« November 2004 | Main | January 2005 »
December 30, 2004
The Unthinkables
I always wonder about ...
...the fish with hydrophobia
...the bird with acrophobia
...the vegeterian lion
...the bee who is allergic to honey
...the fly who is obsessed with cleanlines
...the dog with ailurophobia
...the caterpillar who does not want to become a butterfly
crazy, eh?
Posted by Khodadad at 09:33 PM | Comments (2)
December 24, 2004
Happy Holidays!
Well, I certainly do not celebrate Christmas much, but I live in a country where many people do. I, however, do celebrate the Winter Solctice or "Yalda" which in Iran is a traditional night of staying up and having fruits and talking. I like it a lot and this year, I was fortunate enough to celebrate it with friends.
Talking about it, let's have some coo, entertaining history! Christmas actually has something to do with this celebration as well! Yalda is the longest night of the year, meaning from the day after that, days start to get longer and longer. This was interpreted in the ancient times as "Birthday of the Sun" (days become longer: sun is born!).
In ancient Mesopotamia, this was called the birthday of Shamash, the god of sun, and Yalda itself is a Babylonian word meaning "Birth".
Years later, the Iranian god "Mithra" was associated with sun as well and sometimes in the pre-Christian centuries, many of the characteristics of Shamash were assigned to Mithra. This Mithra was taken to the west by some Roman legionaries and a new religion, called Mithraism, was established among the Roman legionaries (the most famous adherent of which was Empero Julian the Apostate). Mithras in this religion was also called Sole Invictus (the Victorious Sun), a further association with Sun.
So, Yalda became the Birthday of Mithras. It was one of the most popular celebrations in the late pagan Roman times.
Early christians did not have a fixed day to celebrate the birth of Jesus. His birth was recorded in the Jewish lunar calendar and was thus celebrated on different dates. It was also later fixed in different Solar calendars in different countries (hence the celebration of Christmas on the 6th of January in the Greek Orthodox Church).
However, early church fathers, who were not as dogmatic as their successors, thought it would be a good idea to fix the date of Christmas near the date of the popular Birthday of Mithras (Yalda). Thus, they chose this day (originally December 22nd, later became 24th after the Gregorian Calendar reform), and Yalda became Christmas in Western Europe!
Nice and interesting story, isn't it? Anyway, where-ever you are, have a happy holiday, enjoy the snow (I love it, but I am in California!) and the presents. Happy Yalda, Christmas, Channukah, and whatever other celebrations I don't know about!
Posted by Khodadad at 02:55 PM | Comments (4)
December 16, 2004
Changing the Alphabet
Again, the ever-present question of whether we should change the Persian alphabet to Latin and the arguments for and against it has come out. I am participating out of feeling obliged to do so, but I know neither side can convince the other.
Somehow, the question is always posed by the third world countries and their populations. Europeans don't feel the obligation of updating their age-old writing systems to make it easier to read. The French never worry about writing ten letters and reading only two. Why are we worried? Colonial thinking about our own lands?
Anyway, what would the reaction of the English speaking audience of this weblog be to a proposal to change the English alphabet to something more fitting for this Anglo-Saxon based language? After all, I am sure Devenagari is the best suited alphabet for English. It has a full set of vowels that can show the "ou" in Labour and differetiate it from the "ou" in mouse. They also would not mix-up the 'g' in German with the 'g' in grain, neither would there be a problem with representing the difference between the 's' in season and the one in set and the one in pressure and the one in usual.
So, how popular do you think a proposal to change the English alphabet to Devanagari would be?
Posted by Khodadad at 03:35 AM | Comments (4)
December 13, 2004
SideBloggy
Okay, I have joined the ranks of SideBlog/Link Dump owner! So, from now on, look at the right hand border and click on the links I provide, if you like!
Posted by Khodadad at 12:09 AM | Comments (1)
December 09, 2004
Alexander
Okay, I think it is time I review Alexander, the movie, here. I think if you know me, you have already gotten part of the review: if it is entertainment alone, it is a movie, if it means something, it is a film.
I have to say that I entered the theatre with a negative attitude. Someone had told me that Iranians in the movie speak Arabic (which was not true), and I thought if true, this is the biggest historical mistake anyone has made in the history of Historical Epic movie making! I also didn't expect a Hollywood movie to be flattering towards Iran.
