Recent comments in /f/history
MeatballDom t1_j1oclu4 wrote
Reply to comment by CrypticResponseMan1 in What did the public actually want in the Iranian revolution of 1979? by ReecoElryk
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.
[deleted] t1_j1ocb7i wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in What did the public actually want in the Iranian revolution of 1979? by ReecoElryk
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j1oc3qx wrote
Reply to comment by dr_set in What did the public actually want in the Iranian revolution of 1979? by ReecoElryk
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j1oc1it wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j1o9hbv wrote
Reply to comment by dr_set in What did the public actually want in the Iranian revolution of 1979? by ReecoElryk
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j1o7qjf wrote
Reply to comment by doktorhladnjak in What did the public actually want in the Iranian revolution of 1979? by ReecoElryk
[removed]
doc_1eye t1_j1o7gic wrote
Reply to comment by morismano in What did the public actually want in the Iranian revolution of 1979? by ReecoElryk
No, the previous poster lives in a fantasy world. The Shah killed thousands of people. It's why people wanted to get rid of him in the first place. Khomeini managed to stay in power by being bad, but not quite as bad as the Shah
[deleted] t1_j1o6htf wrote
Reply to comment by whynotzoidber in What did the public actually want in the Iranian revolution of 1979? by ReecoElryk
[removed]
CrypticResponseMan1 t1_j1o5xe3 wrote
What’s the 20-year rule and why does it matter?
[deleted] t1_j1o5km8 wrote
Reply to comment by dr_set in What did the public actually want in the Iranian revolution of 1979? by ReecoElryk
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j1o5i20 wrote
Reply to comment by Tyg13 in What did the public actually want in the Iranian revolution of 1979? by ReecoElryk
[removed]
DoctorGregoryFart t1_j1o2eu4 wrote
Reply to comment by the_jak in Did Oliver Cromwell Ban Christmas? by Brattonismybae
Because of Cromwell? Still bizarre.
[deleted] t1_j1o2081 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j1o1ens wrote
[removed]
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.
Darkness1231 t1_j1o10ft wrote
Reply to comment by morismano in What did the public actually want in the Iranian revolution of 1979? by ReecoElryk
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.
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.
nzdennis t1_j1nzpv9 wrote
Khomeini got in on the populist vote. He promised: no corruption, fairness, equality for all. But, he didn't say by what means this will be brought in (by adherence to shari'a law, not by democratic law).
[deleted] t1_j1nza4u wrote
[deleted]
Nicktune1219 t1_j1nu0tp wrote
Reply to comment by morismano in What did the public actually want in the Iranian revolution of 1979? by ReecoElryk
There was economic growth if you consider that he kept the country a feudal state until 1963 or so. As a result a majority of the population was terribly poor and illiterate.
ozninja80 t1_j1nt6l8 wrote
Reply to comment by dr_set in What did the public actually want in the Iranian revolution of 1979? by ReecoElryk
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.
zhumao OP t1_j1nrvfc wrote
[deleted] t1_j1nrqg1 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j1nqodo wrote
[removed]
CrypticResponseMan1 t1_j1ocsaw wrote
Reply to comment by MeatballDom in What did the public actually want in the Iranian revolution of 1979? by ReecoElryk
Ahhhh, makes perfect sense. Thank you sir/ma’am 😁