Edward Said on Islam’s love for martyrdom (flashback, folks, to the Iranian Revolution):
If you assume that the Iranian Revolution was a bad thing because it employed a dramatically unfamiliar (to Western eyes) idiom of religious as well as political resistance to oppose tyranny, then what you will look for, and invariably find, is irrational frenzy. Consider Ray Moseley in an article entitled “Conformity, Intolerance Grip Revolutionary Iran”:
“People who consider dying to be an honor are, by definition, fanatics. Vengeful blood lust and yearning for martyrdom seem especially pronounced among the Shia Moslems of Iran. This is what impelled thousands of citizens to stand unarmed and defiant against troops with automatic weapons during the revolution.”
Each of these sentences contains highly debatable suppositions posing as truth, but they seem allowable generally because an Islamic revolution is in question. They have persisted in reports on Iran in the 1990s, as well as most accounts of the Lebanese Hizbollah movement (always referred to as “Iran-backed”). Most Americans do not consider Patrick Henry a fanatic because he said, “give me liberty or give me death.” A desire to kill French citizens who collaborated with Nazis (many thousands were killed in a matter of days) does not mean that the French could be characterized in so general a way. And what about the very common admiration for people whose moral courage faces down armed troops?
Is the above legitimate, or is this just the talk of an apologist?
I'm afraid that I wasn't paying attention during the Iranian Revolution, being six years old at the time. I don't understand much of what actually happened, why or how we opposed the revolution, what the rationale for the seizure of the embassy was, and why we didn't view the seizure as an act of war.
Said's commentary on the Moseley quote seems quite reasonable, I think. If Said's using it to represent general Western obtuseness, then I might be more interested in how representative he thinks it is.
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at April 22, 2005 07:58 AMHere's a very brief overview of the Iranian Revolution. Wikipedia has this on the hostage crisis. The Wikipedia piece does not capture what it was like in this country during the crisis. It is difficult not to feel that the business brought down the Carter presidency. Nothing summed up the feelings of many Americans then as did the cover of one Beach Boys’ tune with Barbara Anne changed to Bomb Iran.
Covering Islam was published in 1981, then revised, I believe, in 1997. Still, my guess is that Said would have thought his comments applicable post 9/11.
My recollection is that with the oil embargo in the early 70s we thought we might have a problem with Arabs. With the embassy seizure in ’79 we started believing we had a problem with Islam. As the 80’s and 90’s progressed we more and more began seeing Islam as the faith of the fanatical, a culture of death. Reinforced, of course, by 9/11 and later the insurgency in Iraq.
Posted by: Bobby Farouk at April 22, 2005 10:26 AMFascinating -- thanks for the links! In particular, the Iraqi invasion of Iran occuring in the middle of the hostage crisis seems to explain a lot.
Nothing summed up the feelings of many Americans then as did the cover of one Beach Boys’ tune with Barbara Anne changed to Bomb Iran.
I vaguely remember that. Any idea why we didn't?
Posted by: Ben Brumfield at April 22, 2005 02:39 PMThis wasn't that long after Vietnam, so I'm thinking that we had fallen out of the habit of dropping bombs (interesting how it made a comeback from 1980-something on). Carter was embargo-ist, a freezer of assets, a canceler of Olympic games. I don't remember him bombing anybody. Besides, if the goal was getting the hostages out, then bombs were out of the question.
Posted by: Bobby Farouk at April 22, 2005 04:25 PM