When Stereotypes Collide: the Persian Jews of Beverly Hills

by Special Correspondent Fatemeh Fakhraie

At the airport bookstore, I immediately overlooked Bruce Willis’ and Emma Hemings’ smoldering stares on the cover of this month’s W. My attention went directly to the top left: “Meet the Neighbors: the Persian Conquest of Beverly Hills.”

Knowing the history of glossies and their historic portrayal of racial ethnicities more as props than as cover stories, I was simultaneously worried and intrigued—how would W fare as documenters rather than voyeurs?

A patio party introduces us to the Persians of Beverly Hills: with lounging guests, designer duds in the pool, and lavish tents, the spread is vaguely reminiscent of a harem bath scene combined with a Sultan’s caravan theme. The font for “The Persian Conquest” is done in an Arabesque font, with sinewy flourishes and random dots evocative of the Aladdin soundtrack. “Here we go,” I say to myself.

But reading the introduction, I learn that these aren’t just any Persians W is profiling—they’re Persian Jews, who are a large part of Los Angeles’ huge Iranian diaspora.

The use of the term “Persian” didn’t surprise me much. A large segment of Iranian immigrants and subsequent generations use “Persian” rather than “Iranian,” for varying political, ethnic, and ideological reasons. But with Persian Jews, the use is given another dimension: “Persian” does not connote any specific religion, whereas the term “Iranian” definitely conjures images of Shi’a Islam: ayatollahs, chadors, and the Islamic Revolution of 1979.  “Persian” also conjures images of lazy cats, sumptuous carpets, and fat sultans surrounded by glittering palaces—stereotypical images of an Orientalist fantasy, but one that most likely suits Persian Jews better than menacing stereotypes of dour women in chadors and grim-faced Khomeini.

The story, written by Kevin West, gives a brief history of Persian Jews’ presence in L.A., from when many families first fled to the city during and after the Islamic Revolution, to the present day, when the Persian Jewish community wields serious business and political clout. But for the most part, this isn’t a rags-to-riches story: West notes that,

“Although disposed, the thousands of Iranian Jews who flocked to Beverly Hills in the coming years had assets most immigrants lack: advanced education, business experience and, in the majority of cases, some cash in overseas accounts.”

The embarrassment of riches image is fortified with lavish pictures of local heavyweights and symbols of the fortunes they’ve amassed. One image shows a “Persian Palace,” the nickname given to huge, ostentatious houses built and designed by Persians in their new home. Another image is the sweeping view of Los Angeles from Sam Nazarian’s penthouse, or his “$1.6 million Bugatti Veyron”.

While W is a luxury magazine, all of this wealth made me uncomfortable. Of course, W would never profile an ethnicity that wasn’t rich, but I had to wonder why they would profile any specific group at all. West chartered the difficulties that the Persian Jewish community has gone through: racial tension with others in the community, religious tension with other Jewish groups, etc. It was almost as if W wanted to dispel stereotypes about Persian Jews.

But the road to hell is paved with good intentions, right? In attempting to dispel stereotypes, W simply backed them up: showy images of wealth and references to media and real estate empires are uncomfortably close to the stereotypes of “rich Jews” and “Jews running the media and the banks.”
The Persian side of things didn’t fare much better, either:

“Thanks to their wealth and numbers, Persians didn’t need to adapt. Instead, they developed a self-sufficient Farsi-speaking enclave, complete with grocery stores, restaurants, and even taxi services. And, rather than courting the local social establishment, rich Persians stuck to their own social world, which revolved around lavish 1,000-person bar mitzvahs and weddings.”

The article has combined the rich Jewish stereotype with the filthy rich Persian stereotype, and wrapped it up with a gilded segregated bow.
And it gets better: one of the article’s central themes deals with the new generation of Persian Jews in Los Angeles, the born-and-breds. West repeatedly draws generational differences: describing the immigrant generation as miserly (“…since the older generation by and large has not adopted the American ethic—and tax strategy—of giving money to nonprofits.”) and clannish, whereas the younger generation is more “Americanized,” and thus more generous, social, and acceptable.
But is the article doing all the stereotyping? West references Parviz Nazarian, the first in Beverly Hills to build a “Persian Palace,” saying that, “A different all-American motto, however, has been fully embraced by the Nazarians and many other Persian families who have earned fortunes here: If you’re got it, flaunt it.” It wasn’t W who purchased Bugattis or constructed homes that look like “a particularly frothy wedding cake propped up by a forest of fluted columns.” Have rich Persian Jews internalized their own stereotype?

