality to the shah. (The 1953 coup didn't hurt). Even when Khomeini returned, it wasn't obvious what kind of government there would be. He reportedly was enormously charismatic and while deeply religious was not terribly political.

When "students" seized the U.S. embassy, he was baffled and told an envoy to "get them out of there." But over the next few hours it became clear what a successful stunt this was to become and things spun out of control.

Before the revolution there were lots of educated, middle-class people who thought that overthrowing the shah would liberate the country. Somehow the theological class prevailed, partly by executing a lot of those educated, middle-class people. I am hopeful the regime will run its course and that Iran can begin to rise up on the basis of its considerable strengths. But, I have been hoping that for a long time; it has seemed imminent on some occasions; and in the end the mullahs still rule. I still think that could change pretty quickly.

[geni]

Not consistent with the 1940s pics. Consider:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ir...idor._1943.gif


Indeed I would argue that persians/iranians appearing in the background of pics taken off the Persian Corridor are one of the better sources with have with regards to regular persian dress of the period.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by Dessi

Holy hell, what happened to Iran? I never thought Orwell's nightmare could seriously materialize in the world, but there it is, staring me in the face.

Orwell's work wouldn't have resonated so much if it didn't build on real patterns in human behavior. "Revolution betrayed" is a common theme in his work and it was based on history. "Animal Farm" and "1984" reflect a hatred of communism, in a somewhat partisan sense. Orwell was a socialist, a devout leftist, but his experiences in Spain in the '30s took away any ideological sympathies he might have shared with the USSR and China. Intellectual dishonesty appalled him.

Dessi, you're a skeptic, learn from what you said: I never thought Orwell's nightmare could seriously materialize in the world. It had already materialized in the world when Orwell wrote. It's as old as history, as old as oligarchies. Iran was indeed a somewhat normal modern country, and despite propaganda it remains so in many ways.

Look to see if there in anything staged-looking about the girls in skirts. The more recent picture is obviously staged. A candid photo of a group of young Iranians socializing today would look more like the '70s shot than the recent shot. The girls would be dressed differently but the regime has not been able to obliterate the pleasure-loving spirit of Iranian culture.

I hope it changes soon. In my opinion it could happen overnight. The theological thugs are obscuring a country with a well-established democratic structure, a lot of educated young people and widespread if not universal disdain for the government. However it is their government, and although the top tiers are not elected, an invasive intervention by the "West" would likely arouse a nationalist spirit that would then work in favor of the mullahs.

Being anti-U.S. partly defines the Islamic Republic of Iran. Their hard-liners and our hard-liners play off each other. If you get interested in Iran seek out the nuances and you will find a lively spirit dwelling in that austere black sea (BTW it's not that austere, street scenes would show). If an "Arab Spring" happened in Iran the country would stand a much better chance of becoming a secular democracy than would any of the Middle Eastern countries we have long supported. The pieces are already in place. Its government has plenty of technocrats who know how to keep services running. The population is quite educated - the women perhaps better than the men. I believe there could be a bloodless coup, though some of my Iranian acquaintances disagree - they say it won't end until there's a mullah hanging from every tree in Tehran.

Keep learning history Dessi, and don't put too much stock in the IRI's imagery. You may have more in common with those young women than you realize. Skepticism is alive and well in Iran. The dress code is just a dress code.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by geni

Not consistent with the 1940s pics. Consider:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ir...idor._1943.gif


Indeed I would argue that persians/iranians appearing in the background of pics taken off the Persian Corridor are one of the better sources with have with regards to regular persian dress of the period.

The period being the 1940s? The snaps in question were from the 1970s which I would consider a different period.

However. It's true that even in the 1970s you would have seen women dressed that way, probably more in the countryside than in the cities. The shah's father tried to ban traditional dress; the shah reinstated some the freedom to wear it. Urban youth culture in the '70s looked a lot like urban youth culture in "the West."

There are historical reasons that make it problematic to compare Iran with Afghanistan, Libya or most other countries in the Middle East. Be wary of painting "moslim troubles" with too broad a brush. In each of the countries Leumas mentioned, conflicts have specific histories unique to their situations. I don't see a big eruption of "moslim troubles" that started after the Cold War ended. Rather, the fall of the USSR seriously unbalanced power in the region (as had the fall of the Ottoman and British empires) and there were geopolitical power grabs in the Muslim world. It may be useful to frame these issues as religious, because it inflames various constituencies at home and abroad.

And as for the reach of man being smaller in 1700? That doesn't necessarily make things easier for despots. Iran is full of satellite dishes, mobile phones and bloggers, as are many Arab countries. Information revolutions matter too.

[SKEPTICALSHAM]

i just wrote a college paper about this
i'll share it soon

[Leumas]

Originally Posted by SKEPTICALSHAM

i just wrote a college paper about this
i'll share it soon

Yes...please do...would be interesting to see what you said. Can you tell us what college and what subject?

[Nosi]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

A professor of mine spent some time in Tehran. She said she attended some of the wildest parties of her life there, and this was after the revolution. Her account was of a people who largely feel that their parents traded one oppressive dictatorship for another.

In Iran parties go underground.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by Eddie Dane

Yep, the democratically inclined opposition threw their weight behind the revolution. Not long after that they were prohibited from dancing by rural illiterates.

Another dupe was Michel Foucault who wrote lots of gushing articles about Khomeini and how the Iranian people are all "speaking in one voice" and blah, blah, blah, postmodern self-satisfied right-on gibberish. Of course, it was pointed out to Foucault that the Iranian theocracy that was bound to emerge would have had him executed as a homosexual and doubly executed as he was a lefty but what did that matter to Foucault who wasn't Iranian and who lived in a postmodern consequence-free world of posturing and denouncing the West?

Well this was the same Foucault who thought that AIDS was a myth and just an invented tool of Western power to subject its judgmental values. Until he became fatally ill with AIDS of course.

OP: there are some good books on Iran such as "Iran: Empire of the Mind" by Michael Axworthy which is a quick-read and summarizes Iranian history from ancient times to the presidency of Ahmadinejad and also a book called "A History of Modern Iran" by Abrahamian. Both books should dispel the idea that Iran was ever a liberal paradise but confirm that it was, at least, a fairly relaxed place when it came to social liberties. Probably still fairly conservative though and maybe not a place where being openly homosexual was smiled on.

Oh, and another good book is Persepolis, a graphic novel.

[Nosi]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

And as for the reach of man being smaller in 1700? That doesn't necessarily make things easier for despots. Iran is full of satellite dishes, mobile phones and bloggers, as are many Arab countries. Information revolutions matter too.

You forget Twitter at your peril. That 'bird' was going at both ends.

Don't also forget the common people in other countries lending their IP addresses to those in Iran when the government tried to clamp down. Then there's the onion router routing more than usual. Computers were very busy.

[geni]

Originally Posted by Nosi

You forget Twitter at your peril.

No you don't. Regardless of the spin of twitter's marketing department it's impact on events in iran was at best insignificant.

[godless dave]

One thing to remember is that Iran is not a small country. I imagine that before the revolution customs and dress varied widely depending what part of the country you were in and what social class you were interacting with. That's probably still the case today.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by geni

No you don't. Regardless of the spin of twitter's marketing department it's impact on events in iran was at best insignificant.

Yes and no. I agree the spin probably overemphasized the significance of Twitter. But widespread use of social media can make censorship harder. There was news coming out of Iran when officialdom would have preferred otherwise.