Historical Contents (Definitions & Study)

Pahlavi and after (1925 AD - present)

Moderator: Club Operations

Historical Contents (Definitions & Study)

Postby Ahreeman X » Sat Feb 19, 2005 12:50 pm

Historical Contents

An Oldies but Goodies!
Old IPC Files

Dear IPC:

Before we even start, we need to understand these three basic laws of studying history for scholars:

Historical Rule One:
"Study & analyze historical events in & according to their own time process & era."

Historical Rule Two:
"We study or pass judgment on a character by what he accomplished & done & not according to his private life!"

Historical Rule Three:
"A historical event can be very revolutionary @ it's own time frame, yet reactionary @ later time frames!"

Now, I need to clarify this issue here because I see an argument is rising here about it. When we discuss a historical event, we need to analyze it in it's own historical era. This is the way historians do it. What does this mean?

When we are discussing Peter The Great, we need to talk, analyze, & judge him in his own time process & @ his own time. This is the only way that we can be a fair judge of characters in history. We cannot compare, comparison & see the today's situation to his doings or era. Of course there are events that has occurred as the direct or indirect results of his doings, we can notice these events after his time of ruling, but we can never include all these events in our analysis of Peter The Great, simply because these events did not occur during his time frame & era. This is a law among historians, this is a law & understanding between the history enthusiasts, experts & scholars of the field:

Historical Rule One:
"Study & analyze historical events in & according to their own time process & era."

This will clarify many issues for us. For example, Peter The Great according to his own time era, was a very progressive man, he practically dragged Russia out of dark ages into the modern industrial world. This is a historical fact. I even go further & say that Peter was like a father to Russia.

Historical Rule Two:
"We study or pass judgment on a character by what he accomplished & done & not according to his private life!"

Private lives of the people is simply their private issues. Homosexuality, incest, killing your own son, etc., are parts of our private lives.

If Alexander was a homosexual or bisexual having sex with his General
If Catherine The Great was promiscuous
If Peter The Great Killed his son
If Nadir Shah The Great blinded his son
If Aryamehr was weak in decisions

All & all are private matters, of course there is a thin line between private issues & public records, even though, we still should study, analyze & then pass judgment about a character considering ALL that he or she done & all that he or she was. However, the primary method of analysis shall be based on what the character has accomplished & what were the results of what he done @ his own time frame.

Historical Rule Three:
"A historical event can be very revolutionary @ it's own time frame, yet reactionary @ later time frames!"

This third law is the direct result of the first law. What Castro done for Cuba during his time frame, when he freed Cuba from Batista & his puppet CIA Regime was very revolutionary, but as of now, the great revolutionary like Castro becomes the greatest of Reactionaries. Why? Because @ that era, communism in general was a revolutionary idea, but look @ now! Communism is half way dead & has one foot in the grave just holding on to life because of China & even China is mix & matching & experimenting with Capitalism, thats why she is still alive. Why do you think they kept Hong Kong as a free port? Same reason that IRI is keeping Kish as a free port (no matter how half ass!)

What Castro preached @ that time was freedom, progress, democracy, improvement
What Castro is now, comes down to grabbing on & holding on to a dead impractical philosophy which failed.

Definition:

Revolution = A change towards the future, To go foreward, to progress, to move towards perfection, & to improve society by modernization, gaining new rights & embetterment.

Reaction = A change towards the past, to go back, to devolve, to hold on to old outdated impractical values, & to drag society back into old, dark, primitive ages for worst.

Therefore we will see that Castro's regime was very revolutionary in 70's but very reactionary in 0's (zeros, meaning first decade of 2000).

Islamic Regime of Iran, Taliban, Vatican even in its glory days are all Reactionary, cause they are practically returning time to Feudality, Small Bourgeoisie, Theocratic Rule, & dark ages. However, Muhammad's ideas were very revolutionary during 1400 years ago & for savage Arabs of the peninsula living in desert, eating lizards, drinking camel milk & bury their daughters alive.

Back to the issue,

Peter The Great was a revolutionary @ his own time, he qualifies all the definitions of what it takes to be one. Yes, he is like a father to Russia, yes he modernized Russia, yes he progressed Russia, yes he dragged Russia out of dark ages into the modern world.

Now, was his efforts too radical, too fast, too soon, & could the public digest it or not, was he having a hard time making a decision, did he make mistakes, did he kill his son, was his progressive efforts back fired later on by likes of Rasputin & the Orthodox Church, etc.?

All these private issues, results of direct kind or indirect kind should be analyzed according to Law Two & Law Three of Historical Study. So Peter indirectly caused a reaction years later after his death, so he was not perfect, so he had defects, so...........

This does not change the fact of what he done for Russia @ his time frame.

Now expand this to everybody else like Reza Shah The Great, Atta Turk, etc.

Progressive Iran became IRI or Turkey is a US base (how one sided, one track minded that statement is!) has nothing to do with analysis of these characters in historical frame.

What happened later could or could not be a direct or indirect result of these character's efforts & their private lives has nothing to do with what they have done & where they progressive or fanatical reactionary figures.

What Reza Shah done in his time frame was revolutionary, was progressive & yes he is the father of Iran, the greatest father of our nation. Why? Because of rule one of historical studies.

Did IRI happened because of his extreme changes? Did he have defects in his private life?

Those are questions which needs to be answered by the rule two & three of historical studies & thats all another discussion.

Everything is related & connected to one another & analysis of history is no exception, but studying historical facts with above method & using above laws has no contradiction with relativity of all elements in the world.

Above is the way historians study, research, analysis, & write history. It is a scientific method & a logical method.

We cannot analyze events in random form or compare different time periods & actions of historical characters all in random, further judge characters according to today's world or our own era.

Wrong method of studying history, drops us in the fallacy of thinking that we are gaining the correct results.

Thought to clarify these issues a bit.

Sincerely,

Dr. X
Watcher in the woods
User avatar
Ahreeman X
General 5 Star
General 5 Star
 
Posts: 1344
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 1:54 pm
Location: San Diego, CA, USA

Return to Modern Iran Room

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest