 |
|
|---|
In this post, I want to share some of the feelings I have, and the last thing I want is to offend anybody who reads this piece.
I've been living in the US for almost two years now. I flew to Providence, RI from Ankara, Turkey on the day of September 11th of 2001. Then I lived alone for about a year while commuting about 300 miles every weekend to visit my wife, not to mention her commutes and many other problems we had which I couldn't go through without my friends' help.
There were times that I felt very depressed, but every life goes through difficulties. That's natural and nothing to constantly nag about. I just mentioned my problems very briefly to note that not all of these two years have been fun.
Now my wife is here with me. We’ve rented a nice apartment in the suburbs of Providence; We own a new car (considering my obsession with cars), and both of us are doing research in fields that we like very much. In my case, it’s actually my dream job!
In the last two years, I’ve changed a lot. I’ve been in charge of my life and started to learn how to deal with different problems that I face. I have tried to practice a democratic way of dealing with different people and to accept all the human beings in their own way (of course I’ve tried to ignore a bunch of them, but, anyhow, I’ve accepted them as they are). I have acquired some habits and developed some thinking "methods" (I really can’t call this an ideology, since I don’t have any) of my own, not really based on anything that I’ve been told.
With all that, I really don’t miss Iran. I may miss a couple of places that I used to go and hang out with friends, my favorite bookstore or my favorite ice-cream place, but I miss them as much as I miss my favorite Iranian restaurant in Boston. I miss my family too (especially my grandma) but they have nothing to do with Iran, beside the fact that they just live there. I mean, I miss places and people because of the values they have in my memory, not solely because they are form Iran.
When I think about going back to Iran after I graduate, the only thing that comes to my mind is how I’m going to live there. I should almost forget all the things that I’d learned and practiced here: social, personal and even professional. I’m somehow sure of my future, being able to get a job and afford a modest life here as an ex-patriot. Should I risk my future? I’m not sure how anybody would gain anything from such a risk.
I’m still going to care about the country where I was born and raised in and from which I have inherited many things, in my personality, taste and life style. I may never go back to Iran because of many reasons, but if I care about any country in the world besides where I happen to live, it will be Iran.
I really shouldn’t consider myself Iranian anymore, not that I don’t believe in borders and all that Marxist crap. You can tell me that I’ve lost my roots but I’m really a "Non-Resident Alien" anywhere, on the Tax forms, on Newburry Street in Boston or in Vali-Asr Square in Tehran. Maybe my feelings would change one day, but till then I guess I’ll be a hypocrite by making theories about building the future of Iran. But who listens to me anyway? Well at least I do myself!
Thanks Hossein for sharing your sincere feelings with us. I think many of us share some of your feelings and concerns. Moreover, in a more theoretical level, your post highlights a very important question: What is the significance of nation-state concept in todays world? I think from an evolutionary standpoint, nationality has had some survival/ efficiency benefit that has kept the concept alive through the history. The question is whether the modern trends (e.g. higher mobility, multi-linguality, global trade and communication etc) are weakening the value added of nation-state concept, to the extent that it may lose its viability?
I don't have a strong answer to this question. Eventhough my personal experience, as that of Hossein, reinforces such speculation, the growing number of countries breaking up into separate states, actually questions the idea.
Great subject you boldly brought up, and a good choice of the title, Hossein.
I've got to contribute my 2 cents here. I'm sure others have a lot to say, too. They're probably not as BIKAAR as I am these days though, yearning to write and flex my muscles (of my fingers).
The problem of immigration, in my opinion, cannot be given a unique answer. Each person should be given the choice to stay in the country of their choice, and each person should figure it out for themselves. (The question of "Iran or US" is a thorny one for many, as it has been for yours truly. You're lucky you're calmed down only after two years of staying in the States.) Even Sa'di knew that (if I remember correctly):
SA'DIAA! HOBB-E VATAN GARCHEH HADISI ST SHARIF
NATAVAAN MORD BEH SAKHTI, KEH: MAN INJAA ZAADAM.
O Sa'di, although love for your homeland is good stuff to talk about
But seriously, one shouldn't die out of misery in one's homeland, just because one is born there.
