Here are the highlights:
; )
Posted on 08/19/2007 11:22:00 PM PDT by freedom44
"the ancient Greeks defeated the Asian invaders (Persia) and saved Europe in what scholars call one of the first great victories of freedom over tyranny" - William J. Broad, (NY Times)
What stretches the limits of hypocrisy is that there isn't a single shred of archeological evidence that the Persians ever owned slaves. Yet we know that slavery was an integral cornerstone of Greek society. Aristotle's manifesto even sanctions it. Persia, which was once a haven for runaway slaves from Egypt, Greece, and later Rome, is today branded as a slave-hungry empire by cultures which were built on slavery!
What makes Herodotus's propaganda so difficult to refute is that it is peppered with facts. But in reality, it is a desperate diatribe. Perhaps his biggest ploy is his attempt to equate democracy with freedom. These two words are used virtually interchangeably throughout his book. And the West has swallowed it hook-line-and-sinker.
But America's founding fathers knew better. They implemented many safeguards to protect freedom from the pitfalls that mired Athenian democracy. Even Winston Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others which have been tried."
Democracy may well be the best form of government. But what makes America great is not so much democracy, as it is its Bill Of Rights. And this is exactly what made Persia Great. Democracy can often lead to tyranny by the majority as was the case in democratic Athens, where women, slaves and foreigners did not have the right to vote.
In monarchic Persia, however, women enjoyed a level of gender equality unmatched even to this day, and slavery was not practiced. The fact is, Persia's monarchy was more free than Athens' democracy, all because of Persia's Bill Of Rights.
No one exemplifies Persia's freedom better than Herodotus himself. He describes Athens as the bastion of freedom, yet he chose to live in Persia. Xenophon, on the other hand, who actually lived in Athens, reminisces enviously about the monarchy of Cyrus The Great.
Herodotus claims Persia had enslaved most of the known world, yet we know Herodotus was not a slave. He traveled freely throughout the empire, openly criticizing it.
Why did Herodotus not live in Greece? Because Persia - the empire he is so quick to demonize - afforded him the very freedom to publish his scathing report of it. People want to live where their god-given rights are protected, regardless of whether its democratic or monarchic.
These god-given rights were first drafted into law by the founder of the Persian empire, Cyrus The Great. In fact, ancient Persia may well have served as the blue print for America's Bill Of Rights. Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the architects of America's Constitution, were great admirers and owned several copies of Xenophon's Cyropaedia.
Today, no other country resembles ancient Persia as closely as does the United States. If any country should sympathize with, rather than celebrate, Persia's quagmire in Greece, it is the United States. Few events in history mirror America's war on terror as closely as Persia's war on Greece.
The Greeks had been carrying out terrorist attacks on Persian holdings for years. They had attacked Persian cities, set fire to Persian temples, disrupted key trade routes, and pirated merchant ships crossing the Bosphorus. They incited rebellions inside Persian provinces, but perhaps most abhorrent to the Persians was the ease by which the Greeks broke their treaties and betrayed Persia's trust.
Rather than resort to violence, however, Persia tried to keep the Greeks in check by financially supporting Greek politicians who were "pro-Persian," much the same way America fights its proxy wars. But what finally triggered Persia's wrath was an act rarely mentioned in the West, though well documented, even by Herodotus (7:11).
Persia's 9/11:
In 498 BCE, Athens carried out a terrorist attack on Sardis, a major Persian city, which made 9/11 seem like child's play. Aristagoras, an Athenian, set fire to the "outlying parts" of Sardis trapping most of its population "in a ring of fire." (Herodotus 5:101)
More innocent civilians died at the hands of Aristagoras than Osama bin Laden could ever hope to kill. And just as most of the world supported America's retaliation against Al Qaeda, so did it rally in support of Persia's attack on Athens.
The Spartans were not even targets of Persia's attack, until they violated a universal protocol by killing a Persian messenger who Herodotus claims was asking for Sparta's submission but in reality was probably sent by Persia's king, Xerxes to convey the same message America sent to the entire world after 9/11: "you're either with us, or against us."
