Pictory

Patriots and nationalists

These are both people that want to see their country, and people prosper, though nationalism is alot more effective and loyalty is someone's duty and a must in a nationalistic society while when dealing with patriotism, loyalty is most of the time, a choice.

In my eyes, nationalists get things done and want their country to live up to it's potential while patriots, even though do want the benefit of their country, they are not as loyal, passionate, or commited to their people and their nation's future.

No I wasn't sidetracked by

No I wasn't sidetracked by JJ videos. I was in a therapy session! Besides, I have a day job you know!!

I don't quite see the intent of your question Farah. And I'm not an expert in this matter -or anything else!- to engage in a fruitful discussion. Abrahamian calls Khomeini a populist. Which makes sense. Ahmadinejad had a failed attempt to reproduce that populism. I see it as pragmatism in reactionary leadership. Which doesn't change its social attributes but it emphesize its anti-modernity content and it doesn't put it in the same context as Chavez populism for example. The populist rhetoric is not substantially different from a nationalist rhetoric I think. The context and social forces makeup decide which one prevails. If Mossadeghists joined Khomeini it was because they couldn't find any substantial differences between themselves and him. 'Left' joining him is another story.

Nationalism and populism is an afterthought for me. Mostly in this thread! I was focused on history of modernity in Iran on one hand, and anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism of the cold war era on the other hand. In that historic context, you just need to be born in Iran to be a 'nationalist'!

The Eastern 'holistic' view of the world as Shaigan describes (thanks Marjan for reminding us!) doesn't help either.

I am no expert

in English: I am too busy practicing Din Dabireh alphabet. But I do not want to get too wrapped up in meaning of words. 

Meanings of words change through time. For example in the past 100 years in USA the word for a black person has changed. If we use the respectful word from 100 years ago it will be insulting now. Same goes with "gay" which totally changed its meaning from "happy" to homosexual. This happens with many words. 

So if a person claimed to be a nationalist must be taken into context of when they said it. Personally I rather focus in what is in their heart and how they act. Words and labels are often misleading. Very often deliberately used to mislead people. For example "democratic republic" of whatever means dictatorship.

Now back to my Din Dabieh lessons for me!  VPK

Their drooling minds, Farah

I blame it on JJ, and his burlesque dancer! Hard to compete when:

I know you are not that type, and I'm too hairy!

visit....//www.tudehpartyiran.org/mardom.asp

Well Tovarish jan

I guess we have to google "populist" and "nationalist" or go Wiki for answers to our questions - our experts are too busy on other threads to notice us :)

FR

"Tovarich jan"

No, I did not have to throw stones. I was patiently waiting for Uncle Nikita's prediction to materialize. And the ripe apple fell off the tree, all by itself.

And I am looking forward to the subject of nationalism/populism being debated here. 

visit....//www.tudehpartyiran.org/mardom.asp

"'nationalism' and its damaging effect"

Narcism, and narcissism are both correct.

There are numerous historical evidence to your deduction, Rusta's remark took me for its psychological angle.

It must be the coffee. more, and more people seem agreeable to me!

visit....//www.tudehpartyiran.org/mardom.asp

Dear VPK and Ben

Thank you for your explanation. Now may I ask yourself and Benross or indeed any of the learned politcal scientists on this site, if you could tell me the difference between a populist leader and a nationalist leader (with examples please). To me someone like Hugo Chavez is the combination of both such attributes (am I right?). How about figures like Khatami, Mousavi or indeed Ahmadinejad? Populist or Nationalist (or both)?

Thanks

FR

Tovarich jan, you make me blush :)

You have a point - a good point. I thought after the 1332 incident which led to the sorry episode of 16 azar, the good old Guard Colonel would have the royal route well protected from the stone throwing uni-kids but clearly he wasn't doing his job right, was he? By the way tovarich jan is it safe to assume that you were in that neigborhood on that day, by a remote chance :))?

FR

Your attribution of

Your attribution of narcissism to Mossadegh, in my opinion, is valid.

That goes without saying. My focus was on 'nationalism' and its damaging effect in our political culture. Among them, and above all, being vulnerable to that kind of creatures!

Grandmaster(chess) Rusta

Your attribution of narcism to Mossadegh, in my opinion, is valid. 

And about the incident during the Nixon's visit, in 1332 there was no students dormitory in Amirabad Shomali. It was a barren land north of Jalaalieh...GOD, for good old days...

visit....//www.tudehpartyiran.org/mardom.asp

Dear Farah

I will correct myself. I think the Shah loved Iran and wanted what was the best for Iran. If you want to call that nationalist or patriot that is fine with me. I know the Shah was arrogant and screwed up. But his heart was in the right place unlike Khomeini.

Benross

Interesting point regarding nationalist and patriot. Made me think which gave me a headack :-)

However you go at it Mossadegh did leave a lot of bitterness and filth. So many of his supporters seem to nurture hatred of Pahlavi over love of Iran. This is not a good thing. In addition any impartial observer notes that Mossadegh surrounded himself with some of the worst people in Iran. From the Islamist to Marxists. A government is not just its leaders. It is also all the people the leader chooses. Mossadegh was particularly bad at choosing people and that still haunts Iran.

I rather go for the patriotism side. When we belong to a nation we should improve it. Not go back and dig up old hatreds and rehash them.