No. Anyone who has money uses it. And herein lies the problem: applying the term “rich” to a specific ethnicity implies that this community’s money is somehow unearned or unacceptable. While being showy with it is optional, the Persian Jewish community has worked hard, and spend their money no differently than musicians with platinum albums or white moneyed families. One man’s Bugatti is another man’s tricked-out  ‘67 Pontiac Parisienne.

W doesn’t make much of an attempt to demystify the Persian Jews of Beverly Hills: though the article traces the community’s history, difficulties, and hardships, the takeaway message has nothing to do with tradition or how the community has bolstered the area. The magazine plays up luxurious, powerful images of Persians and Jews, and the major messages are of stereotypes.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • NewsVine
  • Current
  • email
  • Print

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. When Stereotypes Collide! « Fatemeh Fakhraie on 13 Jul 2009 at 5:51 pm

    [...] on W magazine’s July 2009 article, “The Persian Conquest of Beverly Hills.” Check it!: Knowing the history of glossies and their historic portrayal of racial ethnicities more as props [...]

Comments

  1. JL wrote:

    *sigh*

    On one hand, it’s nice to see some acknowledgment that non-Ashkenazi Jews and Jews of color exist.

    On the other, a representation that just plays on stereotypes can be worse than no representation at all.

  2. Abu Sinan wrote:

    I dont see why this article had to be about just the Jewish Persians in the first place? The Persian population in the USA is VERY different than in Iran. One cannot look at the Iranian community in the USA and use it to draw ANY usefully conclusions about the country they came from.

    By in large the Persian community here in the USA is rather well off and secular. A large chunk of them had ties to the former Shah and left just before or after the Islamic Revolution.

    I get so frustrated how Western media types want to talk to Iranian ex pats here in the US and try to pass them off as some balanced view point on events over there. The US Iranian community is not representitive of Iran in any way, shape or form.

    I wish they’d have done something investigative on where a lot of the money that came over with many Iranians here in the USA came from. Much of it is linked with the corrupt US backed dictator we installed there and much of it actually belongs to the Iranian people.

  3. Erica wrote:

    The Jews-Run-Everything stereotype was sprinkled neatly throughout…

    Younes … relied on contacts with other Persian Jewish immigrants… and established a factory…. Several years later, the brothers were brought into a fledgling telecom company, Qualcomm, and their millions ballooned into billions.

    Success is often a matter of who you know, not just what you know — but still, you need business acumen to be able to impress “who you know” and get places.

    The article sprinkled in a bit of Iran Oppresses Women for good measure.

    “Especially for women, the revolution was the best thing that could have happened,” says Natasha, who earned a master’s degree in international relations at Columbia University before choosing a more creative career path.

    And quotes from mothers talking about how they want their daughters to marry other Persians were thrown in….

    Sigh.

    They’re just like any other rich people anywhere in the world — the Persian heritage may add some unique twists, but it’s still just rich people being rich.

  4. Meg wrote:

    The comment about giving to charity demonstrates an astonishing degree of ignorance of Jewish custom on the part of the writer.

    Unless a Jew is literally starving they are COMMANDED to give 10% of their income to charity. This has been the Jewish law and custom for generations.

    It is this tradition of charity that allows Mizrachi (Arab) Jews to build their communities. The richer members help the poorer so that they can afford to live in the enclave, send their children to community schools, buy kosher food, etc.

    American old-world (whether orthodox or just composed of relatively new immigrants) Jewish communities are almost always self-sustaining because of long-standing communal traditions of charity and mutual support.

  5. Jehanzeb wrote:

    This is a great piece, Fatemeh. Thanks for writing it. There seems to be a combination of Orientalist and Jewish stereotypes at work here (with the Arabesque font and the rich Jewish stereotype, respectively). There’s a different kind of Orientalism here. It’s the friendly, magical Arabian Nights kind, as opposed to the kind that shows us burqa-clad women and oppressive bearded men wielding scimitars.