What about the debt we owe to that country, you may ask. I think everybody should first of all consider their own and their family's well-being to *some extent*, but also one needs to attend to needs of other human beings as well. (Should I quote from Sa'di again? You all know his master verse; don't you?) There is one favorite saying that in order to help the poor, try not to be one of them. It has a grain of truth in it and I guess it fits here as well.
But, from the point of view of a citizen of the world, why prefer Iranians who at least have enough food to live (most of them) ahead of those African children who are dying of hunger (just imagine!) and AIDS?
Well, first of all, it's a personal choice what to do with your extra time and money, and who to help them with. Most people (most Iranians that I've known, at least) choose to use the hard-earned money and their extra time to vacation and have fun with their lives or their wives.
Secondly, if our input as expatriate Iranians can be intellectual[=FEKRI] (I don't believe that Iranians abroad could be all that influential in the political evolution of Iran.), then it's reasonable to try analyse (and consequently help to improve) the situation in a country with which we're mostly familiar: Iran.
One more thing. One must realistically gauge how much one's presence in Iran can positively affect the situation there. It's a common fallacy that with the return of "educated" Iranians (see my comment to Babak Seradjeh's latest posting on changing the culture) to Iran, they will necessarily effect a positive change. They will not! Not necessarily.
Iran's problems are first and foremost cultural, not industrial or medical or even political! That is why I strongly supposrt Babak's ideas about education being the key. Without a deep cultural change, Iran's political fate will keep reminding us of that Greek myth of Sysiphus [spelling?].
Just to give you an example, what would be the use of returning Iranian physicians, even if the Islamic Republic allows their wives and daughters to wear Western clothes in public, when you're going to die of a simple accident in a hospital *unless* you or your secoond cousin or your grandmom's colleague (okay, I'm trying to be funny, but this is really sad) doesn't know a doctor to recommend you to?
So yes, Iran is a great land. I would like to be able to visit it once in a while, but maybe not more than I would like to visit the architectural sites in Central Asia. And of course, as Hossein mentioned, there is the issue of having friends and family still living back there. That's all!
["Well, I read it;" you might say, "now let's close it!"]Correction: Sisyphus is spelled like this.
http://stripe.colorado.edu/~morristo/sisyphus.html
There is a point about living in iran (or may be other countries too)that there you don't learn that the whole world is IRAN. There is also a point about the U.S that there you learn the whole world is U.S.
An attempt to address Hazhir's note: As you said there is survival benefits in grouping, and that is the key word here: grouping. Humans have always tended to form groups and gather around an idea or certain characteristic to distinguish themselves from other human beings. Groups can be formed based on natural or artifical criteria. Examples: race, ethnicity (one's ancestors), language, religious beliefs, social status, and nationality, or whereabouts of one's living place.
Human groups seem to serve two functions: giving and receiving support from certain individuals, and distinguishing the Others, and avoiding them, because we humans may have an instinctive need for strife, as is manifested by all sort of games in the Olympic. To use a notion from psycho-analysis, games (chess, soccer, etc) are our fighting instincts "transcended". World peace and world unity are therefore not the natural state of the affairs!
In any case, the notion of *identity* cannot exist without the existence of such competing groups. When you are asked about who you are, you recall your gender, your nationality, your skin color, your social class (or as it is the case in the US, what you do for a living), your belief system be it religious or not. In other words, you simply recall what human groups you belong to. :-)
I can't help pointing out here an interesting phenomena that those of you who have lived in the US must have noticed. The black subculture. The blacks (AKA African-Americans) have their own particular clothings, their particular hair-do, their particular accent or even English (look up Ebonics), their particular body-language. In other words, having lived among the Whites (and other much more readily assimilating non-Whites) they have resisted assimilation. What can explain this phenomena?!
Back to the main theme and Hazhir's posting, I have observed that some human groups tend to disintegrate into small groups when they grow "too much". It's almost like a sociological law! Look at Christianity with its many denominations, or even our own Islam, with all the sects it has produced. It reminds me of large drops of water on an oily surface! They tend to disintegrate into smaller drops. It's like it is a more stable state for them. Same seems to be true of human groups!
