« History et al. | Main | Shit happens... »
February 05, 2006
Censor
I am seriously tired of censoring myself in the academia. Everytime I point out that something might have some sort of Iranian influence, I am made to feel like I am trying to say that evrything has an Iranian influence.
While there is no problem that every single book talking about the early Islamic history manages to mention every single Greek/Byzantine influence on various Islamic institutions, doing the same for the influences of the Sasanians/Iran buys you a faint smile on the faces of your collegues. Any little article on the Golden Age of Medieval Spain and its cultural prosperity under the Umayyad and others makes sure to point out the Jewish influence on that culture, but dare anyone mention that the basic Cordoban governing style was copied from the Sasanians.
Even if a direct "Greek" influence cannot be identified, say on the Kingdom of Hira which was a client kingdom of the Sasanians, the characteristics are identified as "Hellenistic", while the fact that the kingdom itself exists within an Iranian context is ignored! In the new, politically correct "lip service" paid to the "contributions" of non-Western cultures, the order goes from Byzantium to India and China, as if the whole Iranian Plateau and the Pamirs do not even exist.
The suggestion that the all important Theme system of the Byzantine Empire was implemented in the late 7th century and the possibility of it being copied from the Sasanian system, implemented 100 years earlier results in frantic headshaking. How could the "Greeks" copy Barbarians?
I have to get into an argument with a fellow PhD student about the matter of Julius Caesar as the "greatest military mind of history". My argument is, there are hundreds of studies done about Caesar and his successes against the Gauls and Britons (of course his failure against the Germans are conveniently dealt with in a line or two). So, we know a lot about Caesar. However, how much do we know about the military abilities of the empires which successfully stopped and often defeated the Romans? Can it not be that a General X was much more of a military genius than Caesar, but nothing was written about him? After all, Parthians and Sasanians managed to stop the various Mongol and Turkic tribes of Central Asian steppes from invading their territories for 800 years! Even the mighty Romans cracked within 300 years and lost their capital.
I know that this might sound childish or boring, but I am honestly frustrated about this whole thing. Why is it that mentioning Greeks and Romans and Jews and the Chinese and everyone else and their contributions are okay, but when we get to the Iranians, I should be embarrassed to mention them?
Posted by Khodadad at February 5, 2006 02:31 AM
Comments
I think that what you are describing may illustrate the point that there is no such thing as objective history or an objective historian. It would seem that every historian has a certain point of view that may well cause them to turn a blind eye to details that contradict their pet theories about "the way things were".
All that I can suggest is that you be true to yourself. Don't be embarrassed to present your own ideas. If your arguments are cogent and persuasive, eventually your collegues will have to take your ideas seriously.
Posted by: David at February 6, 2006 12:06 PM
Yeap. Don't be embarrassed.
Posted by: Santiago de Diego at February 7, 2006 06:03 AM
Khodadad-jan,
As you know, whenever someone puts forth a new paradigm he risks being mocked by the old order. In my view, Iranian history has been the victim of unfortunate circumstances, whether it be the loss or paucity of written artifacts, the mischaracterization by invaders and enemies, or the '79 revolution that made iranology unpopular in Europe and the U.S. At any rate, I always tell myself that Iran's contributions to history will not disappear simply because a jealous and self-centered Europe is too proud to accept it. After all, European civilization stands to lose some of its luster when it accepts the significance of Iran's. Iran's historical relevance is like the white elephant in the room -- you can try to ignore it, but no one cany deny it exists. Slowly but surely people will start to notice, as they already are. In fact, I think that you are in a most enviable position. You are in a position to publish volumes of work in a rich area others have been ignoring. And by publishing the articles you are challanging the debate in public. Publishing means people can't just snicker and shake their heads, they have to present a better theory if they want to prove you wrong. So don't worry, we're going to win this one -- but it's going to be a long hard fight!
Negaran nabash, mo'afagh mishid, Bahram
Posted by: Bahram Niknia at February 7, 2006 11:34 PM