    I agree with Erica on how the “Jews-run-everything” stereotype persists throughout the article. Are we supposed to think that the entire Iranian/Persian Jewish community is rich and wealthy? Perhaps we’re supposed to think that all Jewish communities, regardless if they’re American, European, or Middle-Eastern, live in mansions, wear fancy dresses, and run incredibly successful businesses.

    I wonder if West was trying to show us how Iranian Jews “contrast” to Iranian Muslims, where the former are generally treated like the more secular and integrated community, while the latter are typically represented as the religious and backwards group. The image that he uses (and the one that’s pictured here on Racialicious) seems aimed at showing how rich, but also how “liberal” and “exotic” (yet westernized) the Iranian Jewish community is. While he doesn’t give us an image of Iranian Muslims, he uses language like “radical Muslim clerics…” and quotes one Iranian Jewish woman saying, “Especially for women, the revolution was the best thing that could have happened,” which both bring stereotypical, Orientalist, and Islamophobic imagery to mind. To his credit, he mentions that Muslims left Iran after the Islamic Revolution, but considering the negative tone and codified references to Islam and the so-called “Islamic Republic of Iran” in the article, I believe it gives us the impression that those Muslims represent the minority.

    I was also uncomfortable about the pro-Shah attitude that’s in the article, but I think I’ll withhold the rest of my opinion on that (I wrote out my comment, but decided to delete it because I’d rather not deviate the discussion away from Fatemeh’s post).

  6. the elahater wrote:

    Good points on this piece, especially pointing out that rich Iranians are like any other rich folk. My feeling is that Iranian-Americans, like many other immigrant groups in the U.S., flaunt their wealth in a sense in order to prove their worth in this new country. On the one hand, they’re proud to be Persian, but on the other, they don’t want to be thought of as minorities since minorities=lower on America’s socio-economic ladder. Often I’ve experienced of seeing my fellow Iranians shocked when I told them they’re not thought of as white by most Americans (“but we are the first Aryans!”).

    Growing up, I was ashamed to be Iranian-American because of the Persian-American show-off-your-wealth culture. I couldn’t relate to it at all. But when I did visit Iran, I caught a glimpse of real Persian culture and I realized that I loved many aspects of it. That’s when I started feeling proud of my heritage.

    Pieces like this in W leave me feeling conflicted. I know that the extreme-wealth portrayed in this story is not a distortion of the truth—this exists. However I seldom see depictions of Iranian ex-pats like that I see in the movie Crash: a man and woman who worked day and night in their small store. They were by no means rich. Where are the depictions of Iranian refugees who came many years after the revolution, who work at Wal-Marts and Pizza Huts? Often people assume that because I’m Iranian, that means my parents were somehow connected to the Shah or had a lot of money when they came to this country (both untrue). While these folks do exist in America, it’s not a complete picture of the ex-pat community.

    An aside: I personally use Persian and Iranian interchangeably when identifying myself (not all Persians are Iranian, Arabs, Kurds, etc. who live in Iran; and vice-versa) but I agree with the reasons you cited as to why many expats prefer Persian.

  7. Erica wrote:

    @Meg — Thank you for expanding on this point. The article seems to be drawing a distinction between the “old” charity (giving money to your community, supporting your community, helping your community) with “new” charity (donating to non-profits, which is more like helping strangers)… sort of saying “old Jews help Jews, new Jews help anybody/everybody.” Pretty ignorant, but at least they’ve reinforced that Jews Stick Together myth.

  8. RCHOUDH wrote:

    I’ll admit when I first saw the title I thought the post was about the Persian Jewish characters of the latest incarnation of Beverly Hills 90210!

  9. Ilana wrote:

    Wow, fascinating. I’d love to read the article itself and then make my own conclusions, but I just can’t bring myself to buy W. In any case, they do seem to be leaning heavily on the “rich and powerful Jew” stereotype, as well as a suspicious Orientalizing theme- although it could be argued that the use of the word Persian is because Jews are generally hesitant to identify very strongly with the host-culture in which we live (since, after all, they’ve historically tended to be fickle about whether and how long we’ll be allowed to live there) whether it be Eastern or Western European, or Middle Eastern.