I am glad to say that I did not find it as terrible as I thought! Once you got over the fact that the film has abdolutely no historical merit, it was actually a pretty good and entertaining film. Oliver Stone was apparently interested in showing us the human side of Alexander and his state-of-mind (or what Mr. Stone thinks was his state-of-mind, mainly him being homosexual) and he does it pretty well.
I guess the movie makes it clear that it has no interest in showing history when it brushes over critical parts such as the conquest of Asia Minor, Battle of Isus, Conquest of Cilicia, siege and destruction of Tyre (Alexander's biggest mistake) and the conquest of Egypt, and instead, jumps directly to the battle of Gaugamela. After that point, I did not think of the Alexander in the movie as Aleksander Macedonios, rather just a chap named Alexander.
The battle of Gaugamela was well designed and executed, and although the use of computer graphics abounds in today's Hollywood, in this film, it was used nicely and to good effect. The attempt at recreating the famous Mosaic of Pompeii (Darius looking over his shoulder at Alexander) was fun and funny! Reminded me of Uderzo's funny recreation of the Raft of Medusa in one of the Asterix books!
Now, the good part, mainly the mistakes in presenting the Iranian side. First of all, why are the Achaemenid soldiers (whether you like it or not, the most advanced soldiers of the time) all look like Beduin Arabs and are fighting on the back of the camels? Have Mr. Stone not heard of the Aryans bringing horses story and all? Generally, all the Iranians looked so much like the Arab armies in Lawrence of Arabia! There were cute attempts to remake the Persepolis wall-carvings though: the costume of Darius III was copied from one of the soldiers in the Persepolis main stairway.
The funniest, and stupidest, part was Alexander's marriage to Roxane who supposedly was an Achaemenid princess. This part is confusing: first of all, they marry in Sogdiana (Central Asia). In the movie, people of this region look Mongolian or black! Funnier even, the "princess" is introduced to Alexander when she dances erotically for him along with other dancing girls. I doubt if this is how the princesses introduced themselves at the time! But, the FUNNIEST part, wait for it, is that the "princess" is of the African descent! Yes, the actress who plays Roxane, although very beautiful, certainly has her blood-line back in West Africa, not Central Asia! This part left me dumb-founded!
Alexander and his soldiers have an odd way of speaking with a Scottish accent, and they are also all blond! More interesting even is the fact that like the Scots in Braveheart, they shout when they are attacking. Generally, the whole fight scene seems to have been inspired by Mel Gibson's film.
Also, in the 'prep-talk' that Alexander gives before the Battle of Gaugamela, he says something to the effect of "Persians (sic.) are fighting because they are forced to, but you (Macedonians) are fighting for the freedom of your homeland." Odd, isn't it, when you think that Gaugamela is located in Mesopotamia, which is the homeland of those "Persians" and certainly not the Macdedonians! The speech was very "neo-con" in my opinion, as were many other parts of the movie (all conquests were liberation).
Matters such as Alexander's looting of the Susa treasury, destruction of Tyre (which destroyed the Phoenician commercial empire) and his burning of the Persepolis Palace Complex was left unmentioned in the film. I am sure that if Hollywood makes a film about Xerxes, it would not omit the scene of the burning of Acropolis. I can imagine sad music and sensational scenes of burning of the Greek arts. Apparently, the "oriental" art of Persepolis (which gigantic, gold adorned status and all) is not worth comparing with the 'superior' art of Greek and can be just ignored. Well, you can go and see and judge for yourself.
Come to think of it, the term 'barbarian' and 'inferior eastern culture' was used many a times in the film. Maybe they are just trying to show the point of view of the ancients? Optimistically yes, but even the ancients didn't fail to mention that Alexander burned Persepolis and his soldiers looted Persepolis and Susa and could not even carry away all of the wealth they found there.
All in all, the movie was so historically inaccurate and insignificant that one would start to turn off the critical part of one's mind and just look at the film as another Hollywood epic. Anyway, it was better than Troy!
Posted by Khodadad at 05:34 PM | Comments (5)
December 07, 2004
Keywords of My Life
PhD Student
School
End of Term
Papers Due
No Time
'nuff sed...
Posted by Khodadad at 12:05 AM | Comments (2)