Larry Beinhart has Crowned Himself the Prince of Persia…
by Racialicious Special Correspondent Fatemeh Fakhraie
…and he can kiss my Iranian ass.
Last weekend, Larry Beinhart posted a piece for AlterNet entitled, “Report From Iran: Should We Really Bomb These People?”
There’s a whole lot wrong with that question, as many of the article’s commenters pointed out. In fact, I wish I’d waited awhile and just let them write this article for me—but, uppity bee that I am, I started writing as soon a I read the title.
After a title like that, you’d think Beinhart would try to come off a little better. But just the second sentence riled me up: “It’s good to get out of gray, smoggy Tehran, one of the least photogenic cities in the world, where black is the new black, from the hejabs on down.”
I have a hard time believing that Beinhart is really in the Tehran that most Iranians know. Smoggy? Yes! We won’t deny it. But this isn’t just boasty ethnic pride talking: just do a Google search on Tehran and you’ll see some beautiful pictures of the Alborz mountains, the Azadi Monument, Tehran in the spring, Tehran in the winter…An excellent place to check out pictures of Tehran and its denizens is Tehran 24, a blog dedicated to photography of Tehran.
And black everywhere? Once again, my dear readers, I’ll direct you to Google image search: type in “Tehran” and “women,” and you will see for yourself that black is not necessarily de rigueur.
Why can’t he get his stereotype of Iranian women right? Now they’re in black, black, and more black, but then, several paragraphs down, he states, “Because we were in public, the women wore the required headscarves but managed to make them fashion accessories. They constantly adjusted them with graceful gestures that drew attention to their beauty and femininity.” Racism and sexism, all tied up in a pretty little hejab. Ew. How can they be considered fashionable if they’re all in big, black chadors? Fashionable young, urban Iranian women prefer a mix of colors, and color coordination is incredibly important to those interested in fashion (this is my thesis topic—it’s been my life for the last several months, trust).
He then states, “It is worth pointing out that while women in Iran are not as free as in America or Western Europe, they have more freedom and participate more fully in public life than in the rest of the Islamic World.”
I wonder what Beinhart means by freedom. Because if he means the right to marry, divorce, work, and go to school with almost no restrictions, then he has forgotten Turkey. The Turkish are predominately Muslims, and Turkey has the most egalitarian divorce laws in the Islamic world. Women are heads of companies there just like they are in Iran or Syria or the West. And how about Tunisia, which has heavily westernized its civil code? It seems that Beinhart’s definition of the Islamic World includes only Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia.
He also forgets that women who live in rural areas in most countries (Iran included) have fewer freedoms than women who live in urban areas do. What’s this with the blanket generalities, then?
From this silliness we move on to some more racism. “In the first ten minutes of almost any conversation with an Iranian, he or she will point out that they are not Arabs, they’re Persians. They may even say that they don’t like Arabs, or, more emphatically, ‘I hate f**king Arabs.’”
Whoaaaaaah. Nitpickiness first: someone from Iran is Iranian. “Persian” is not a nationality (though it is sometimes used as one to take political edge off). Persian is more of an ethnicity, which is also problematic: Iran isn’t full of just Persians, but also Turks, Kurds, Azerbaijanis, Arabs, Baluchis, and other ethnic groups—something he himself points out a few paragraphs later. So…does he just not know the difference or does he assume that everyone he talked to was 100% Persian stock?
Second, putting forth the idea that all Iranians hate Arabs is incorrect and inflammatory. Beinhart paints all Iranians as disliking all Arabs, without also pointing out the heavy infrastructural and societal racism in Iranian society and the history (like the Arab invasion in the seventh century and the Iran-Iraq war, both of which are regarded as incredibly debilitating and detrimental periods in Iran’s history by many Iranians) between Iran and its Arab neighbors that might help clarify—though not assuage—such statements.
Racism against non-Persian ethnicites in Iran is prevalent and socially acceptable; it’s not possible to present or talk about it the same way that racism is discussed in the U.S.—it’s not even on the radar with all of the other societal problems that Iranians face. So putting forth a statement like, “Iranians hate Arabs” without contextualizing it or examining the social forces behind it really just further demonizes Iranians, something that Beinhart is (inadvertently?) doing really well for an article that’s aiming to humanize us.
Beinhart’s entire article reeks of good, old-fashioned Orientalism. From glorifying Iran’s pre-Islamic-Republic history to demonizing everything that came after. Referring to the “lovely” people he met as if they’re antiques: “Those lovely people that I had dinner with will likely die. If not them, their parents, children, brothers and sisters. The student of English who sat and talked to me about Hafez for two hours. The man who makes the hand-printed table clothes in the bazaar. The mason working on the reconstruction of the great mosque.”
