Recent comments in /f/history

MeatballDom t1_j1oclu4 wrote

All discussions on the sub must be about events that happened at least 20 years ago (and of course follow the other rules too). But that one is non negotiable.

It matters because everything that happens is part of history, and thus historical. But to keep ourselves from being overwhelmed with modern events -- which the r/news r/politics r/worldnews etc subreddits cover perfectly, we ensure that there is a large gap between the present and the past to maintain something which sets us apart from other subreddits.

1

CaptainCAPSLOCKED t1_j1o1bzt wrote

The vast majority of Iran wanted what they got. The westernized minority, who were a very small minority, wanted democracy.

That westernized minority make up the majority of Iranian expats in the west. If you listen to them you will get the feeling that Khomeini gaining power was a fluke and that no one wanted him, but that's not the truth.

1

Darkness1231 t1_j1o10ft wrote

Shah was corrupt, to a massive level. He did some good, some of which came back to bite him. He educated many. I don't have knowledge of the split between middle and lower classes educations. But, consider this, education involves many options of how to manage/govern a people/nation. What happened was more and more people were aware that the Shah was indeed on the bad side of history.

Existing order educates the masses. Masses realize exactly how bad their situation is. Masses rebel, establishing a new order. In Iran, the referendum allow the religious fanatics to outnumber the reasonable (to myself) middle, to lower upper classes. Bingo, theocracy. Middle class loses all the gains they had under the previous order.

8

mee3uk t1_j1o09l3 wrote

If you want to know what the Iranian people thought of Khomeini rather than the western propaganda, look at the video footage of his funeral. No western leader will ever get such huge gatherings for their funerals, even the British Queen that recently died didn’t get large crowds relative to Khomeini.

0

ozninja80 t1_j1nt6l8 wrote

I also read “Shah of Shahs” by Ryszard Kapuscinski. It’s a fantastic, easy to digest book which documents the downfall of Shah Reza, written by a journalist who spent years living and working there.

Toward the end of the Shah’s rule, the writer describes the growing collective rage of the Iranian people, having existed under the brutal, oppressive rule of the Shah for many years. During the Shah’s reign, anyone brave enough to challenge the authorities was likely to be either killed, imprisoned, or disappeared entirely.

When the people eventually rose up and overthrew his regime, at a cost of many lives, there was a large number who (quite understandably) were incredibly angry at the treatment they had been forced to endure. Whilst various factions, including socialists, were vying for power during this time, the ones who channeled this public anger most effectively were the Islamic fundamentalists. I think it’s fair to presume that the populous never knew or anticipated just how oppressive their rule would also turn out to be.

It also needs to be mentioned that the Shah was really just a corrupt, Western-backed puppet who lived a life of opulent excess. In contrast, Iran had previously democratically elected a leader decades before (Mossadegh) who had sought to nationalise their vast natural resources at the time. This was obviously an unacceptable proposition for the British & Americans (and the effected oil companies, eg. BP) who were heavily invested in exploiting Iran’s oil reserves . As a result, his government was swiftly overthrown in a British-American backed coup. I mention this for broader context, as there is a long, clear history of Western intervention in middle eastern and Iranian affairs, given the enormous wealth that has been at stake. This has most certainly played a part in shaping the anti-American rhetoric of the present day Islamic republic.

123