    Nice to see non-Ashkenazi Jews in the spot-light, but this isn’t exactly the spotlight I’d personally want on me. Neither does it accurately represent North American Jewry, regardless of ethnicity.

  10. luckyfatima wrote:

    “I wonder if West was trying to show us how Iranian Jews “contrast” to Iranian Muslims, where the former are generally treated like the more secular and integrated community, while the latter are typically represented as the religious and backwards group.”

    Good point Jehanzeb.

    This stereotype being spread by West is not new. I recall visiting my cousins in Long Island where they live in a large Jewish community, they (we) are ethnically Ashkenazi but they pointed out the Persian Jewish houses and said that the Persian Jews did extravagant things like build elevators in their two story houses.

    I do feel it is one thing when these things go through Jewish communities (it has its own racist dynamic internally) but it becomes dangerous because it contributes to old underlying anti-Jewish ideas when these stereotypes are reproduced for the masses.

  11. Fatemeh wrote:

    Thanks for your comments, everyone!

    @ Jehanzeb–I was also kind of uncomfortable with the pro-Shah attitude; he was painted with a very blameless brush. But politics aside, the real reason I was so uncomfortable with this article was the recurrent “rich” stereotypes.

  12. Fatemeh wrote:

    @ Ilana: you can read it online, through the link at the top. :)

  13. kikilarue wrote:

    @Ilana: The full article is available online (see link in the first paragraph), but if you live in a metropolitan area, your public library probably subscribes to W. Voila! You can read the article without buying the magazine. : )

  14. Ruchama wrote:

    Interesting.

    As for the word “Persian” — I’ve known a few Persian Jews, and I’ve read things written by several others, and all of them have use “Persian” rather than “Iranian.” I think you’re right, that it’s a way to distance themselves from the images of modern Iran.

    There was a similar article in the NY Times a few years ago about the Syrian Jewish community in NY, and it hit on many of the same stereotypes.

    As for the assimilation stuff — has there ever been any immigrant group to the US that immediately assimilated? Everything I’ve ever read has said that, as long as there are enough people from the place moving to the same place, people tend to stick together like that at least for a generation or two.

    As a side note, there’s a character Navid on 90210 who’s a Persian Jew. He described himself as Persian in the first or second episode, but he wasn’t explicitly said to be Jewish until at least six or seven episodes in. Until then, they’d just used the sort of “ethnic” markers that are used for immigrants of practically every ethnicity — huge extended family, loving yet over-protective parents, family meals with about 30 people and 70 dishes of food, all scenes in his house had several small children running around in the background, and so on.

  15. Joy wrote:

    Don’t look to see balanced economic representation of any group in a luxury magazine. Don’t look to see anyone who isn’t super rich, super beautiful, super famous, or super fashionable in a luxury magazine. Sure there’s more hardworking middle class minorities, and whites for that matter, in the US, but um don’t be confused when you don’t see them in W. Maybe some of the other stuff in the article can be seen as racist/discriminatory but
    “showy images of wealth and references to media and real estate empires”
    is actually all things equal.
    When you check out the rest of the society section, you’ll see that’s kinda the point. :)

  16. Meg wrote:

    The article often lacks context; it fails to place the Persian community is context as a subset of American Jewry, of Middle Eastern Jewry in particular. So some things that, to modern American ears sound very decadent (like 1000 person bar mitzvahs) are really quite normal.

    Orthodox and traditional Jews normally have big families. A family where each parents is one of 6 or 7 siblings, each of whom has married and had a least 4 children, quickly results in many, many first-degree relatives. To simply invite immediate family means a bar mitzvah or wedding for traditional Jews can number a few hundred guests. Once you add in more distant relatives and other families in the communities (who will invariably come, as in these type of communities, people always come together to celebrate each other’s simchot [happy occasions]), the number climbs quickly.

    By secular American standards, a party for a 13 year old with 1000 guests sounds incredibly extravagant, but it isn’t necessarily. Some are, sure, just like some America weddings are hugely expensive affairs. But Mizrachi (Middle Eastern and North African) Jews place a huge emphasis on these celebrations. Families who lack the means can borrow the necessary chairs, plates and utensils from gemachim (community banks of goods for sharing). Many times, the women in the extended family work together to prepare the food, rather than hire a caterer. The party isn’t so much for the single 13 year old, or the couple getting married, as it is for the whole family, even the community.

