Historical Inaccuracies with Persia article

illram said:
Cyrus just kind of pisses me off.

Lol, and I like speaking to you too! You're points are amusing because they miss the point completely.

However, America is a small % of the worlds population,and all of this is getting off the topic here. My point (or one of them, at least) was that in general, a majority of people are poor and not well off, and that the term "civilization" (whatever it means) is a misnomer, and Cyrus' categorizing people as "civilized" and "uncivilized" in order to try and define superiority and inferiority reeks of colonialism and prejudice. I don't think that's being silly, it's being honest.

Superiorty and inferiority in terms of developing and strengthening humanity. Through cultural, scientific, and cultural pursuits there is no doubt in my mind that people have been better off than with the animal-type system.
 
Some resources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Conquest_of_Iran (I suggest you go to the talk page and look at the sources they use, especially Fyre's).

The destruction of Persepolis, destruction of Spring of Khrosow are in The Iranians: Persia, Islam, Soul of a Nation

Conquest:

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/islamic_conquest/islamic_conquest.php

http://www.honco.net/os/index_0204.html

-From the Prince of Persia Forums, sent by Boss Scorpious

"Well, arabs burning persian books happened at the time of arab conquest. Ibn Khaldun in his Muqaddimah writes:
"At the time of the conquest of Iran many books of that country fell into the hands of the Arabs. Sa'd ibn Abi al-Waqqas wrote to `Umar ibn al-Khattab asking his permission to have them translated for Muslims. 'Umar wrote to him in reply that he should cast them into water, "for if what is written in those books is guidance, God has given us a better guide; and if that which is in those books is misleading, God has saved us from their evil." Accordingly those books were cast into water or fire, and the sciences of the Iranians that were contained in them were destroyed and did not reach us."

Abu Rayhan Biruni, in al-Athar al-baqiyyah, writing about Khwarizm, says: "When Qutaybah ibn Muslim reconquered Khwarizm after the apostasy of its inhabitants, he appointed Iskajmuk as its governor. Qutaybah destroyed and eliminated everyone who knew the Khwarazmi script or had some knowledge of its people and their sciences. He dispersed them in different parts of the world, and so-their traditions and conditions have remained unknown, to the extent that after the advent of Islam there remains no means to learn about the facts concerning them."

Also Abu Rayhan writes in the same book: "When Qutaybah ibn Muslim destroyed their scribes and killed their priests (hirbads) and burnt their books and writings, the people of Khwarizm were reduced to illiteracy. They were compelled to rely upon their memory in things that were needed by them. In the course of time they forgot all details pertaining to their differences and preserved in their memory only the general matters on which there was agreement among them."

http://faithfreedom.org/oped/PaoloBassi51003.htm

"The conquest of Islam in the 7th century transformed every aspect of life in the region. For the first time since Alexander the Great lands as far as Egypt and the fertile crescent were united with Persia and parts of India politically, administratively, and most important economically. Under the banner of Islam the political division of the Near East between east and west ceased to exist. Goods and raw materials moved back and forth. Trade expanded and the introduction of sophisticated paper industry by Chinese traders created a boom in the book industry, however there were setbacks. Performing arts were banned and theaters closed down. Women were excluded from public domain and visual arts suffered because of religious restriction i.e. human and other living forms could not be portrayed or sculptured.

Zoroastrian ideology regarded all knowledge as sacred; Umar (the second Caliph) believed no knowledge was knowledge unless it originated in Quran. This was his motto when he ordered the burning and destruction of the famous Library and museum of Alexandria. Built by the Greek rulers of Egypt in the second century BC, the library for almost a millennium endured ravages of time, wars, fires and looting. Many times damaged, it was rebuilt, restocked and was functional till the last minute. It was finally destroyed by Amrou ibn el-***, the conqueror of Syria and Egypt by direct order of Umar in 7th century. The Imperial library at Ctesiphon had the same fate; the whole city was totally destroyed and never rose again. The destruction of such major libraries with the compulsory use of Arabic as the only language made it clear to the scholars and intellectuals that all pre-Islamic knowledge and national identities were in danger of total destruction and they had to be preserved.

Massive and heroic efforts were made and the result was the formation of a dynamic and significant translation movement for almost two hundred years till 10th century. The movement started in Damascus in Umayyad times and flourished in Abbasid Baghdad (754 AD). All major Greek Syriac Persian and some Indian texts were translated into Arabic and Neo Persian. Pre-Abbasid translations from Pahlavi included major religious literary and historical texts. The source books that were used by Ferdowsi in compiling Shahnameh were saved around this time. Greek and Indian texts translated into Pahlavi were re-translated into Arabic and Neo Persian. Ibn-al-Muqaffa (Roozbeh) is the best-known Iranian translator of this period. He was accused of being a Zandaqa (heretic) and was murdered. Popular Manichean and other religious texts were also translated."

http://www.iranchamber.com/podium/literature/030206_translation_movement_iran.php
 
Cyrus: Anyway, concerning Native Americans, they haven't once they've been introduced to Western civilization, never really reverted back to nomadic activity huh?