The Spartans were Greek Jihadists who lived only to die. They were by all accounts ruthless savages who murdered Greek slaves known as "Helots" just for sport, cultivated a culture of thievery and rape, and practiced infanticide, as the movie '300' rightly points out in its opening scenes. Sparta was not even democratic. It was an oligarchy at best. Despite knowing all this, the West continues to hail the Spartans as the saviors of Western democracy.
Yes, the Spartans died fighting a foreign invader. But so do countless terrorists. Yet few would consider them "good guys." Those who do are then not much different from Westerners who cheer for the Spartans.
Persia was drawn into a protracted war against terror, much the same way the U.S. was. Cheering for the Spartans merely because they were underdogs, is like cheering for Osama bin Laden today.
The Power Of Film:
History is no longer written by the victors, it is written by filmmakers. Most minority groups in America have come to realize this fact and are quick to bankroll films that communicate their stories to the rest of the world. Perhaps the movie '300' was a necessary wake-up call for the Iranian/Persian community to support responsible filmmakers, who report history with honesty and integrity.
Alex Jovy's epic movie about Cyrus The Great could have done wonders for the Iranian image (www.chahayagroup.com). But Alex Jovy's movie today sits idle due lack of money. My documentary film about Cyrus The Great has languished for a mere want of $400,000 (www.spentaproductions.com/cyruspreview.htm).
Iranians are the most affluent minority group in America. If they set their mind to it, they could set the historical record straight virtually overnight. Until then, their history will be written by the likes of Zack Snyder.
The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition slavery
References to it appear in the ancient Babylonian code of Hammurabi. Its form and nature varied greatly in ancient society. It seems to have been common in the Tigris-Euphrates civilizations and in ancient Persia.
1. The code of Hammurabi was as you said Babylonian, not Persian. Within the Persian Empire the local laws and costums remained largely in place. The Babylonian law would have continued in Babylon, but certainly not in all of the Empire. At least there is no reason to my knowledge to assume that.
2.
I am surprised why you trust an Islamist website for
historical source. They are the least someone would
trust on anything. I’m sure the Islamists have also a lot of things to say about Jews, Christians and the West.
I doubt you would agree with their views.
This is SPENTAAAAA Productions!
I am surprised why you trust an Islamist website for historical source.
I'm not "trusting" them, I'm merely passing on their own beliefs. But if anyone knows about slavery they should, don't you think?
Tell me what sources you would trust and I'll see what I can dig up.
Here are the highlights:
; )
bookmark
"Try the veal..."
But if anyone knows about slavery they should, don't you think?
Since they are the masters of slavery, I am sure they have the fewest credibility. I can't get into your logic. That's the same as asking a Cuban Communist to tell you about American healthcare.
Tell me what sources you would trust and I'll see what I can dig up.
Any scholastic, scientific proof. If you are keen on showing "they admit it" it would have to be from ancient Persian sources, or third ancient sources. Note, I am not denying there could have been slavery (paid or unpaid) in Persia. I only vehemently disagree with your methodology of proving it. Babylonian law doesn't apply to Persia, and a claim from an Islamist website doesn't equate an ancient Persian claim, as you insinuate.
Would you agree that Iran was once Sumer?
No. Because it’s not the case. Sumerians were not Iranian. The Sumerians were in Mesopotamia (Iraq) and at an way earlier date. The Persians came much later and at an totally different location (Iranian plateau). The Persians entered Mesopotamia first after defeating the Babylonians. There were the Elamites (related to Iranians) who existed next to Sumer and interacted with them. But they weren’t the Persians we’re talking about and Sumer never controlled what is Iran or Persia, except some city states at the Gulf.
The whole region (which was once Sumerian, Assyrian, Babylonian etc.) became part of the Persian empire in the 6th-5th century b.C.
So you only consider the land of the Medes and Persians to be ancient Iran?
(Ah... I posted my last comment without finishing it.)
