Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The flexibility they can take advantage of when dealing with everyday life. The resilience they gain from it. Here in America if one thing goes wrong you can lose a lifetime of work.
I don't think there is anything particularly "subjective" about history.
And for the MOST part, if you google, you'll find sooner or later the info you are looking for. At least bits and pieces of it, if you are persistent enough. HOWEVER truth to be told, you ( usually) have to have some "hunch" first. And google either confirms it or disproves it. At least that's my experience.
History is subjective because we learn different things about it depending on where we are from or which educational institution we follow. Just by reading different sources we get varying accounts of the type of events that transpired. History tends to have a political agenda behind it, which makes it hard to come up with an objective assessment, especially when it’s being written by parties that were not directly present to observe the events that transpired.
This is in contrast to something like math, where a general consensus can easily be found. The sum of a triangle’s angles will always be 180 degree, regardless of whether one studies in the US, Russia, Iran or NK.
I’ve been very passionate about history since I was a kid, but over the years I’ve learnt to accept the notion that everything I read is essentially an opinion piece. That’s why I use history as an educational tool rather than a limitation to define who or what I should like based on past events.
Quote:
Ohh... THAT was not a coup. Not coup at all. This was downright a command from the occupying forces to abdicate, and as the Brits have put it nicely - " Would His Highness kindly abdicate in favour of his son, the heir to the throne? We have a high opinion of him and will ensure his position. But His Highness should not think there is any other solution."
The very fact that it was joint BRITISH-SOVIET invasion is unprecedented, yet undeniably there was a cooperation between these two, because we are talking about the second world war. And the reason for this invasion was the following;
"The Anglo-Soviet invasion was instigated in response to Reza Shah's declaration of Neutrality in World War II and refusal to allow Iranian territory to be used to train, supply, and act as a transport corridor to ship arms to Russia for its war effort against Germany. Reza Shah further refused the Allies' requests to expel German nationals residing in Iran, and denied the use of the railway to the Allies. However, according to the British embassy reports from Tehran in 1940, the total number of German citizens in Iran – from technicians to spies – was no more than a thousand.[82]'
Reza Shah was not close to the Nazi regimes - not closer than probably Finns were to it, but as in case with Soviet invasion of Finland with a purpose of securing the safety of St. Petersburg, the British government didn't take any "nays" from Iran either, and didn't dilly dally around, when the lives of their people were at stake. So they united with Russians and did what was only logical in that situation.
But THAT was a matter of survival that could be understood and forgiven later by Iranians I'm sure, not a matter of taking over country's riches ( i.e. natural resources,) as we could see in the later coup d'etat of the 1953. And THAT's what got stuck in the mind of Iranians.
In the same manner probably, American presence in the Russian Far East during the civil war was never remembered by Russians. American role in the nineties however is widely remembered today, and in the worst way.
1953 tends to be remembered, but probably for the wrong reasons. In many ways it’s a propaganda tool used by the Islamic republic to justify their position. I have read from many sources that try to criticise western interference in the ME, that the Shah was put into power following the overthrow of Mossadegh, but that is not an accurate assessment at all since the younger Pahlavi had been Shah since 1941. Mossadegh took advantage of the Shah’s weakness and while he was abroad died to overthrow him. I’m not denying that the UK and US decided to keep the Shah for their own benefit, but it’s importaant to remember that he was the de facto ruler at the time.
Quote:
Your point is well-taken, but can I talk about this particular subject separately, in a different post? Because it needs a separate consideration, so I don't want to digress too much here)))
Fair enough
Quote:
But that's why they don't live in Iran, do they?
Is it a secret that Iranians are usually the most adaptable people of Islamic background in the Western world? Particularly when it comes to their "intelligentsia" part.
It’s obviously a very small sample of the total population and tends to represent the least conservative elements of their society.
The reason those people adapt quite well in the Western world is because they generally are not very religious to begin with. There are a number of Iranians who resent Islam for the role it played in shaping their country over the years. In many ways Islam is viewed as a foreign invader to Persia because their nation had a long history that predates Islam by a considerable margin. I admit though, that I don’t know if that idea is extant amidst their society or is mostly limited to the diaspora.
