Google 1970s Iran vs now. It’s an interesting contrast of how quickly societies can change; and some would argue, not towards the future but backwards.
fuck the shah
“how could they have let this happen!”
-people in a country where people are making it happen
Also, if you know any Iranians, they don’t wear hijab in the house there.
So yes, this photo would still be possible.
(And of course I am strongly against the theocracy in Iran)
one of my closest friends in high school had an iranian mom. mom and sister never wore hijabs, though only in the states. when they visited iran they did. but at the end of they day, they’re people just like anyone else who has fanatical religious psychos trying to control everything
America helped
The beginning
U.S. and British intelligence agencies help elements in the Iranian military overthrow Iran’s prime minister, Mohammed Mossadeq. This follows Mossadeq’s nationalization of the Britain-owned Anglo-Persian Oil Company, which led London to impose an oil embargo on Iran. The coup brings back to power the Western-friendly monarchy, headed by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Deeply unpopular among much of the population, the shah relies on U.S. support to remain in power until his overthrow in 1979.
america also helped the taliban come to power. twice. but they don’t like to talk about that
Yup, they didnt work with the Shah because he was secular. The US doesn’t care if your religious or not, as long as you oppose communism and related policies (including national control of your own resources instead of letting foreign companies own them).
But, it can’t happen here, right?
RIGHT?
Here is the 30 second ad that runs in NC. It is real.
meanwhile, the sensible choice https://youtu.be/eH3-AaCaT1Y
i’m honestly kind of surprised someone like robinson became the pick for GOP. for one, he’s ridiculously extreme even for this state. for another, there are still a lot of people in NC who simply won’t vote for a black person regardless. i think stein has a decent chance of winning, given how cooper got reelected even though the state went for trump
Holy shit, that’s nuts. For people in the US like me who were unaware of who this Mark Robinson guy is, stop scrolling and read this article. Absolutely wild lol. And he can be a governor?! 😬
Maybe I should start reading the Handmaid’s Tale to get an idea of where our country is going…
The CIA backed Islamic Revolution*
Sure, whatever. I was just posting an article for context and additional images
The Islamic Revolution in 1979 deposed the US-backed Shah.
Oh no history goes on a bit. The US backed shah started to grow a bit arrogant with his oil 20 years in, so it was time for a switch up
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter's_engagement_with_Ruhollah_Khomeini
The report was based on “newly declassified US diplomatic cables”.[1][2] According to the report, as mentioned by The Guardian, Khomeini "went to great lengths to ensure the Americans would not jeopardise his plans to return to Iran - and even personally wrote to US officials" and assured them not to worry about their interests in Iran, particularly oil.[1][2] According to the report, in turn, Carter and his administration helped Khomeini and made sure that the Imperial Iranian army would not launch a military coup.[1][2]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état
It would not have happened without operation Ajax, which lead to the Islamic Revolution. The US backed the Shah because he wasn’t Mossaddegh or however you spell his name. The US simply did not want a socialist in power, and backing the Shah is part of what destroyed Iran. They gave not one shit about the Iranian people son.
It wasn’t so much about the socialism as it was about domestic (Iranian) control of domestic oil.
Socialism was just the icing on the interventionist cake.
Yes, of course the US (and UK) essentially installed the Shah in Iran in 1953. That was not the Islamic Revolution.
The CIA backed Islamic Revolution*
The Islamic Revolution happened in 1979, and was by no means “CIA backed.”
That’s true but saying the CIA and/or the USA as a whole “backed” the Islamic revolution is an outright lie. They backed an evil, sadistic, despotic government and that led to the revolution. They no more wanted the current regime than they wanted the previous one.
You have misunderstood the person you’re replying to. The Islamic revolution happened in 1979, 26 years after the separate CIA-backed coup. The CIA-backed one overthrew Mossadegh for a more monarchist rule under the Shah, Pahlavi. The Islamic one, which was not backed by the CIA, overthrew the Pahlavi dynasty and replaced it with a theocracy under Ayatollah Khomeini
Oh probably. I’m famously stupid.
Bruh 😶
Well
It’s ironic Christian nationalists hate Muslims and Sharia law, yet are doing everything they can to emulate the worst parts of Islamic theocratic rulers
They hate them because they’re the rival gang.
Because it’s ultimately about control. They’ve found it through their method and don’t like the others see like it.
I heard a funny joke from an Iranian who said that the only thing that changed after the revolution was that everyone just did the exact same thing behind closed doors. They primarily wanted the foreign controlled government gone, they didn’t care who the opposition was so long as it worked.
she cute
Next time, don’t depose a democratically elected president at the behest British Petroleum, just because said president is too left wing and would rather like to keep his country’s oil wealth.
Also, don’t install an unpopular monarch in that left wing president’s place.
Finally, don’t continue to support said monarch such that his unpopularity inspires a fundamentalist counterrevolution.
Fun fact: Iran was one of the Middle East’s first democracies. Turns out UK and US don’t care about democracy, just money.