I became incredibly tired with Beinhart’s use of disturbingly-off irony refuting reasons that the U.S. should bomb Iran. He says that Iranians are gracious and lovely, but then paints us as racists who are corrupt and addicted to drugs. When he writes this way, I have a hard time remembering that he’s against attacking Iran. Especially when he makes wild statements about history: “People…were arrested, harassed, beaten, and thrown out of windows, and lost their jobs and careers, and went to prison.” (My emphasis)
There are historical accounts of arrests, harassment, beatings, blackballing, executions, and unlawful incarceration…but throwing people out of windows? I’m just not buying it.
I can’t help but wonder how often Beinhart used little embellishments like this, especially when I read the following paragraph: “So the argument goes back to intentions. That Iran is more dangerous than Russia, more of an enemy than China, more unstable than Pakistan, more warlike than Israel, and more likely to have aggressive leaders who will launch a pre-emptive war than the United States.”
Again with the wild statements that have no backing! How is Iran more unstable than Pakistan? What evidence does he have to support his claim that Iran is more warlike than Israel or more likely to have aggressive leaders that will launch a pre-emptive war than the U.S.? I feel like I’m taking crazy pills here, people. Did anyone else read the words “pre-emptive war” and think about what we did Iraq, instead of what Iran might do to another country?
Beinhart is the author of Wag the Dog and Fog Facts: Searching for Truth in the Land of Spin. Is this entire piece one big joke? As a Sultan of Spinning, is he purposefully painting Iran to look alternately hellish and idyllic for his own amusement, to kid around with us? If this is Beinhart’s idea of a “positive spin,” Iran could do without it.
The only thing I liked about this piece was that Beinhart infused it with a varied history of Iran, which is essential when trying to understand a 3,000-year-old country. It’s just a shame that all of the history research he did somehow didn’t fully sink into his perception of Iran as more than a two-faced country, caught between a glorious past and what he (and everyone else) paints as a dire, dangerous future.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
Aaminah wrote:
Ah… nothing more to add… thanks, Fatemeh!
Posted 18 Apr 2008 at 7:28 am ¶
Lisa wrote:
“These people” – ugh.
Iran/Persia is an incredibly complex, nuanced West Asian society and “civilization”. Honestly, though, any article that can convey that to the USA at all is a good thing, fallacies notwithstanding.
Iran is part of the axis of spin, along with Cuba and Mainland China. Critical masses of political refugees – respectively Shahist Persians, Rightist Cubans, and KMT Taiwanese – have painted their respective countries’ successor regimes as cartoony EVOL!!!
It is sad, but this guy’s article is probably more intelligent than 99% of what most Americans will ever read about Iran.
Kudos to Racialicious for raising this – and other West Asian/Arab/Islamic subjects. Which generally get so marginalized.
Posted 18 Apr 2008 at 8:36 am ¶
dramelyrique wrote:
Great post.
“From this silliness we move on to some more racism. “In the first ten minutes of almost any conversation with an Iranian, he or she will point out that they are not Arabs, they’re Persians. They may even say that they don’t like Arabs, or, more emphatically, ‘I hate f**king Arabs.’”
Could it also be that they are tired of everyone assuming that all Middle-Easterners are Arab, and that all Muslims are Arab and vice versa?
How long did Beinhart live in Tehran? In his biographies on wikipedia and thelibrarian.biz, they don’t even say that he has been there before while they do say that he went to school in Estonia and spent some winter vacations in Austria and Switzerland.
Posted 18 Apr 2008 at 8:52 am ¶
Hari Mirchi wrote:
Thank you!
I saw that piece and just couldn’t frame my thoughts coherently.
Posted 18 Apr 2008 at 1:07 pm ¶
Sarah wrote:
Especially when he makes wild statements about history: “People…were arrested, harassed, beaten, and thrown out of windows, and lost their jobs and careers, and went to prison.”
This line makes me think this guy is a moron. “Defenestration” is the usual descriptor for an undesirable person meeting an untimely and entirely accidental end (ie, “falling” in front of a train or car, “slipping” on the banks of a river, missing one’s train and never being seen again, etc.). It does literally mean “the act of being pushed from a window” but it’s generally used and understood, certainly by political scientists, in a much broader sense. I suspect Beinhart read a history book or piece of analysis that used it in the broader sense to refer, as you do, to executions and imprisonment but took it as a narrow definition of literal events.
