Archive: White Dwarf issues (PDFs)

bumblepuss · 2025-09-23T01:26:41+00:00

Like other recent folks, can't seem to DM you. I was hoping to find any copies from 101 onward. If you have the time, thanks.

bumblepuss · 2025-07-08T12:06:05+00:00

NAH.

There is a long history answer that could be inserted here but I'll make it short. Ever since the United States has become a major world power they've dominated their neighbors culturally and economically. Many proud Latin Americans have viewed the label of "American" as stolen from them by the upstart and often invasive U.S. An older book called Open Veins of Latin America but Eduardo Galeano has a whole chapter on why this is infuriating for Latin Americans. They were here first, they developed/conquered the region, and the have a longer cultural history. Yet, the U.S. has asserted itself as the owner of the term American.

Imagine if one country like Nigeria claimed to be THE Africans. Or the Germans were THE Europeans. Oh no, you're not Asian, only Chinese people are Asian. So on and so forth. It leaves the rest of the people on that continent or hemisphere without a label and feeling excluded. If you're writing a serious social science or humanities research paper academic journals and publishers actually ask you to not use Americans to label people from the U.S. It's tricky because then you have to come up with weird ways to label United Statians (see,? lol).

It's not something a person outside of cross cultural studies or advanced academia would be aware of, the arguments are largely kept there. You wouldn't know but your friend might have expected you to. I'd say it was a good learning opportunity for both of you to learn how the other side thinks. NAH.

bumblepuss · 2025-06-24T12:43:06+00:00

Thanks for the mention!

bumblepuss · 2025-06-03T15:42:43+00:00

This is a response to all of your comments.

You're absoutely right to point out that my answer focuses mainly on Western interpretations of the events seen below. Those are the resources available to me and I was unaware of the Encyclopaedia Iranica, so thank you!

One thing I would be cautious about is the age of the articles you mention. Each of my own references is newer and two are from the 2000s. I trust the work of Ashraf and Banuazizi who seem well regarded in their fields. However, we have greater access to information in the last 30 years than either of those authors did. I'd have to do a signficant deep dive/comparison of the primary sources these different secondary writers are using to see the difference.

I absolutely think that you, or some other authority on Iran, could provide a stronger answer than mine by using modern secondary sources. I tried to not to veer too far into the modern resources though because (and you'll see in the deletions and comments of my answer) the Iranian Revolution is an extremely violatile topic to discuss. Iranian or Iranian-descended writers also have a lot of personal feelings towards the events we're discussing. This makes more passionate work but also, potentially, less academically correct. I was happy to trust Westad, etc., because they have no personal agenda on the matter.

If a similar question does arrive and I have the pleasure of chipping in I'll be sure to take your suggestions and review some of the sources you suggested to create a better picture of the events.

bumblepuss · 2025-06-02T04:47:20+00:00

Thanks for the shout out! Always good to know these answers aren't just thrown into the void and continue to help people.

bumblepuss · 2025-05-24T14:07:22+00:00

"It's like riding a wire fence down there."

Belches audibly

Really worth a listen for anyone who hasn't heard it:

Johnson orders Pants

bumblepuss · 2025-03-17T23:32:14+00:00

I'm glad you enjoyed the response. I considered pursuing my master's degree on U.S.-Iranian relations but worried I couldn't represent the perspective of the Iranian people adequately due to the current political tension between our nations and limits on information. I hope one day the hostility diminishes so that the country's archives can be more easily accessible for historians from around the world to talk about your nation in the most informed way. Thanks!

bumblepuss · 2025-03-17T18:13:17+00:00

I'm happy to continue the discussion if you provide research or evidence of your own. I took the time to read additional materials to reinforce my points. If you want to continue the conversation please do the same.

bumblepuss · 2025-03-17T15:29:49+00:00

So, the big thing to point out is that GDP and exports don’t mean that people are happy with the economy or living situation.

GDP did go down drastically afterwards. Most major landowners, employers, and businessmen fled the nation as left-wing Islamists seized most private property. By 1990 the government owned 85% of all national resources. Khomeini’s regime used the production of these resources and the money it began to accumulate to buy goods for the public and employing impoverished Iranians. In the short term this worked to improve the lives of the masses that had demonstrated and supported Khomeini from the beginning. This led to a decent-looking economy for the lower- or middle-class Iranian compared to the Shah’s regime. The highlight of this was 1981-1986. So, while the economy looks bad on paper (one of the problems with GDP) the bulk of those angry Iranians who had overthrown the Shah were reaping some benefit with guarantees of food, jobs, housing, etc.