    I’ve been to Mizrachi simchot that were lavish and expensive and huge, and I’ve been to Mizrachi simchot that were huge, but clearly made on a budget, where, despite the enormous number of guests, the bride and groom were clearly married “from home” so to speak.

    These huge celebrations at simchot are an important function of communal bonding in traditional and Orthodox communities. They are so important that there are organizations (called hachnassat kallah) that raise money so that poor couples can afford a wedding with all their family and friends present.

    Apologies for all the Hebrew terms, they’re kind of hard to translate.

  17. Whitney wrote:

    The article didn’t say or insinuate that ALL Persian Jews (or all Jews, for that matter) are wealthy, they profiled the ones who are, the ones who live specifically in Beverly Hills. Maybe I’m just not understanding. Even in the description of the article they say “the Persians of Beverly Hills.” Why would anyone think that the article was talking about ALL Persian Jews, or all Jews for that matter?

    And as for the font, they use it for all of their covers. I was curious as to what it looked like, and looked at some past issues, and they’re the same. I’m looking at the cover right now, and I don’t see any random dots and flourishes. Unless you saw a different cover. This is the cover that I saw:

    http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/6700000/Bruce-on-W-Magazine-July-2009-bruce-willis-6709734-941-1222.jpg

    “applying the term “rich” to a specific ethnicity implies that this community’s money is somehow unearned or unacceptable.”

    How, exactly? No one doubts that they didn’t earn their money or that it’s unacceptable. I’m not sure what you mean by that.

    I think the reason they profiled this group is because not a lot is known about them and they’re very influential and important to Los Angeles, and specifically, entertainment. Sam Nazarian, for example, is a legend in LA. He is the founder and CEO if SBE, which is one of the largest companies that opens and runs restaurants, clubs, and hotels, and they also happen to be the most popular restaurants, clubs, and hotels. So it’s no wonder why people are curious. I don’t want to start any arguments, but as someone from LA, I just thought I’d share my thoughts.

    Are there stereotypes? Yes. But it’s nearly impossible to profile a group of people without using some stereotypes. Are people going to walk away from this article thinking that every single Persian Jew (or any other Jew for that matter) lives this kind of lifestyle and is wealthy? I doubt it.

    @Ilana: You can read the entire article, it’s linked to. I read it.

  18. NancyP wrote:

    What is that pig statue doing in a Jewish-owned (or for that matter a Muslim-owned) pool? Does. Not. Make. Sense.

  19. Erica wrote:

    @Whitney — The stereotypes are acceptable because some readers won’t fully embrace them? Um, no. Just because it’s not being shouted by a skinhead with swastika tattoos doesn’t mean it’s not the same tired “jews run everything” theme.

    The flourish and font that Fatemeh mentions are on the page of the article itself, not the cover of the magazine.

  20. JL wrote:

    @ Whitney

    “Are there stereotypes? Yes. But it’s nearly impossible to profile a group of people without using some stereotypes. Are people going to walk away from this article thinking that every single Persian Jew (or any other Jew for that matter) lives this kind of lifestyle and is wealthy? I doubt it.”

    Well, one problem in this case is that most Americans know pretty much nothing about non-Ashkenazi Jews. Many probably weren’t aware that Persian Jews existed. So the stereotypes that are being used are now pretty much all they know about this group.

    And the article is building on wider, harmful stereotypes about both Jews and Persians. This article COULD have been more balanced. The history is interesting, but they don’t talk about this group’s contribution to the wider community, or even very much about its culture. When talking about the current, as opposed to the historical, community, they mostly talk about its money and flaunting of said money.

    Don’t get me wrong. I’m Sephardic myself, and all for showing people that non-Ashkenazi Jews exist, that Jews of color exist, for giving coverage to groups of Jews that have been marginalized in US Jewish culture. But quantity of representation isn’t all that matters – quality matters too.

  21. Matt wrote:

    And herein lies the problem: applying the term “rich” to a specific ethnicity..

    I’d just like to clarify something. This quoted bit is true enough, so far as describing a problem, but I think it misses an important point — the larger context of antisemitism is missing.