Posted 18 Apr 2008 at 1:41 pm ¶
Amir wrote:
thank you alot for your full meaning and perfect article about our grand city
Posted 18 Apr 2008 at 2:09 pm ¶
TonyFig wrote:
What worries a lot of people aren’t Iranians per se but their president Mr. Ahmadejinad and his inflammatory rhetoric about the destruction of Israel and his holocaust denials. Personally, I’d love to visit Iran myself and talk with people there. We’re all Human in the end with the same concerns and needs. But Mr. Ahmadijenad worries me.
Posted 18 Apr 2008 at 8:32 pm ¶
Fatemeh wrote:
TonyFig, although Ahmedinejad’s views are horrific ones, there isn’t any reason to “worry” about him. The office of president does not function the same way in Iran as it does in the U.S.; the REAL leader of Iran is the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. All decisions are made by him; the office of president is more of a figurehead. Thus, Ahmedinejad’s problematic views don’t have any real sway over policy in Iran.
Posted 18 Apr 2008 at 9:56 pm ¶
tonyfig wrote:
There is an unfortunate tendency to ascribe a “hive mind” description to people whose government we have a problem with. I don’t for a moment think that Iranians go to bed and wake up praying for the destruction of America and Israel. We all want the same things in the end: love, peace, happiness and a safe world to enjoy it in. In the end I hope we can reach a place of understanding and dialogue with Iran even if we choose to agree to disagree on certain things. The past is immutable and dead. What should concern us all is the future and the world we’re going to leave the generations to come. In the present we need to reach out to people and build some bridges. I know that sounds corny and it’s never easy to do but the alternative is a world of “us and them” and that really hasn’t worked out too well has it?
Posted 18 Apr 2008 at 10:32 pm ¶
Aaminah wrote:
The whole concept of bombing an entire country to get at one leader or a handful of government people is insane anyway. But that’s the U.S. standard M.O.
Much as I detest Larry’s ludicrous take on the situation (and that such a fool gets published while thoughtful intelligent writers struggle to get noticed), it should help to open communication about this idea that you can just go in a bomb a country because you don’t like their president. Um duh, everyone else in the country will be affected, and why should they just take that without a complaint?
Posted 19 Apr 2008 at 6:48 am ¶
Mark wrote:
While the article could be, uh, phrased better, I honestly don’t think the writer had the intention of insulting people. There are generalizations, sure, but that’s a facet of journalism as a whole.
As for this paragraph:
“So the argument goes back to intentions. That Iran is more dangerous than Russia, more of an enemy than China, more unstable than Pakistan, more warlike than Israel, and more likely to have aggressive leaders who will launch a pre-emptive war than the United States”
I don’t think the author actually believes that – he is merely stating what neo-cons or “pro-war” people believe. He himself doesn’t argue those points.
Posted 19 Apr 2008 at 10:01 am ¶
Aaminah wrote:
I would really like to see a conversation on why it is that white people can write/say remarkably stupid, thoughtless, rude and insulting things about topics they probably shouldn’t be speaking about to begin with, and the response is “I don’t think it was INTENDED to be offensive”.
Posted 20 Apr 2008 at 11:57 am ¶
wendi muse wrote:
man, it’s like uncle tom’s cabin all over again
apparently, the only way to humanize non-whites (in that traditional, american wasp-y sense that is, as i know many ME, Arab, and in this case, Persian folks may identify as white and are (in my opinion, incorrectly) classified as such in the US census) is to make them appear infantile, helpless, or so innocent that they transcend their own human-ness. “we must save these little angels” becomes the mantra to get us to like them enough not to commit a violent act against them (WTF) as opposed to our realizing that they, like us, are a diverse group of people with faults and flaws, blessings and talents, grace or downright despicable behavior…whatever. why must a group of people be seen as perfect to compel us to restrain ourselves from killing them? that’s disgusting
also, i am nodding my head with aaminah. intention doesn’t friggin matter. hitler’s intention with his pre-wwII exploits was to restore economic power to germany. so wait, the fact that he killed a bajillion people and messed up a ton of territories is ok? i mean, he didn’t INTEND to do anything else really but make germany powerful again…
see? dumb excuse
Posted 20 Apr 2008 at 3:46 pm ¶
nezua wrote:
great post. thanks for the insightful takedown.
and to tonyfig, i just gotta say i’m MUCH more worried about bush than i am about ahmedinejad. you know, going by record and public statement of intention. i’d say keep the worry where it’s been earned!
Posted 20 Apr 2008 at 3:52 pm ¶
flabbyabby wrote:
It doesn’t surprise me in the slightest anyone who has read ‘Alternet’ should know by now that they are notorious hypocrites. And cater to that same liberal phony clueless bullshit of mostly white writers trying in vain to act like they are so ‘down’ but in reality are just as racist and wretched as the people they criticize. Ugh if you are going to be wolves in sheep’s clothing please do a more convincing job.