I should never have brought up Native Americans. But oh well.
I shouldn't be arguing this anymore, but Native Americans didn't revert back to their pre colonial way of life, whether it be nomadic, hunter gatherer, or urban life, because they couldn't. European colonizers and Americans exterminated most of them, and those that weren't already dead were put on reservations or marginalized in other ways. I'm sure if they had a choice hundreds of years ago, it would have been to stick with the way of life they had been practicing already, whatever way of life that may have been. Western "civilization" didn't really help any of them very much.

They had no art. I would like you to give me examples of pre-Islamic Arab art that aren't just cubes.

http://http://www.dia.org/collections/ancient/sarabiansculpture/southarabiansculpture.html

I found this after a 5 second google search. If that is easily found then there must be others. Happy? Does this example of 1st millenium BC art and urbanization of the arabian peninsula satisfy you? Or do you wish to continue in your racist delusions of pre-islamic arabs being barbaric savages that could only fashion cubes?

And what do you have against cubes anyway? Maybe they were minimalists. (haha joke.)

Also, poetry is a form of art, as is music, and this was and still is widely practiced in the peninsula and is largely why the Koran was originally oral and written in a poetic style.

Look man, all I am saying is that you are not making any friends or convincing anyone by calling arabs "animals" and "parasites" and ancient greeks "poor people" who would have been "better off just submitting to Persian rule." I am paraphrasing a little but this is the gist of your argument. Yes, this thread is about Persia, but you are the one discussing it by ridiculing others, so obviously someone is going to disagree with you and focus their discussion on the points which they find offensive.
 
Through cultural, scientific, and cultural pursuits there is no doubt in my mind that people have been better off than with the animal-type system.

To quote my hero, The Dude: thats like, your opinion man.

And there you go again calling people animals.


Also I never really disagreed with you that in many instances Arab conquerors destroyed lots of amazing art and literature, and were known to be overzealous in their religious and conquest-related pursuits. Whenever I go the British museum I am reminded of this by all the headless Greek and Roman sculpures and so on. It would seem you are the one missing the point if you don't realize that the entire time I have been responding it has been due to the fact that in addition to your historical "analysis" you seem to find the need to be derogatory and insulting, which you already admitted to doing.
 
illram said:
I should never have brought up Native Americans. But oh well.
I shouldn't be arguing this anymore, but Native Americans didn't revert back to their pre colonial way of life, whether it be nomadic, hunter gatherer, or urban life, because they couldn't. European colonizers and Americans exterminated most of them, and those that weren't already dead were put on reservations or marginalized in other ways. I'm sure if they had a choice hundreds of years ago, it would have been to stick with the way of life they had been practicing already, whatever way of life that may have been. Western "civilization" didn't really help any of them very much.



http://http://www.dia.org/collections/ancient/sarabiansculpture/southarabiansculpture.html

I found this after a 5 second google search. If that is easily found then there must be others. Happy? Does this example of 1st millenium BC art and urbanization of the arabian peninsula satisfy you? Or do you wish to continue in your racist delusions of pre-islamic arabs being barbaric savages that could only fashion cubes?

And what do you have against cubes anyway? Maybe they were minimalists. (haha joke.)

Also, poetry is a form of art, as is music, and this was and still is widely practiced in the peninsula and is largely why the Koran was originally oral and written in a poetic style.

Look man, all I am saying is that you are not making any friends or convincing anyone by calling arabs "animals" and "parasites" and ancient greeks "poor people" who would have been "better off just submitting to Persian rule." I am paraphrasing a little but this is the gist of your argument. Yes, this thread is about Persia, but you are the one discussing it by ridiculing others, so obviously someone is going to disagree with you and focus their discussion on the points which they find offensive.

Yes, I agree to an certain extent on the Native American condition. With respect to them, I would certainly characterize Europeans as parasites and that they certainly had the choice to remain as such because it was their choice. Also, Native Americans did go into art, weaving, etc. I do think that they were devloped in the arts and sciences.

Um the link is broken. Anyway, it's not like I haven't called my ancestors animals nor anyone else. I merely admire people who devlop things which improves their lives and the people around them.