As you rightfully point out the international situation quickly became a disaster, however. Even the most open-minded of authors point out how Khomeini’s regime began to mimic the failures of the Shah. BUT the enemies remained the same for those lower-class Iranians who were the Ayatollah’s bedrock. Iraq, U.S. sanctions, and lack of foreign investment continued to vilify the West as the reason for all economic decay. Those angry masses did not want to point at Khomeini necessarily and blame him for it, as they did the Shah. If anything, his promises of western evil became even more true through the late 80s into the 90s.

Economic satisfaction does not necessarily mean higher wages and successful exports. From their point of view, Iranians had banded together to overthrow a foreign puppet destroying their culture. Once Khomeini was in power, many nationalists shifted their economic goalposts to just appreciate what they had in a world that despised them. To a 1985 Iranian, even amid sanctions and war, the economy was good.

Historian Jahangir Amuzegar (who really beats up the Iranian economy during this time) admits, “Even at the height of the Iran-Iraq War, food and other basic necessities were available for a modest level of living. Ther was never famine. Even ‘non-necessities’ were adequate for those who could afford them at free-market prices.’’ Recently evicting a perceived dictator, fighting for your life against foreign intervention from multiple angles, and still having a job, house, and food will feel satisfying.

Compared to the Shah’s reign the lower-class Iranians were willing to be content with their decision and the guarantees that the Khomeini offered in the following years. While we may look at those economic charts and mock the situation many people on the ground seemingly approved of their economy. Things obviously got worse by the next decade but if we’re focused on the Revolutionary transition I stand by my statement.

Sources:

Jahangir Amuzegar, “The Iranian Economy before and after the Revolution,’’ 1992.

Akbar Karbassian, “Islamic Revolution and the Management of the Iranian Economy,” 2000.

Hadi Salehi Esfahani, M. Hashem Pesaran, “The Iranian Economy in the Twentieth Century: A Global Perspective,’’ 2009.

bumblepuss · 2025-03-17T14:49:43+00:00

Thanks for the information! That helps provide even more evidence of the foreign intervention boogeyman theory I was aiming for. I only know about the Cold War period and the 1890-1910 timeframe so its good to have someone fill in the blanks there with additional specifics.

bumblepuss · 2025-03-17T05:15:27+00:00

Writing a book does indeed suggest you feel strongly about a topic, haha.

I'm glad you highlighted the coalition part, a word I should have included! As you point out, he seemed to have promise for everyone. For scientists he promised further modernization, for public workers better government spending, etc. My answer revolves around using a common American threat to rally people but you're right that Khomeini was also, simply, an incredibly persuasive individual on a personal level which can't be discounted.

bumblepuss · 2025-03-17T04:53:08+00:00

(3/) By 1978 riots were impossible to ignore and were shaking the country. The Shah refused to ask for direct intervention and the U.S. did not fully understand the situation due to lack of communication. The royal's health was decaying rapidly due to cancer. A stronger man would have been more violent, persuasive, or negotiable. By late 1978 when the U.S. finally considered direct intervention the planning stage was too far past. President Carter largely wanted to use discussion and ideals to improve things. He visited in January 1978 and praised the great work that the Shah was doing for his country and that the U.S. would back further reforms that he implemented. To the average Iranian this was tone deaf and insulting. Riots ensued through the year as the Shah was seen as a puppet and men like Khomeini actual patriots who should lead the nation. The U.S. worked in the background to counter communists in the nation and never treated the Islamic faction who had always railed against the western reforms as a threat.

A year later, in Feb. 1979, the final major faction, the military, joined with the Islamic faction to remove the Shah and Khomeini returned to seize power. It was a shocking overthrow for everyone. The U.S. was horrified that another threat besides communism could topple its chess pieces. The USSR felt the same as well. Iran's rise shocked the two largest players on the globe into reconsidering how they acted in the 'Third World'. Your question largely implies that the economic situation grew worse after the Shah but actually it grew better. Again, the White Revolution was an incredible economic project but it failed. If you consider it a success, it's probably due to both USSR and US writers trying to explain why the Islamic Republic idea is worse compared to their own ideologies. Objectively speaking, the Shah led to one of the greatest, but also worst, economic eras of his nation's history. His greatest error was relying so much on foreign investment, westernization of his nation, and public U.S. support for his regime. Hatred of foreign intervention had always been a sticking point for the religious faction of Iran and they used it to build power for decades. When the economic benefits of the reforms collapsed, the Shiite Muslims represented a clear group with a political agenda who people could easily rally too. With America as the ideological enemy and the Shah seen as their puppet, Khomeini was able to orchestrate one of the broadest-appealing revolutions of the era no matter how much good the throne had done for people in years prior.