Quote:
You can find significant differences between Iran and Saudi Arabia in their past though; Reza Shah's ( the father of the last Shah Mohammed Reza Pakhlavi,) biography will give you an insight into it;
"As his reign became more secure, Reza Shah clashed with Iran's clergy and devout Muslims on many issues. In March 1928, he violated the sanctuary of Qom's Fatima al-Masumeh Shrine to beat a cleric who had angrily admonished Reza Shah's wife for temporarily exposing her face a day earlier while on pilgrimage to Qom.[50] In December of that year he instituted a law requiring everyone (except Shia jurisconsults who had passed a special qualifying examination) to wear Western clothes.[51] This angered devout Muslims because it included a hat with a brim which prevented the devout from touching their foreheads on the ground during salat as required by Islamic law.[52] The Shah also encouraged women to discard hijab. He announced that female teachers could no longer come to school with head coverings. One of his daughters reviewed a girls' athletic event with an uncovered head.[52]
The devout were also angered by policies that allowed mixing of the sexes. Women were allowed to study in the colleges of law and medicine,[53] and in 1934 a law set heavy fines for cinemas, restaurant, and hotels that did not open their doors to both sexes.[54] Doctors were permitted to dissect human bodies. He restricted public mourning observances to one day and required mosques to use chairs instead of the traditional sitting on the floors of mosques.[55
Reza Shah was the first Iranian Monarch in 1400 years who paid respect to the Jews by praying in the synagogue when visiting the Jewish community of Isfahan; an act that boosted the self-esteem of the Iranian Jews and made Reza Shah their second most respected Iranian leader after Cyrus the Great. Reza Shah's reforms opened new occupations to Jews and allowed them to leave the ghetto.[38] This point of view, however, may be refuted by the claims that the anti-Jewish incidents of September 1922 in parts of Tehran was a plot by Reza Khan.[39]
And we are not talking about the 70ies here, we are talking the 30ies of the previous century. Do you see anything common with Saudi Arabia here? If not, then these are definitely two different countries, with different mentality, in spite of all the today's similarities on a surface.
Reza Shah was indeed a very progressive monarch that paved the way for the modernisation of the country. He was also a lot more forceful then his son, who took a more passive approach to dealing with radicalism. He expelled Khomeini in 1964, but was not able to curb the radical elements, that kept on growing in the country.
When talking about Iran, I am sadly looking at the country post 1979. Unfortunately, I don’t see much difference between them anymore, other then the fact that they are on opposite sides because they support different sects of religion.
To make the long story short; I am not talking about the FUTURE. I am talking about what's going on TODAY. And TODAY any attempt of Americans to sway things their way, any attempt to establish the kind of government/government opposition in the country that would benefit them directly, are doomed to fail, because Russians' won't have any of it.
Quote:
The way I look at it, living in America ( and observing it) long enough - this country has been built by men with guns, because initially they took over someone else's territory, so NOW they had to constantly protect it. Their way of life (independence, seclusion and self-reliance) yet again needed guns. Keeping slaves in check needed guns; the later sprawl of the settlements/( later suburbs) needed guns. So obviously this country has been built on gun culture and (yet again) taking in consideration the rural way of living/huge sprawl it's only logical for safety reasons to keep the guns. I mean even such a "left minded" person as Bernie Sanders understands it. (I do to.) But this of course, in turn brings a lot of problems. And as I've already said, all problems go way back into the past.
I don’t see that changing anytime soon. Even the Vegas shooting is not likely going to cause a massive shift. I fully understand the country’s fascination with guns, as they played an important role in its development over the years and are symbolic with free speech. I was just pointing out the fact, that the second amendment was written at the end of the 18th century when guns were quite different then they are today. Back then no one had a machine gun.
Quote:
You don't use google either)))
Quote:
I'm sure he is on my side. I just don't know what side is that - right or left)))
No idea
Quote:
Uh, because he created Adam in his image.
If I'd be creating something in *my image* do you think I'd create someone like Adam?
What about Eve?
Quote:
Why would it make any difference?
Because it’s a major contradiction. We already know that humans have been around for at least hundreds of thousands of years.
To be fair though, it’s important that you understand where I’m coming from with this. I have a background in science and am an engineer by profession, therefore I tend to place a lot more value in science than in religion.
Quote:
My guess would be - part of the Multiverse)))
It’s a non falsifiable theory. We cannot prove the existence of another universe as it exists beyond our 4 dimensional space-time.
P.S. The last we discussed here, the genetic studies were done on Rurik's descendants in Russia, and they showed only Baltic ( or Finnish) bloodlines in them.
So what's up with that? Was Rurik not of Scandinavian decent, or were those descendants false?
Probably not all wives in the dynasty were faithful to their husbands. Too many facts indicate the Norman origin of Rurik. But it is possible that this was not a real character, but a collective image. More reliably we can talk only about Oleg and Igor.
+ btw, expansion of a Scandinavians began a couple of centuries before the formation of the Rus state. For example, there are parking lots of Scandinavians in Rostov the Great near from the city.
Last edited by Maksim_Frolov; 10-09-2017 at 04:14 AM..
Russians don't have money? You'd be surprised if you really knew about them. Some don't but the vast majority don't have debt either. When they buy a car they buy it cash. Americans buy one and finance it for 5 or 7 years. The interest Americans pay on financing things is debilitating. Credit kills lives and livelihoods. If we didn't have credit here things would be much cheaper too or so I have been told.
Russians aren't slaves. Americans are. I'd rather die poor and free than as a finely liveried slave in the traces.
Every Russian I know bought their new car with financing. Are you using certain prescription drugs or something?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