Yes, I do understand your position and certainly one has to take a sort of fine line with these type of subjects to make sure they don't offend people who would be otherwise agreeing with you. However, since the article made a point about calling Iran "part of the Arabb world", I thought it would be good to show that Iranians actually are very much replused by being called Arabs. And then it snowballed from there...
 
illram said:
It would seem you are the one missing the point if you don't realize that the entire time I have been responding it has been due to the fact that in addition to your historical "analysis" you seem to find the need to be derogatory and insulting, which you already admitted to doing.

Concerning being an "animal", can't you agree with me on the notion that nomads follow a behavior that reflects the common tendency on most animals to follow and find food without the human inventions of farming and self-sustenance?

Also, since you mention the British museum, did you happen to see the exhibit on Ancient Persia in the london one?
 
http://www.dia.org/collections/ancient/sarabiansculpture/southarabiansculpture.html

I used the auto link feature, this one should work.

I dont want to insult you or anything, I can be a little sarcastic and biting, and I am not here to make enemies. I was understandably offended but I don't want this to be a flame war or anything. I respect your opinion even though I disagree with the manner in which you choose to define it.

edit: that link works and doesnt need to be pasted or anything. Dont know why it didnt work already. As for the animal thing, I dont want to go there. People are people, whatever they do is up to them and I dont want to categorize some people as being more like "animals" than others.
 
Um...okay as I recall "Arabs" didn't exist as a group in 1000 BC. Btw, I was aware of a Yemen kingdom, as it was perhaps one of the only kingdoms pre-Islam. However, I disagree that they call the people "Arabs".

-Never mind, I looked up "arab"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab#History

I'm not sure why Encarta told me Arabic didn't exist until the 3rd AD

However, that being said, you are Arab?
 
My father was born in Tunis and my mother is american so I just tell people I am half arab or tunisian depending on who I am talking to, if they ask. I don't speak arabic so I don't really consider myself "arab." Actually I consider myself American, really. I mean thats where I was born and thats the language I speak so that really makes more sense.

As far as the "arabs not existing" thing, whenever "arabs" started, whether in the 3rd century AD or whatever, people that resided in the same place, were there ancestors, and probably spoke the same or similar language can be considered to be a part of their culture if not their history. My father works in Yemen and has lived there for several years, and he says that they do consider themselves arab as well as their ancestors. It's being a little nitpicky to say "well arabs didnt exist then technically so that doesnt count," I think.

I don't know if I saw the Persian exhibit, I think I might have but that place is so huge and you take in so much in a day it all blends together. I do believe when I was there I tried to see it as I had just finished reading Creation and wanted to see some of it for myself. My friends wanted to see the mummies though so go figure.
 
illram said:
As far as the "arabs not existing" thing, whenever "arabs" started, whether in the 3rd century AD or whatever, people that resided in the same place, were there ancestors, and probably spoke the same or similar language can be considered to be a part of their culture if not their history. My father works in Yemen and has lived there for several years, and he says that they do consider themselves arab as well as their ancestors. It's being a little nitpicky to say "well arabs didnt exist then technically so that doesnt count," I think.

Yeah, I just like to be somewhat specific concerning classification of different peoples of the Middle East. One of the foremost problems of people trying to understand the Middle East is understanding the different peoples. Arab, although a common catchall term for the people, awfully neglects the differences between the Arab populations currently. Arabic is different in various areas, and so are the people themselves ancestrally. So, when I try to refer to the past, I like mentioning that Arabs were originally one people and then the term sort of broadened to reflect all of the peoples that were Arabized in various extents. I think it should, hopefully, actually educate people about the origins of everything considered "Arab" rather than lumping it with the non-Arab histories of ancient Mesopotamia and Egypt, although they consitute the same lands.
 
:p ok, we have reached a point where this might get ugly. This is to all(even though i think many may think this unfair):
please keep the discussion in regards to the topic. this does not, and must not mean beating down on any other cultures. if you want to talk about the greatness of you own culture, that is fine. provide examples, but do not belittle others in order to show that "greatness".
thank you:)
 
We've reached and past that point shahreevar. No reason to worry, I think everything has been settled. :) But if you posted earlier, you might have had a point ;).
 