If one look at the “Cylinder of Cyrus” where the rights of the Persian Empire were declared, it clearly abolishes slavery. This becomes more than evident with the liberation of the Israelites from Babylonian Slavery by the Persians, as evidenced by the Bible. Scholastic works only attest that defeated enemy armies were used for labour in captivity.
Yes. That's ancient Iran were the Achameanid Dynasty came from... and were after all talking about Achameanid Persia. There were proto-Iranian people in what is today Iran before (Elamites in Southern Iran) but that's not the Persians we are dealing with. The giant Persian Empire had Iran at it's core, but as you know consisted of the conquered countries.
Anicent Greece (particularly Sparta) had many shortcomings that are largely white-washed these days, but it also had strong points. Ancient Persia was also the same ....it had a good number of short-comings, but it also had a wealth of positives (although perception of Persia is the inverse of that of Sparta ...i.e. Persia was a debauchery of immorality and corruption, when in many ways that is more true of Greek civilization than Persian).
Anyways, a few points remain. Ancient civilizations all had their strong points and their dregs, and hence there was no 'perfect' ancient civilization and there was none that was useless. Rome may have totally vanquished Carthage, and had Carthage instead have vanquished Rome there is a great chance that the world would have been different. As you so correctly put it, the world might have been better or might have been worse, but it WOULD HAVE BEEN different. Same thing about Persia vs Greece ....a different winner may have led to a better/worse world, but one thing that is for certain is that Western culture would have either been different/assimilated/non-existent. And that which would have taken its place may have been a maelstrom of malevolence, or it could have been more or less an approximation of what Western civilization is (and stands for) today, or it might actually have been better (people automatically equate ancient Persia with current Iran ....as different as night and day).
Anyways, Greece won the battle, Persia lost the war, and the world is as it is now. Which, when you look at it, could have been a hell lot worse ....thus there is nothing to complain about. No need to dream of what mgiht have been, particularly when there is a good chance it might have been worse than what actually is (or better ...that is a debate better left to philosophers).
Although I do find it interesting how today Sparta is seen as a bastion of democracy and freedom. Actually Sparta was more akin to what the Soviet Union espoused itself as being ....democracy was more along the lines of what Athens was. Anyways, I guess the historically important fact is that Sparta (and Greece as a whole) stood up against a vastly superior force, and that it took a whole lot of bravery against the odds to do so, and by doing so they changed the entire history of the world from that inception point. furthermore, whatever political leanings Sparta may have had, they were still one of the bravest and most stringent military societies on Earth, and they were resilient and had fortitude in their outlook and timbre (the South African Zulu under Shaka were similar in orientation, but Assegai is no solution to British rifles). Again, that is praiseworthy. As for Persia, they had many developments (and Zoroastroanism is by far different from Islam, particularly the brand that people like Ahmadenijad use to fuel their demagogue-esque wiles). It was a rich society, but it fell.
Bottom line. Greece won. Persia lost. And we are the better for it (unless someone with a time-machine and a howitzer is willing to go back in time, raze down the Greeks with shell-fire, and then wait a couple thousand years to see how the world would have turned out if the Persians won. The fact that we can never tell means one thing ....we are better off that the Greeks won).
...Achaemenes was the first "king" of "Persia", right?
(Just getting on track here so bear with me.)
The story of the 300 is blatant propaganda? Of course it is! Ever look through a high school history book? They’re full of nationalistic propaganda. It’s the way people are.
“Freedom” is about more than slavery. There is the personal freedom that is highlighted by Mr. Broad, and there is National freedom. Both are important.
Persia - and Asian country - invaded Europe. Few countries (or city states) welcome a foreign invader. Few countries welcome a foreign country dictating their foreign policy or demanding tribute.
The first Persian King (real king of an united Persia) was Cyrus. Before him there were several competing kingdoms and tribes. Achamenes is likely only a mythic figure.
He was wrongfully accused of smuggling washing machine timers for use in improvised explosive devices in a taxi he was riding in to Baghdad.
From wikipedia. Very convoluted and unclear sentence. Hard to tell if there were both timers and IEDs in the taxi. Commas are our friends. Or just rewrite the whole sentence. But what WAS he doing with the timers?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.