Posted 20 Apr 2008 at 6:55 pm ¶
larry beinhart wrote:
Dear Fatemah;
Since one president and two presidential candidates are speaking of bombing Iran, and the Pentagon has a plan for invading Iran (which they’ve concluded they can’t carry out because we have no troops left) and several different plans for taking out Iran multi-sited nuclear program, or all of Iran’s military capacities as well, it seemed to me that should we bomb Iran is a question well worth asking.
The answer, to my mind, is absolutely not, as I think I made very clear at the end of the article.
When I was there, Tehran was smoggy (it is officially one of the smoggiest cities in the world). It was gray and drab, architecturally boring with mostly gray and drab buildings. And most of the people dressed that way.
I was in the mountains. I skied at Dizin and Shemshak. They’re fabulous and beautiful.
The scenery was not my main concern. My main concern was to humanize the idea of Iran for the ordinary American reader who envisions one great swath of Islamic repression from Saudi Arabia to Afghanistan, including Iran, where there are women in chadors and terrorists breeding more terrorists with them.
The statement about Iranians calling themselves Persians was simply true. It appeared to be a way for them to differentiate themselves from that swath. I took the remark about Arabs – and I should have made this clear – not to be a racist remark about an ethnic group, but two other things – a cultural differentiation and a historical resentment of the Arab conquests of Persia, given new life by the horrible Iraq-Iran War, the Iraqis regarded, for the most part, as Arabs.
There is also a geo-political struggle in which Iran is opposed to, or wants to dominate, the Arab nations of the Gulf region.
My additional point, for the American reader, was to try to regard the Islamic (terrorist sponsoring) nations as individual places, with different interests, different opinions, rather than as a single unit to be bombed at will as part of a single war on terror.
As to the description of how women sometimes treat their hejabs, it was true and I felt it was humanizing.
The story about defenestrations (throwing out of windows) is also true, it occurred at Tehran University.
In any case, thank you for reading the article, taking note of it, and stating what you felt was at fault.
Larry Beinhart
Posted 30 Apr 2008 at 1:32 pm ¶
Matt wrote:
Have to agree with Mark at 11. Further, I have a problem with the way Israel is presented as the comparison for being warlike, as if it were a quality essential to Israel rather than something arising out of a complicated historical circumstance.
But I also have to say, in response to Fatemeh (8), that the reasons some people are worried about Iran go beyond just Ahmadinejad’s outrageous rhetoric. To say that he’s “more of a figurehead” doesn’t just discount the power he does have, but it downplays the extent to which his “problematic views” reflect broader, official Iranian policies which are deeply antisemitic and do aim at the destruction of Israel. There is reason to worry, and I’m afraid that when we don’t recognize that, we inevitably and unfairly paint Israel and Israel’s supporters as “warlike.”
Posted 06 May 2008 at 11:27 am ¶
Okhtay wrote:
Dear Fatemeh,
Hi,
Overall I enjoyed reading your article but I felt that some parts of Mr Beinhart’s article was unjustly criticized.
I think you missed some of the points in Mr Beinhart’s article. I think not only overall he made a good argument against war and had very good intentions in writing it but also those things that you have selected from his article and criticized have been mostly misunderstood.
There were specially two things which caught my attention and made me write to you.
First is the part where Mr Beinhart mentions all these tortures and arrests and you point your finger only to criticize his mentioning of “thrown out of windows” comment. I have to say in this matter he seems well informed. I suppose you have heard of Tir, 18th of 1378 where the students were thrown out of the windows of their dorm rooms in the dark of the night. I was a student back then and the memory of it is still very alive in our conscience. So this really happened, in spite of how brutal it may sound.
The second one is where he compares Iran to Russia, Israel, Pakistan and USA. I think it is pretty clear that he was just showing the irony. What I understood was that of course Iran is not more dangerous than Russia, not more of an enemy than China, not more unstable than Pakistan, not more warlike than Israel, and specially not more likely to have aggressive leaders who will launch a pre-emptive war than the United States (at least this last part is clear from Iraq experience).
Also I have to agree with you on that Iran is not only Persians but a lot of other ethnic groups; However, I have to say as an Azeri I have experienced and witnessed a lot of racism from Persians against most of other ethnic groups inside Iran, and especially Arabs. So let’s be honest. Although I hate generalizing but I have to say Iranians can be very racist especially when it comes to Arabs. This is a problem which exists and won’t go away by denying it and should be dealt by everyone in order to be solved.
I apologize for writing such a long comment.
Thanks again for your article.
Posted 16 Jul 2008 at 10:09 am ¶