That is how I'd explain (partly) the emergence of small states out of big conglomerates! For some reasons groups that are too big cannot stand on their feet and will collapse into pieces. There is, of course, the opposite phenomena: *U*SA and more recently E*U*. I don't really know how this opposite trend can be explained, beside what you have already mentioned: increased mobility, etc.
Identities are not things that you can freely give up. Even if you want to be very post-modern and think that you are a citizen of the world, other people do not think the same way, and you will get treated based on the preassumptions about your background and identity. The officer in the Airport won't say that because you consider yourself beyond nation states please go through without getting fingerprinting.
I personally think that removing political borders and allowing free human movements is a good thing.
But until then you will remain an Iranian, and you better defend your national interest.
Thanks, yahya, for your feedback. You're right. Identities *cannot* be easily given up. I didn't suggest that we should give up our identity, or more specifically, our Iranian-ness. Persian, for example, remains my most intimate language until I die. And in my dreams, or when I am stressed out the scenes that flash through my mind are mostly what I have been exposed to in Iran. This street, the yard of that kindergarten, etc. BAA SHIR ANDAROON SHODEH, BAA JAAN BEH DAR SHAVAD!
It is true that we are going to be treated based on our skin color or the turban that we may wear (I'm refering to the Indian dude who was killed in post-9/11 confusion, thought to be a muslim), but this is the fault of those who treat us this way. To right a wrong, you don't acknowledge that wrong as right. Right? But I agree that it always pays to be cautious in extreme situations like in the airports, or for example ghettos of Detroit.
Now, let me bring up a related moral dilemma: An Iranian for whatever reason ends up staying in the States for the rest of his life. Then what right does he have to instill Iranian values in his children's mind? What is all the insistence in making them learn Persian for? Aren't they, unlike blacks, going to assimilate anyway?!
Thanks Senior Grad for your comments.
You had speculated about a natural tendency to disintegrate, when groups go beyond some size. There is at least one threshold, about 150 people, that I know about in the literature for disintegration of groups. The main mechanism underlying this threshold is the capacity of people to know each other closely (which remains at about 150 in average). Research on different domains, from old tribes to successful plant sizes, point to a break down in groups, as they pass this limit. (See Malcolm Gladwell's interesting book: The Tipping Point). However, this probably does not map very well to your sizes.
Another observation, to make the discussion less serious: From the above posting one can make sure our Senior Grad is a guy:
"...choose to use the hard-earned money and their extra time to vacation and have fun with their lives or their wives."
Where are the Iranian ladies to defend their rights?
Thanks, Hazhir, for the tip on The Tipping Point. :-> I'm not sure if the phenomena you are referring to is the exact same thing that I had in mind. I was not talking about such small sizes. I'll check it out though when I get the chance. But let's not speculate about my gender, because I may have been smart enough to misguide you (yes, even you!) by providing some harmless wrong information. ;-) In any case, I don't see anything wrong with husbands and wives having fun together; do you? Is it against women's rights to, you know...? :-)
Anyway, I just thought I may have some more words about human groupings to improve on my previous postings, although I admit this is not directly related to Hossein's posting. But it may provide a context or a background against which we may view the issue Hossein brought up through a wider lens. (I hope the lens metaphor is not misleading here.)
One purpose groupings serve (from being a member of a small club, or a profession, all the way to being Iranian, Jewish or black) is psychological. We humans seem to need the assurance of belonging to the "better" group, where "better" can be interpreted as being the fan of the soccer tean who wins more, to having an older culture (or a new one, depending on your taste, or actually depending in which one you are already born), to living in a country that possesses the biggest military or economic power throught the human history, among many other possible instances. We thus develop our "stories" and come up with arguments on why, according to these stories, we are better than other groups. It is just a human psychological need.
For example, I go to Persepolis and stand there in awe, thinking that I am part of this ancient greatness, these columns that are still standing since so many centuries before Islam (minboggling, I agree) and up until our time, a glory that is no more and one with which I do not have any tangible connection whatsoever. But still, I feel connected to that past and it feels good. :-) Or that I am a physicist and my friend invites me to a party where all other guests are of medical profession, sometimes talking in a jargon that I do not comprehend at all. There, too, I have to stick to my own story that explains, as silly as it sounds, why being a physicist is "better" than being a physician, or at least why it's been better for me.