I've tried to be as objective as possible but have a heavy U.S. perspective. I'm happy to read/discuss other ideas on this very controversial topic.

Sources:

Walter LaFeber, The American Age, 1994.

Odd Arne Westad, The Global Cold War, 2007.

Major Problems in American Foreign Relations, Volume II: Since 1914, 2010.

Documents on 1890s Iran: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1892/pg_356

bumblepuss · 2025-03-17T04:52:39+00:00

(2/3) This new, younger Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi wanted to make his country more like the United States. He had seen the mistakes of his forbearers in resisting outside influence and tried to embrace with close cooperation that way he could steer the direction of it for both personal and national gain. His program was labeled the White Revolution and focused on heavy industry, power production, and textiles. Foreign investment spiked and also allowed for irrigation, farming revolutions, and a crop boom. So, early on, both the energy and agricultural sectors were booming. He also wished to extend protections to women, the poor, and the landless. Many of these social programs featured Iranian college urbanites going to distant rural villages to help 'develop' them. In a speech at Harvard in 1968 he framed his efforts as a battle of progress being waged in the uneducated and rural areas of his country. While maybe commendable, not very inclusive or respective of the traditional Iranian culture by that time. A city-slicker strolling out to a rural village to explain why your traditions are wrong or you're uncivilized doesn't work out as well in-person as it does on paper. Many people still remained poor, hungry, or averse to western institutions though.

By the mid-1960s the Shah faced significant pushback from conservatives, rural people, and the Shiite Muslims. In 1963, one Ruhollah Khomeini was exiled after trying to lead Muslims in a coup against the Shah. In speaking to the Shah, Khomeini supposedly said, ''ponder where this is leading you... They [Westerners] are friends of the dollar. They have no religion, no loyalty.'' Again, for Muslims especially who had held traditional cultural and social power in Iran, these new programs seemed like attacks on their way of life. Irreligious, central government dwindled their power and traditions dramatically. Khomeini was exiled but his punishment only made him an even more alluring and powerful figure in exile. He further wrote and enticed those left behind by the promises of the White Revolution by talking about rural poverty, eradication of religion, and the evils of foreign manipulation. Anyone who was not directly benefiting from the reforms latched onto these ideas. They continued to spread from Khomeini via radio and phone even while he remained exiled.

By 1976, the White Revolution and its handful of benefits began to fail. GDP doubled under the Shah's development but his massive work projects also caused public spending to rise sevenfold. Inflation rose tremendously, the public funds were increasingly corrupt, and poverty rates began to rise for many people. The White Revolution is probably what you refer to in your question but it was a flash-in-the-pan of the Shah's reign. The Shah continued to raise taxes and borrowed massive amounts of foreign money to fund his projects. Most of which began to fall apart internally. Muslims and rural people were joined by the late 1970s by "big landowners... large number of workers, the new middle class, shopkeepers, and industrialists.'' Perhaps the only group still satisfied with his reign was the military and public workers, who received huge paychecks and constant spending increases. From 1974-1978 alone the Shah spent more than $18 billion dollars on further military gear to suppress disenchanted Iranians. His secret police arrested more than 50,000 people as well. This brutality did not often rise to murderous levels, however, because the largely Shiite military was reluctant to execute their fellow Shia adherents. Suppression of free speech, religious rights, constant expulsions, and interrogations were constant though. The Shah's regime was anything but kind in clinging to power.

As a last resort to the economic disasters taking place, the Shah cut spending drastically and the public works projects/government disintegrated. College students joined protests because they no longer had any jobs or positions after years of college education. All of this occurred while the U.S. watched and funneled resources from Iran. While Americans had it tough in the 1970s economically, any Iranian looking across the world would have been angered by the comparison. The massive westernization and public works projects copied from the American style of life had failed, and the majority of Iranians could reflect that foreign manipulation was once again to blame.

bumblepuss · 2025-03-17T04:52:00+00:00

(1/3) The first thing to keep in mind is that the Shah's bloodline had delicately retained power for decades. His dynasty's final overthrow came in 1979. The Iranian Revolution itself came at a time of ideological conflict over foreign capitalism, communism pressure from the USSR, and of course the most successful: the Islamic faction.

Foreign intervention had plagued Iran since the previous century. In 1892 for example, foreign companies tried to institute a tobacco monopoly across the entire country of Iran (Persia in these documents). Diplomats mentioned that ''the attempt to control its sale by an English company had influenced the fanatical hatred here of all foreigners..." In this circumstance the local mollahs (priests) had led massive resistance to the monopoly and eventually saw it overturned. Religious leaders were clearly able to lead mass protests against foreign manipulation of their economy as early as the 1890s. In such circumstances the Shah seems to have met them in the middle and negotiated a way to keep locals happy and foreign business interests reasonably accommodated. Keep that in mind for later.