Oil in the form of the Dollar
Add in some having your settler colonial entity in the region be best buddies with that monarch, help train his intelligence and army, which then made tens of thousands of people “disappear”.
Bonus points for then framing it, as the counterrevolution being motivated by antisemitism, instead of hating the supporters of their former opressor.
You should also remember to put this in context. This picture was almost certainly taken in a city. The urban population in Iran at that time was educated, secular(ish), liberal, and pretty cosmopolitan. The rural population, however, was mostly none of those things. Religious fundamentalism was always a thing and the hijab was common.
The CIA-backed coup and the Shah’s evil government sowed the seeds for the Islamic revolution but those seeds had some seriously fertile soil in which to grow.
Not to mention it appears to be in a private home where all the public appearance laws aren’t applied.
There are better photos of women in public from the time that demonstrate the societal shift better.
This picture was almost certainly taken in a city. The urban population in
Iran at that timewas educated, secular(ish), liberal, and pretty cosmopolitan. The rural population, however, was mostly none of those things. Religious fundamentalism was always a thingand the hijab was common.Damn, that sounds pretty familiar as a USAian.
The second part of the person you responded to works too. Just replace US with Russia.
I honestly thought that was Lana Del Rey before I read the description.
In Iran it was Project 79.
Of course it could be taken today. It looks like it’s taken inside a private home. The clothing laws concern public places.
Shut up.
Why? He’s right. According to Quran, in the privacy of their own home women can wear whatever or even nothing.
Yes, to be specific, according to the Quran women can wear whatever in the presence of “mahram” (close relatives), meaning, parents, grandparents, kids and grandkids iirc.
In Iran, the mahram part is rarely enforced so in practice women can wear whatever inside private homes, no matter the relationship to those present.
Recently, women in Iran are pushing back against the Islamic clothing rules in public and step by step bending the rules. Now, what you actually need to wear vary wildly depending on exactly where in Iran you happen to be. In some parts, typically rich parts of bigger cities, it’s in practice tolerated to wear almost western-style clothing at the moment.
I’m tired of this kind of post, as it shows what a minority of society did in the 70’s, it also simplifies women rights issues in Iran to simply clothing. Although it is a prominent part, there’s much more to it. Things like that in court, a male witness is worth two female witnesses, and men inherit twice as much as women. Rape and sexual harassment is considered the fault of the women for dressing immodestly.
I’m pretty sure the list includes the husband, first and foremost.
But yes, totally agree with the rest. As someone from a somewhat Muslim country, when I see photos like this I just roll my eyes, because they don’t mean anything.
Ah yes, of course husband is included, I forgot the obvious one :) oh, and siblings should be included too.
Except in Alabama.
I exhaled uncontrollably.
You mean women are allowed to be naked at home?!? That’s absolutely insane. What if a woman was naked and a man tried to break in and rob her house? No, no, no, this will not do at all.
I suppose you stone the woman or something, easy.
M.O.R.O.N.
Afghanistan in the 1970s was similarly culturally ascendent and relatively progressive.
See, e.g.,:
And then America Happened
Hey now, that was a cold war two-for-one.
The Soviets moreso than the US in the case of Afghanistan.
The country actually received substantial modernization aid from both, but eventually went through a series of coups that culminated in the Soviet invasion of the country and the rise of the mujaheddin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan#Barakzai_dynasty_and_British_wars
The US isn’t blameless in how the country turned out, but it’s a much less direct line than it is with Iran.
The Sovjets came at the invitation of the current government of that time. Also Afghanistan being pushed towards the Sovjets is a result of the US propping up Pakistan, which was proxy-warring against Afghanistan.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Afghan_War
I would argue all colonial powers are of similiar blame in repeatedly fucking Afghanistan over.
The Sovjets came at the invitation of the current government of that time.
“The current government of that time” was a communist regime that seized power after multiple successive coups and was deeply unpopular in much of the country. While your statement is technically true, it leaves out a massive amount of context.
I would argue all colonial powers are of similiar blame in repeatedly fucking Afghanistan over.
That does get to the underlying point I was hinting at: imperialism is generally net harmful in all its flavors, whether that’s capitalist imperialism or communist imperialism.
I would like to see someone make a video/movie/documentary… Showing just what our society would be like under the Fascist Theocracy the Republicans are working so hard to build. The amount of horrifying consequences in their plans is shocking. Most people don’t understand the consequences of them winning. We need to SHOW them the truth
It’s called “The Handmaids Tale”.
They made it in book and TV show form. Minus the birth problems which kick off the societal change in that story, we’re quickly headed for it.
A Handmaid’s Tale was supposed to be a warning, not a blueprint. Even the birth rate issue is getting more real as younger couples are opting not to have kids because it’s impossible to afford it.
Well, here I don’t see feminists promoting hijab as ultimate feminism. I wonder why…
Some people lack baincells to understand hijab or not hijab is matter of choice
Everyone in Iran just so happened to choose hijab, right?
NO.
This is a perfect example of society progressing backwards
It was a coup that installed the authoritarian government there. Aided by the CIA.