This is all fine. The problems start when one assumes that one's group is intrinsically (for example, genetically) superior to another and wants to *act upon* this conviction. Because, at the end of the day, all those stories are simply just that: stories. Once we realize and accept that (and I am more than ready to agree it's not without its practical and theoretical difficulties), we wouldn't think we had the right to harm those who do not subscribe to, say, our ancestral religion, or in general, were not part of our group.
To summarize, I think grouping per se is fine, it can be even exciting (imagine sitting in a boisterous stadium during an important game), but as long as the claims of superiority do not lead to harming the members of other groups. Okay, I guess I'm going to shut up here. :-)
I'd like to throw in a few sentences on the subject of grouping from the evolutionary/biological viewpoint as well. What Hazhir said about the 150-person threshold, for instnace, has to do with the hundreds of thousands of years of living in the form of small tribes, which in turn has to have resulted from our evolutionary ancestors' lifestyle. This threshold shows itself even now in our overpopulated cosmopolitan cities, in ways that we have come up with to avoid strangers on the streets and elsewhere. You can also count the phone numbers you have of fairly closed friends in your phonebook.
On the feelings of these groups of human beings towards each other, the most-often observed hostilities are just manifestations of the law of survival, that has itself survived into the virtual jungles--our cities--we mostly live in today. That is the same reason behind the psychological need Senior Grad talks about. A human being just has to think he belongs to a superior group, by definition of survival. That this thought is often times turned into a sanctified conviction (genetic superiority and whatnot) is just the raw nature of things best at work.
Now, we can't fight our biological settings. But we may put them in some good use. In this case, one may gratify the need to belonging to a group by constructing imaginary, unbound groups free of ethnic constraints. That's what being a citizen of the world means, and it helps this bigger group of humans world over to survive their most dangerous enemy: themselves.
I just wanted to raise a question here. Isn’t considering one’s self a citizen of the world really similar to the belief in god? Compare being connected to something big and powerful that’s present every where with being connected to all the human beings.
Both these concepts are far too abstract for me to base my living upon. The subject of nationality and being alien in any place I go and live is something that I still need to deal with.
I normally don't compliment people (just a bad habit, nothing personal), but I should thank BHS for her/his (I hate English!) thoughtful remarks. The telephone book observation totally blew my mind.
On the subject of evolutionary psychology (or sociology) I'd rather remain silent. I sense there are a lot of interesting observations and insights in that field, but I personally don't buy all of that stuff. (The latest piece I ran into is a small book titled "Why Is Sex Fun?" in which the author has tried to argue why male human beings have disproportionately big penises compared to other mammals. I swear to God! I'm sure it makes an interesting read for us guys. (Yeah, okay Hazhir, I can't hide it anymore: I'm a guy. :-) ), but I don't know how well-founded such matters are.) Could I remain silent? No.
As for Hossein's question, you have a point. If I remember correctly in an interview with Russell he had said something to the same effect, that we do not need to believe in God (I'm paraphrasing from my unreliable memory), because there are other things that you can stick to, such as your family, your local community[=MAHALLEH], your nationality, etc. However, the idea of God has been responsible for much violence and bloodshed during human history. And, tragically, not only between the god-loving and god-fearing on one side and the godless infidels on the other side. (Just read the news of the latest suicide bombing in Jerusalem. This goes a long way back in history, as we all know.)
I have to make one point clear here. I did not say anywhere that I consider myself a citizen of the world. This has to be thought over more carefully, to see what such a claim really means. In fact, the notion of being "citizen" of the *world* seems to be a little self-contradictory. But like I said, identities are defined through contrasting ourselves with other groups. Grouping is unavoidable, and it can be fun (national pride sits in this category) up until we start taking our illusionary superiority too much seriously. Then it ceases to be fun. :-)
There's nothing wrong with choosing to help a school be built in an Iranian village than to choose help that school be built in Tanzania, but we may prefer the former for reasons that are not worth arguing about. (Both alternatives seem to me better than to use your extra money in mindless gambling.)