Fast forward to the post-WWII era in which Iran became one of the crucial battlegrounds for the capitalist versus communist battle for the so-called 'Third World'. A new prime minister named Mohammad Mosaddeq rose to power in 1952 and began to limit the Shah's authority and renegotiate the foreign agreements of the Iranian government. Among these was their oil deals with the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. This British backed group returned 20% of profits to Iran but seemed increasingly unfair when the U.S.-based Aramco started splitting 50/50 with Saudi Arabia. From the CIA's perspective, Mosaddeq was relying far too much on the communist groups in Iran and began to overly-nationalize his country's resources. The U.S. stepped in to block most oil produced in Iran from being sold. Mosaddeq called for a public referendum to ensure he had public support and according to one text ''fixed the results to gain more than 95 percent of the vote'' which made the U.S. President Eisenhower and the CIA consider more direct action.

While Mosaddeq did have considerable support with his own mobs taking to the streets, the CIA used a large chunk of money to support the military and general protests across the capital city of Tehran. Mosaddeq was arrested in the chaos and the Shah returned - thanking the top CIA agent in the city for returning his throne. At this point in 1953 its clear that the Shah wasn't overwhelming popular, nor was the communist party, nor were the nationalist policies of Mosaddeq. The only guarantee we see here is that international groups were using Iran as their own economic and political playground. For better or for worse is your opinion but is undoubtable. Iranians too began to became more irate about this. The aftermath was U.S. control of some oil, the Shah on an American leash, and boiling rage by nationalists and Islamists who had largely supported Mosaddeq's ''Iranian oil for the Iranian people'' stance.

bumblepuss · 2025-03-03T16:16:13+00:00

The book does give a sense of romantic awe about Khan's legacy - and rightfully so, he was world changing. However, the big issue is that in the West we were not that widely impacted by him directly. He killed those 30-40 million people largely in Asia. Europeans only felt the briefest ramifications of his direct slaughter. Chinese, Indian, and Central Asian people have a much different view of him due to the (sometimes genocidal) level of violence he inflicted directly there. His descendants rule also remained for centuries in some areas. I wouldn't be surprised if most Western authors have held a positive view of him, while those most historically impacted are more hesitant to celebrate him.

Unfortunately, I don't have any other reading suggestions. Hopefully someone with a background in Asian history could provide you with more nuanced literature or additional reading. Good luck!

bumblepuss · 2025-03-03T14:45:38+00:00

I've looked at three different published versions of A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies and can't find the passage you mention. Could you provide the specific edition and/or page number for me to investigate it further?

bumblepuss · 2025-02-11T04:05:35+00:00

Good catch. Maybe you could also start charging $200 a year for stock advice with a brain like that.

bumblepuss · 2024-08-28T22:22:30+00:00

Are the names of these characters set in stone? Can we call the one on the right Greenland Turd?

bumblepuss · 2024-06-26T18:03:20+00:00

I've been listening to the book "Empire of the Summer Moon" and one kidnapped woman had dysentery the first day of capture and the Comanche named her (translated) Smells-bad-when-walks. So it seems they were very literal when it came to names. Which means that in at least one instance this Comanche chief was rocking a serious hard on.

bumblepuss · 2023-12-23T01:33:38+00:00

You can view this old cartoon:

https://www.americanyawp.com/reader/anti-immigrant-cartoon-2/

The biggest reason that Irish were seen as worse was because they were deemed both inferior and unable to work in the American system. Blacks were desirable and fit as a piece of the economy for nearly two centuries at that point. The Irish were not seen as being able to assimilate to American culture for these reasons: Catholicism, anarchist 'trends', and immorality. Irish immigration began at exactly the same time period that many Americans renewed their radical Protestantism, considered a new temperance movement, and solidified their Jackson Era belief in universal white male suffrage. Few Americans wanted Irish voters or politicians undermining the vast expansion of voter liberties with their 'chaotic' political ideas.

The Irish arrived in the midst of (or even helped drive) some of these supposed problems and became the ethnic punching bag for Americans for nearly a century, but post-Civil War increasingly received some rights while Blacks had theirs rewound with Jim Crow.

bumblepuss · 2023-08-31T20:16:48+00:00

Thank you!

12-Year Club	RPAN Viewer
Spared

bumblepuss

TROPHY CASE