I'm not going to comment on what you all have been talking about over the last six pages because I chose not to read it, but in response to the original post, I shot an e-mail to whoever made Civ III about the Persia entry back then too. Of course, it's not that big of a deal anyways. We should probably be focusing on not burning each other's embassies down and not insulting each other's religions before we're whining about a discrepancy in an atrociously confusing 'Pedia.
 
cyrusIII85 said:
We've reached and past that point shahreevar. No reason to worry, I think everything has been settled. :) But if you posted earlier, you might have had a point ;).
avtually we havent reached ugliness, merely disagreements. but i do think this might get ugly(er);)

p.s. check your PM mr. cyrus:p
 
biggamer132 said:
I'm not going to comment on what you all have been talking about over the last six pages because I chose not to read it, but in response to the original post, I shot an e-mail to whoever made Civ III about the Persia entry back then too. Of course, it's not that big of a deal anyways. We should probably be focusing on not burning each other's embassies down and not insulting each other's religions before we're whining about a discrepancy in an atrociously confusing 'Pedia.

yes i agree with you (partially). that is why we have the OT, where these kinds of talks take place. this thread however is about what it says it is. it seems rather strange that you are mistaking this as a thread related to polotics of the World, specifically the cartoons, and muslim reaction. as i said before, every thing has its own time and place.;)
 
shahreevar said:
yes i agree with you (partially). that is why we have the OT, where these kinds of talks take place. this thread however is about what it says it is. it seems rather strange that you are mistaking this as a thread related to polotics of the World, specifically the cartoons, and muslim reaction. as i said before, every thing has its own time and place.;)

I'm not. I actually took a bit of offense to the article the first time I read it, but I think that those other events do shed some light on the same matter. Both are examples of misunderstandings between the Middle East and the West.
 
illram said:
First off, I wasn't talking about America. Second of all, is $2 a day any better? Does that invalidate my point? No. I admit to being guilty of writing that from memory and using hyperbole. I should check myself before doing that and I apologize. Cyrus just kind of pisses me off. Anyways, maybe I am wrong with the numbers, but my point still stands with your number just as well. Would you like to live on $430 a year? Of course not.

Poverty in our country, as you correctly point out, is a higher standard than others, but it is not "owning one car and two TV's." To say that's the standard is an oversimplificaiton and "off the cuff," similar to the statement I was guilty of earlier. The census bureau's official method is complicated, but essentially a five family household earning less than 20,000 a year is considered below the poverty line. Thats still pretty bad, but rich compared to world standards. (But then again poverty is relative, cost of living is higher here so living on 20K a year could be called the equivalent to earning a couple bucks a day somewhere else. This is a whole different discussion.)

However, America is a small % of the worlds population,and all of this is getting off the topic here. My point (or one of them, at least) was that in general, a majority of people are poor and not well off, and that the term "civilization" (whatever it means) is a misnomer, and Cyrus' categorizing people as "civilized" and "uncivilized" in order to try and define superiority and inferiority reeks of colonialism and prejudice. I don't think that's being silly, it's being honest.

like i said in my post, i'm not saying it's okay... you neglected that part. not to mention that the tirade about american poverty was a MINOR part of my post. the UN's own website on world poverty says $2 a day for the world's poorest 3 billion... i said that's terrible, but it's still 400% more than what you said.

and YES the poverty studies in america calculate how much stuff you own. psrt of that is the amount of televisions per household and the amount of cars per household.

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

— Forty-six percent of all poor households own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and porch or patio.

— Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

— Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

— The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other European cities. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

— Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.

— Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television. Over half own two or more color televisions.

— Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

— Seventy-three percent own a microwave oven, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family isn't hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, activists and politicians.
 
gotmatt said:
like i said in my post, i'm not saying it's okay... you neglected that part. not to mention that the tirade about american poverty was a MINOR part of my post. the UN's own website on world poverty says $2 a day for the world's poorest 3 billion... i said that's terrible, but it's still 400% more than what you said.

and YES the poverty studies in america calculate how much stuff you own. psrt of that is the amount of televisions per household and the amount of cars per household.

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

— Forty-six percent of all poor households own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and porch or patio.

— Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

— Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

— The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other European cities. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

— Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.

— Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television. Over half own two or more color televisions.

— Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

— Seventy-three percent own a microwave oven, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family isn't hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, activists and politicians.

What planet is that census bureau living on? Cause I'm not poor, and the only way I could afford all that is to stop eating. :P
 
Gaspar~ said:
What planet is that census bureau living on? Cause I'm not poor, and the only way I could afford all that is to stop eating. :P

One thing that the above article ignores is that the items that are mentioned that are not a monthly fee (cable TV, for instance) are often purchased on credit, resulting in exorbitant fees sucking all of the individual's paycheck.

In addition, things like refrigerators, laundry equipment and air conditioning are often not the individual's personal property, but are provided by their landlords.

It's actually quite easy to have all these things and be below the poverty line. The really interesting thing is that with the upward mobility that's current in the US, about three-quarters of the folks below the poverty line in 1980 were well above the median income for the country when questioned again in the 2000 census.

Tom
 
Back
Top Bottom