Hossein's post and the comments shed some light on what had occupied my mind for a long time: Why iranian secularism failed to lead Iran against the Pahlavi regime and eventually religious leaders emerged successfully? The answer is: The majority of educated secular iranians are selfish with small dreams.
They claim they are citizens of the world but they lie. Their world is reduced to them and their wives and children and at most their parents and close family members. They are citizens of their desires and comfort.
History of great nations show that it is always strong people with big dreams who have changed the face of this planet; those who have been ready to sacrifice everything for what they believe.
If we are not one of these strong people, let's not develop theories to justify our weakness.
Hossein's post reminds me of my own feelings about life outside Iran.
Firstly Hossein, your feeling that you're a resident of the world and not a specific country (specifically Iran), has developed inside you because you are a successful postgrad students in the United States of America, which (by co-incidence?) is a very wealthy country. My question is would you have had the same feeling if you were studying in South Afirca or El Salvador for example? I'm sure you were counting down to return to Iran as soon as possible. My understanding is that you've had a good time (in general) and you've got all the good things a young person in your age would dream about. Moreover, do you yourself see other people as residents of the world with no prejudjement, or their nationality gives you a pre-assumption about their personality?
Secondly, the fact that I was (and still am) in Europe helped me remember that the world is not only limited to the US or UK. While I really enjoyed my new student life in Britain (and I'm NOT talking about driving the best car or having the best flat in the city), I also started to appreciate the advantages of the life I had in Iran. It's interesting to see how difference in environment leads to different feelings about identity and nationality. Unlike you, I have become a very nationalist person (not in its political sense). Now I do care about Iran much more than I did before I left the motherland. Of course many factors are influential in this subject, such as age, background and marital status. I left Iran when I was 29; I've also lived almost all my childhood in the USA.
After studying in the United Kingdom for 2 years, I started to feel more or less the same as you, I had no reason to go back to Iran. I did care about her but that feeling was not enough to make me go back even for a visit (the UK student visa is multiple-entry, so we don't get locked in here). Even last June when my family invited me (and payed for my return ticket) back home for 2 weeks, I was so unsure about going back that I sent my friends a text-message from Heathrow: "Where the hell am I going? I have nothing to do there!!" before boarding my flight to Tehran.
But, everything changed as I went home. I became so excited when I saw huge polluted Tehran from the window. I was there for two weeks, visited lots of friends (many of them are professionals now), lots of places, and felt the Iranian life-style again, this time with a better understanding of myself and life, and from a different point of view. Now I know that it is quite possible for me to go back and live a happy life there, if I want to.
Would we have talked about this if Iran was as prosperous as US or Germany or France?
I think there are some fundamental changes that is going on in the world (for example: internet and its role to connect people) that are leading us eventually to a global state. However, at this time, I think our decision to not come back to Iran - which I share with you Hossein - is more because our country is doomed! This feeling is not shared at any level (except for very intellectuals) in US, Canada, France, Germany…. So we “need” to think of global state as a concept to lift the burden of being a Middle Eastern country in the US. Opium you might say!
Anyway, I hope that this “quest for global state” will be shared in future all over the world. It’s such a beautiful concept….
By first this, I meant "global state". Sorry!
I just wanted to clarify that I do not believe that I am a citizen of the world and as I said in my last comment directly and in the post indirectly, I don’t even believe in world citizenship or global status or anything remotely like that.
I just meant to say that I am a new person who happens to come from Iran. I admit and know that a lot of characteristics I have are because I’m raised there.
It’s not only about a nice car or an apartment or a good job (versus no car, bad place and no job that I may or may not have in Iran), it’s about me being a different person with different beliefs and habits. I didn’t say that I wouldn’t go back; I said I’m not sure whether I would be able to live there anymore. I wanted to say I’m lost. I really liked the “Non-Resident Alien” phrase (that I borrowed form US Tax papers) but it seems nobody got this point.
As a 60 year old who left Iran after finishing high school in Tehran, went to Europe for 7 years and obtained a Masters Degree in engineering, then emigrated to the US in 1968, having worked for US companies for the past 35 years, currently living in California and still an employee of a US company -- here is my 2 cents on the subject.