Dear Ben

I have no problem with your interpretation of nationalism but I was not referring to your comment. I only beg to differ with VPK on suggesting that the Shah was a nationalist (in your sense of the word). A nationalist government is a government that consists of and is supported by all representative factions of the nation, like Mossadegh's (including the religious fanatics like Kashani and other members of his cabinet).

As for your assessment of my emotions again I agree with you. There is a degree of vengefulness in me but this doesn't make me a nationalist!

FR

Nationalism

I hope you differentiate between a nationalist and a patriot

I hope too, but my definition is quite different. To me, nationalism is and has always been a dangerous thing. A patriot is someone who sees him/her self as an individual deeply entrenched and attached to a country. A nationalist goes beyond that, and claim certain definition to the nation to which he/her belongs... and each person has his/her definition.

Because of these unavoidable differences in definitions and understanding of a 'nation', a lot of harmful conflicts arise by nationalists. Patriotism stems love and solidarity, nationalism stems hate and vengefulness. By my definition, Mossadegh was a quintessential nationalist that as you can see, we still can't get rid of the filth he left behind.

I always sensed the same vengefulness in your comments, which belongs to a certain generation so you also is a bit of nationalist Farah if you think it is a complement!

My question was 'who wasn't nationalist' which basically meant, who wasn't guilty?! 

Mossadegh was a Narcissist first

and by political definition (only) a nationalist leader of JM. I hope you differentiate between a nationalist and a patriot. He was the former and not the latter.

And Tavarisch  jan

I guess you must have mistaken this visit by an earlier one when Nixon was still the VP to Ike and the ensuing incident of 16 Azar 1332. 

FR

vpk

you're absolutely correct

it is too bad that the shah was too trusting of the god forsaken brits and idiot carter.....he thought no matter who the american president was, they would not let a dips**t mullah overthrow US biggest ally in the ME.

in the end, he should have stood his ground- sent farah and the family out of iran, and stood with the army and ordered them to unleash hell on the mullahs, tudeis and the rest of the khaens and forsat-talabs.

he knew he had cancer, and he should have taken care of business.....even the brits where surprised with the speed that the goddamn mullahs took over the country!

afsoos

but iran will be free very soon- mark my words 

People

Shah was a complicated man. He did regain power thanks to the CIA. However he was a real nationalist and loved Iran. Nixon was a great friend of Iran and Shah. It is a shame that Watergate brought him down.

Mossadegh was also a nationalist. It is not the first time two nationalists locked horns. Mossadegh was however surrounded by traitors: Islamist & Marxist. It proved that Mossadegh had a poorer judgement than Shah. The "students" were plain ungrateful jackasses. They lived to form such shameful groups as the Islamists and the MKO. It is amazing how some people pay back great men by spitting back. This happened to both Shah and Nixon. When are people going to learn that it is not easy to be a great leader. We must cherish them or end of with Jimmy Carter and IRI.

Vectors are scalars with directions NOT definitions with apps!

Is this a commie vector calculus?

"Who wasn't?"

"Ism" s have both a definition, and an application. History would render her judgment according to these two vectors.

visit....//www.tudehpartyiran.org/mardom.asp

You missed the point

Mossadeq was a Nationalist.

"Mossadeq was a Nationalist"

قربان آقای فتح الله خان

به عنوان جایزه، برای جواب صحیح، ماجرای هلیکوپتر را خدمتت عرض می‌کنم.
فرمانده گارد دانشگاه توبیخ شد. به خاطر نمیاورم عوضش کردند یا نه. دیگر چه
فرقی‌ می‌کند. بیرحمیهای ساواک در اسناد غیر قابل تردیدی ضبط است. کاهش
دادن اعتبار عینی‌ و تاریخی‌ آن ندانم کاریها، به حد شایعه پراکنی‌های غرض
الود را روا نمیدارم.

visit....//www.tudehpartyiran.org/mardom.asp

comrade

Mossadeq was a Nationalist.

Brother Mosadeq was a muslim but had many commies

running around him all the time! That's what we studied at school!

comrade

"motorcade reached Tehran University dormitory in north Amirabad, where they were greeted by stone throwing ritual and anti-American slogans. "

 next you will say Savak arrested the students and dumped their bodies in daryach-e Qhum? No?

فکر کنم توسلمان بودش

بابا حضرت عباسی تکلیف این مصدق خدا بیامرزو روشن کنین، آخرش توده‌ای
بودش یا مذهبی؟

visit....//www.tudehpartyiran.org/mardom.asp

Brother Mosadeq was surronded by commies and thank God US/Brits

took care of him!

No thank you!

Shah accepted and became the tool of British/ American conspiracy to over throw a democtatic elected Dr. Mossadegh and change Iran destiny for ever. So please stop admiring the man. He changed the future of Iran forever, and the outcome is what we know today as IRI.

BeninTx

That's where SAVAKi brothers failed! Had SAVAKi brothers

massacred the rioters in front of U. of Tehran like General Pinochet did in Chile, Iran would be Iran now and not the Islamic Repubic!?

God bless the Shah and Nixon!

I am not a crook

Nixon really liked and trusted the Shah. We all know he granted the Shah a special congressional by-pass for military purchases. He had either the highest IQ, or one of the highest among the American presidents (Is it hard to achieve?). He was also famous for his anti-Semitic slurs, which occasionally targeted Kissinger.

On that day in Tehran, every thing went according to plan, until the Royal/Presidential motorcade reached Tehran University dormitory in north Amirabad, where they were greeted by stone throwing ritual and anti-American slogans.

visit....//www.tudehpartyiran.org/mardom.asp