    In antisemitism, wealth is a tool Jews use to exert power. An important one, but one tool among many. The bigger problem is the claim of Jewish power. In fact, wealth didn’t even get explicit mention in the EUMC working definition of antisemitism.

    I’ve come across plenty of antisemites who proudly support Jews being successful in many ways — and then claim we have to be “responsible” in using the “power” that comes with success. Otherwise, there will be “pushback” against Jews. I even got that threat from someone who thought he was my friend. I promise you he had no objection to Jewish wealth per se.

  22. ashlynn wrote:

    I don’t know if I can really comment on this post, but I will say that skimming the article and seeing the pictures reminded me of The Kite Runner; the only difference being that both the lavish parties and political strife took place in the same immediate area, as opposed to leaving a war torn home country to live a lavish live in the US. I think the film was a more honest portrayal than W, in that not every ex-pat came here and lived like kings(pardon the pun), but rather became part of the working class as the majority of immigrant families do.

    Granted, The Kite Runner took place is Afghanistan, but you could certainly argue that the sentiment is the same.

  23. Whitney wrote:

    @Erica: I’ll be sure to go to Barens and Noble and check it out. Now I’m really curious as to what it looks like!

    And the magazine is talking about Jews in *Beverly Hills*. I don’t know how many times I have to reiterate that, but in LA, a majority of the businesses (and the entertainment industry) are run by Jewish families of all ethnicities. That’s how it is in *LA*. They’re not talking about any other place in the country, or the world for that matter. I’m also saying this as someone who has Jewish ancestors who all owned their own businesses back in the old country, and opened businesses here when they fled to America. Is it a stereotype if it’s true? I understand that it’s false that all Jews are wealthy, but in Beverly Hills, they are. Everyone is wealthy in Beverly Hills. It might be perpetuating a stereotype, but does that mean that W shouldn’t have done this article on these wealthy Jews because there is a stereotype about Jews being wealthy? Should they be ignored in the media in order to avoid perpetuating a stereotype?

    @JL: Absolutely, some people don’t know what Persian Jews exist, but the magazine W is an LA magazine. People who live in LA, who read the magazine, know this, and people who live in LA are W’s main readers.

    And I think the point of the article, considering the magazine is a luxury magazine, is to highlight the luxurious lifestyles these people have, as well as their power and influence in the greater Los Angeles area, and as well as the influence of their businesses. You have to consider the rhetoric of the magazine, which is centered around money, luxury, and society. I agree, it could have been more balanced, but I don’t think that the magazine itself really talks about charitable contributions or who gives what to which organizations. I don’t think the point was to teach all about culture, but to say how this powerful and influential group of people came to LA, and their lifestyles.

    And of course they’re going to talk about money and the flaunting of money. The whole of the magazine does that. if you think about it, this kind of article would be more unacceptable in a magazine like Time because of Time’s rhetoric. Time’s purpose is to teach. But W’s rhetoric is different than that of Time’s. W is about fashion, art, society, Hollywood, etc. They have a whole article about Sam Nazarian himself in the society page from 2005. http://www.wmagazine.com/society/archive/sam_nazarian

    Does that make sense?

  24. Safiya Outlines wrote:

    This is identical to an NYT article about Syrian Jews.

    It’s the marriage of two stereotypes: The Rich Jew meets the Vulgar Spendthrift Middle Easterner.

  25. Meg wrote:

    @Safiya

    I read that article on the SY community in Brooklyn. And their one on Bukharian Jews in Forest Hills, NY.

    You’re right, they’ve married two stereotypes.

  26. Her Breckness wrote:

    I also live in LA, and haven’t read the article, but the excerpts quoted by Fatemah in her piece sound unfortunately familiar. They also make me very disappointed.

    I’ve been fortunate enough to make friends and acquaintances of both Ashkenazi and Mirachi Jews.

    To second what others have said, the Jewish community here is as diverse as all the other communites. I know Jews from every socio-economic class and religious affliation.

    While I understand W’s focus is on the wealthy, that is not an excuse for a lack of depth on the part of the reporter. Nuance is not just the province of reportage on the poor and middle-income.

    I respect that not all of my friends and colleagues would be upset with the article, and I don’t claim to speak for them. However, the implications of this article hew too close to the anti-Semitic implications I’ve heard from white, non-Jewish former friends and colleagues.