Not having any close relatives in Iran, there is no reason for a round trip ticket to Tehran. When I have the time and the money, there are plenty more desirable destinations in the world. For me, Bryce Canyon in Utah, Aspen in Colorado, and Maui in Hawaii offer a much better ROI than a visit to Iran, especially since the food is regulated by FDA, my girlfriend does not have to wear a chador to go for a swim with me, and we can have our cocktails in public without interference by Basijis.
I enjoy reading Persian poetry, having Chelo Kabab and Ghormeh Sabzi, Persian music, company of my Iranian friends and participating in blogs such as this one. But I do not have to go to Iran to have these things. It is all here, available in a civilized and clean setting, without all the unnecessary social restrictions, chaos, interference and “matalak” by thugs, and difficulties imposed by the IRI regime.
Having said all that, I see a possible merit in a one way ticket to Iran for many Iranian born senior citizens such as myself. At our age, the best we can do to contribute is to educate others. I can do that in the US by becoming a teacher, as age discrimination is illegal here. But there are plenty of qualified teachers and engineers in the US. I could go and do it in Tanzania, but where do I get a decent Chelo Kabab there?! And the traffic, sanitation and access to the basic everyday necessities in Tanzania are even worse than Iran.
So, I get involved in the US politics, promoting formation of unions in American corporations and activism to secure a decent pension plan (similar to European systems) for American workers. Either that will work or not. If it doesn't, I can see myself kissing this place good bye and taking a one way ticket to Iran where I speak the language and can enjoy the fresh "Noon Barbari". Now, only if I can convince my girlfriend to wear a chador, and not miss her cocktail while strolling along the beaches of Caspian Sea…
Mohammad,
May I just ask what you mean by great nations?
I don't want to define greatness (by virtue of money, power or likewise observables) and I don't want to undermine the importance of people like Gandhi, Lumumba or even Che Guevara. But I don’t count their nations great. As a matter of fact I believe that the great nations (the ones that people usually count great) are those who are highly individualistic. Those in which people have the right to “pursuit their happiness”, and believe me, happiness in general doesn’t come unless you feel that you have a modest life and a somewhat insured future. What do you mean by great ideals? Don’t you think that part of our problems is all these people who think they’ve got the best view of life (and death) and they’re willing to sacrifice (?) everybody and everything for it?
Nobody is born with ideals. They come across. People fight for them not only because they’re nice and heroic but also because people believe they (and their children) CAN’T have a good life without fulfilling it. I highly respect this pragmatic life style seasoned with philanthropic intentions.(I read somewhere that the best way to help poor people is to not be one of them. I personally admire those who after getting rich want to give back to the society as well.)
The reason clerics ceased the power in Iran is a big question that has to do with many things (an important one being the early war), and you can’t, rather self-righteously I believe, blame the educated people for it. At least as I know, a lot of them returned to Iran after revolution and a whole lot more were active in political movements that changed the regime.
Since Hossein shared his concerns with us I found myself in a similar situation. I really enjoy my life in US, being able to know people from different countries. Being exposed to new ideas, etc. But the moment I land in Mehrabad, that means coming home. With all the restrictions and non- FDA approved food! I guess the reason that I feel like this is that I left Iran later than most students do and I established the basis of my lifestyle there. But I still change and I think one can change and change others.
As a scientist, I know that by going back to Iran I won’t have an easy life. Not enough salary, no respect for my research, etc. So I might think, I better stay here where my future and that of my children is more guaranteed. But by deciding that, I feel so selfish. US doesn’t really need me. If I leave, thousands of others will fill my place. On the other hand Iran needs educated people a lot. I can make a difference there. In some ways I feel I have to give back something to the country that has made me what I am right now. Don’t think that I’m a fan of the Islamic republic, no way. But I think living in the turmoil of the middle east has given me a vision of life which makes me less individualistic than someone my age in US.
