Posted on 03/13/2012 1:35:44 PM PDT by ImJustAnotherOkie
hey’re rich. They’re spoiled. They’re Persian.
Which means Bravo’s latest reality endeavor, “The Shahs of Sunset,” has Iranian-Americans up in arms over the stereotypes they claim it perpetuates. So much so, in fact, that petitions are circulating in Iranian communities to have the show yanked off the air.
The program, which premiered on Sunday night, follows a group of six Persian-American socialites in Los Angeles as they navigate love and life with what seems like bottomless checking accounts.
They are the children of the Iranians who escaped their country after the 1979 Iranian Revolution ended the reign of the Shah Reza Pahlavi.
Several petitions to halt the show have been circulated around the Persian-American community. One of them, “Protest Shahs of Sunset,” encourages signers to “help the Persian community by signing this petition to end 'Shahs of Sunset' and other such racist, exploiting television programming.”
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I used to joke with them that I was “Macedonian” but then Macedonia became a nation again - now I joke anyone who says they are “Persian” by saying I am “Thracian”.
I know why they say they are Persian. Because they don't want to take flack for the Mullah's who America hates, and they hate more than any American ever could.
Some have indeed become “More American than Americans” with ‘the fervor of the newly converted’. They have almost entirely abandoned their traditional culture and religion and embraced consumerism and bling status symbols (opulent displays of affluence is about the only feature of their culture that still ‘works’ in America).
our Iranian expat community is made up of some very smart people, many good business men and women.
Not to mention, Catherine Bell...
“...racist, exploiting television programming”
Idiots. They’re NOT a race. Neither are Mexicans or South Americans. Total BS! Ergo; it can’t be “racist”. Might be too true for them, but it ain’t “racist”, morons.
They are not Arabs. They are not Turkish. They have been living in basically the same location speaking basically the same language longer than almost any other population group.
However I agree with you that any sort of criticism of culture or religion cannot be said to be racists.
For example - “Black culture doesn't emphasize scholastic achievement and that has a negative impact on black student achievement” is not a racist statement - while “Blacks are incapable of competing equally with white students academically” IS absolutely racist.
“Persians” cover a wide ethnic group, but are generally considered Caucasians. This is further proof that Bravo hates white people.
I got into trouble posting the same thing about Pashtuns on The Seattle Times, basically showing that liberals have no clue when they talk about race and racism.
In traditional anthropological studies, there are actually 5 races.
These are:
1) Mongoloid (Asian and American Indian)
2) Caucasoid (European)
3) Australoid (Australian and oceanic)
4) Negroid (east African black)
5) Capoid (south African black)
The remaining peoples are mixtures or “mongrels” of the different races above. This theory was originally proposed by Ashley Montague and has been disputed for years, but has still withstood the test of time to a large extent. The biggest problem with this theory is that all races share 99.99+% of the same genetic materials which means that further division of race is largely subjective, and that the original 5 races were also probably just subjective descriptions as well. The above theory has been used by people in the past to support racism as well as to refute it.
All in all the preponderance of evidence suggests that race is for now a subjective term. Furthermore, until DNA technology becomes even better, then there can be no better answer than Montague’s, but that in time we will probably find more detailed versions.
For example, a color terminology for race includes the following, in a classification of human races: Black (Sub-Saharan Africa), Red (Native Americans), Yellow (East Asians), White (Europeans) and Brown (South Asians).
source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_race#Complete_scientific_classification
Just being scientific and accurate.
Well then I guess a Caucasian from Europe couldn’t POSSIBLY be racist against a Caucasian from Iran!!!
Or could they???
Could a Caucasian Arab from Yemen be racist against a Caucasian Persian from Iran? You betcha they could!
Those classifications you posted are not based upon any actual data. My next post will include a chart based upon actual data.
A population group need not “mongrelize” to become a distinct group on the chart above - just keep to themselves enough as far as reproduction for long enough.
Notice that “Iranian” is a distinct population group based upon DNA data - as per the chart above.
“My next post will include a chart based upon actual data.”
Source?
“distinct population group”
That does not make them a “race”.
I would say the DEFINITION of a race would be a “distinct population group”.
How would you define it?
“mongrels” are not my words. That’s a cut & paste from W, the source I linked to.
That previous post should have been: “That alone does not make them a “race”, subject to “racism”.”
Looks to me like they’re grouped under 1 of the 5 broad categories, called Caucasoids, along with a bunch of other “distinct populations”.
Actually, acording to your chart, it is a VERY BROAD GROUPING OF POPULATIONS, everything from N African to European to W Asian to Indian etc etc etc.
What are Lapps?
The distinct categories in the chart above did not predominantly come about through mixture with different population groups - but through reproductive isolation within their own group.
Iranians are a distinct population group. Distinct enough to have their own name for thousands of years for that population group “Persian”.
If you want to use an archaic system based upon the simplistic thinking that there are and can only be five categories - and the idiocy of thinking any distinction among those five categories is through ‘mongrelization’ - you can go ahead.
But let us not pretend it is either accurate or scientific or based upon any actual data.
So based upon actual data - where are you going to draw the line so that you only get five population groups?
Do you notice something interesting when you find the spot where there would only be five groups?
We’re not discussing distinct population groups; we’re discussing the major, scientifically-accepted, anthropological racial classifications, which is what I posted, based upon that source.
Until you post something more modern and widely-accepted by the scientific community and world to document your faux chart, the rest of the world is still using those categories. You can say what you want; that doesn’t make it fact. Try again.
Again, what’s your source for that “idiotic chart”?
Laplanders? I’ve heard that term.
I’m not drawing any line; merely using what is accepted by the world’s scientific community, until there’s better data/charts - yours is not one of them - to disprove it, and establish a new set of classifications.
No, I didn’t notice. What are you referring to?
“distinct population group”
Under your own definition, wouldn’t people from Appalachia be one, too? They certainly don’t have the longevity as Persia does, but they certainly are a “distinct population group”. As are Aborigines, who probably/may pre-date the Persians.
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.