I'm not sure if Mohammad's comment was directed at me or not. I hope it wasn't, because I stressed earlier that I don't really know what being "citizen of the world" entails. In any case, I think you are right to some extent that the reason why the secular Iranians failed and the revolution was "hijacked" by mullahs (as it has become common to say these days) was partly, if not wholly, that secular Iranians were "selfish". While genuine religious leaders (such as the founder of the Islamic Republic himself) showed laudable bravery for the cause of realizing Allah's government on earth, the secular activists did not (and still do not) have such big dreams (and enough guts). As I mentioned somewhere else in this forum, their approach to democracy is rather re-actionary, as was our approach to Islamic Repulic. (You may be too young to remember the main slogan of the 1979 revolution. We did want an Islamic State!) The truth is, we only knew what we didn't like and didn't want. Same is true, I'm afraid, about the current situation, albeit to a lesser extent. (After all we must have learned a little bit from our past experience.)
I would like to bring up another issue here: Although some Iranian mullahs (by using the word "mullah", by the way, I mean no disrespect to anybody. This word is used in English to refer to the individuals in the islamic/Shia clergy.) are corrupt, at least theoretically they can be taken up on their claim of being followers of Islam. One can still argue with them that, for example, torture is forbidden in Islam (just a hypothetical example, regardless of its truth value) and expect from them to be muslims as they claim.
Now, when Islam is completely marginalized in Iran, thanks to what these very gentlemen have done during their reign of 25 years, then what, I ask you, will make all those who call for democracy today keep their words once they get hold of power? I have met some of these secular activists up close, and I'm pretty sure that what they are after is not democracy. Not at all. They're just after that chair up there. They are devoid of the integrity and faith (yes, the secular faith) that the Founding Fathers of the American democracy enjoyed. I'm not saying all of them are like that, but I believe there are enough of such opportunists that in the vacuum after the possible collapse of the mullahs' regime, the country sinks even deeper in chaos and misery.
That is why I am all for a smooth transition, and this transition, unlike what the impatient young people in their 20s dream, will not take place in the course of one or two generations. This means by the time Iran is prosperous and free, assuming that she (?) moves in the right direction, my grandchildren are grandparents in their own. My going back to Iran will not help either me or the other people who still live there. Why, then, should I go back?
And a clarification for Elnaz. I'm afraid I misquoted the thing about poor people. My bad. It actually went something like this: If you want to decrease the number of poor people, first of all try not to be one of them. Makes sense now? It is meant to be humorous. I totally agree with you, however, that one should give back to the society. If you read my first posting above it must be clear. (The Sa'di poem I didn't bother to quote was the one starting with BANI-AADAM A'ZAA-YE YEK PEYKAR AND...) I hope it's all clear now.
I read the above (new) comments once more and in at least three of them the question of comparing Iran to other nations/countries loomed large. I think I can offer an "objective" criterion about what countries are greater than others at any given time in the civilized history of mankind!
It is actaully pretty simple. Let me ask you this: Why don't Americans normally immigrate to Bolivia, while most Bolivians, given the chance, would love to immigrate to America? This is my criterion, plain and simple: At any time in the history, look at the direction of the flow of free (not forced) immigration of humans. The head of the arrow will show you what conutries contain great nations.
Senior Grad, I think you should also consider different "weights" in your flow chart. Some people have come here only for studying, some only for money, some for both and some for propaganda. You might consider France a greater "nation" than US, but you might stay here because of money or language or whatever.
Your "flow chart" might be a good zeroth order approximation.
Saeed,
Thanks for your high-tech analysis of my "flow chart". :-) By "immigration" I didn't meant temporary stay, as some students do and then go back in the hope of serving their countries, or becoming high-ranked officials and exploiting their nations. I meant leaving your country of origin for good and settling down in another country. If a large number of people decide to do that (think of, say, large-scale immigration of Italians in the early 20th century to the US) then it means at that particular time the host country has been offering better living conditions. My knowledge about immigrations of humans prior to the 20th century is nil. I only know that our forefathers, may God bless their souls, were immigrating during the ice age(s) to warmer places, or else I and you wouldn't be here now. :-) In any case, I am happy with zeroth order approximation (in fact, zero is my favorite number), but I do welcome reasonable higher order approximations. :-)
Hi Mohammad (?),
please write your familiy name or something else, because this is mohammad too, or at least put your email address.
thanks,
Mammad
I liked your comment though. :-P and more or less agree with you.
that was a nice story