Mullahs to destroy Iran's most beloved national heritage "Persepolis"

[Dover]

Mullahs to destroy Iran's most beloved national heritage "Persepolis"
Nov 13, 2006

While cultural heritage enthusiasts both inside and outside Iran have not yet recovered from the shock caused by mullahs' construction of Sivand Dam in Bolaghi Gorge, Fars province, which is to destroy more than 130 historical sites and large numbers of archeological evidence, the news about construction of a railway near Naqsh-e Rostam and Persepolis, also in Fars province, has raised yet another outrage among Iranians.

Once again another unstudied development project in Iran's Fars province has jeopardized a historic site: This time the victim is the Achaemenid palace of "Persepolis", the most important cultural heritage site of Iran. Already inscribed in UNESCO's list of World Heritage Sites, Persepolis would face exclusion from the list and would be placed in the Organization's Endangered World Heritage list should the railway project comes into force. On the other hand, the project would highly reduce the chance for world registration of another historic evidence in the area, namely the Naqsh-e Rostam.

The news evoked panic among the Iranian nation; and cultural heritage experts warned that construction of a railway near Naqsh-e Rostam will create serious problems for this historic site as well as Persepolis....>


http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_18893.shtml

[thereismore]

1. damn religious maniacs everywhere. nt

[sui generis]

2. the saddest part?

the Takht-e Jamshid is out in the middle of an arid plain. They could put the railway anywhere, absolutely anywhere on that plain, but they're putting it through the Persepolis?

This is almost like building a railway through Ayers rock in terms of appropriate space utilization.

The "conservative" and "traditionalist" mullahs destroy. When will the world have enough of these mullahs, priests and politicians?

They are a blight on humanity.

[sam sarrha]

7. nothing is as important as their gOD.. and they are proving it is an infidel site

[Dover]

3. I don't think it has much to do with religion. More about "progress".

Development vs. preserving the past. Are they actually targeting these sites? What are the options?

And how much of Iraq's heritage was destroyed by our very own "Mullah Bush"?

[qazplm]

11. good grief

what is it with this reflexive tendency to excuse anything that iran does?

[Dover]

12. Good grief........even the article doesn't make the case.

So please show me the part (other than the title) that clearly indicates this is something other than a tourism vs. historian debate that occurs in every country?

In this case the knee jerk reflex seems to be directed at Iran. But at the very least the subject would require a LOT more investigation to discover the details of this situation.

[Pierzin]

4. Truly Tragic. Yep. Damn Religious Fanatics Everywhere.

When truly historic sites are threatened in any way, we lose a part of who we really are.

[Dover]

5. And how much of Iraq's heritage did "Mullah Bush" destroy?

The plunderer boy king.

[Peace Patriot]

6. I don't know that this is a very reliable site. "Mullahs to destroy...?"

Go to the site, click on "mullahs" in this article, and all you get is a link to the original Khomeini revolution in Iran (against the horrible U.S.-installed Shah) in 1979. There don't seem to be any religious issues regarding Persepolis and other sites. No "mullahs" are calling for their destruction. It seems to be just an environmental/heritage protection dispute--progress vs. acheology--such as one might find anywhere in industial society.

Anybody know what "arab-parast" means? The "mullahs" are accused of being "arab-parasts." I recently read an article by a Persian linguist who was really pissed off about the Arabization of the word "Parsi" (original name of the Persian language) to "Farsi." Seems to be a lot of resentment of Arab incursion on Persian culture. By context, I would guess that "arab-parast" means something like "traitor to Persia"--perhaps by bringing an Arab version of Islam to Iran (which the "mullahs," though they may be Iranians, are guilty of)???

[Igel]

8. It seems to mean "Arab worshipper".

A nifty on-line dictionary says prstsh is 'worship'.

So "Arab-Parast in farsi means Arab worshipper" from http://www.irandefence.net/showthread.php?t=5891&page=4 seems reasonable.

"Arab lover" is how http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Aucaman/Proposed_decision puts it, and it seems to have about the same sneer quality as "Jew lover" does.

Mostly seems to be said by the same kind of people that view a "Jew lover" as some sort of race traitor, and some seem to feel more kinship with Kurds and the like than with Arabs.

[Peace Patriot]

10. The linguist guy I read didn't seem the type to descend to race hatred.

He had some very legit arguments that the Arabs are cultural nazis (not his phrase, mine), like the white European attitude toward indigenous culture in the Americas. "Jew lover" has horrendous connotations from this century (as do "nigger lover" and, going back a ways, "Indian lover"), which (if you use these terms) indicate that you side with those who would harm or exterminate a race, and not with those who are tolerant, accepting and respectful of all. And I don't get vibes of a desire to exterminate Arabs, but rather resentment of their incursions into Persian culture. And it is this that interests me. I, of course, was aware of the big difference between Persian and Arab culture, but I was not aware of this resentment by Persians against Arab cultural encroachment.

For instance, we have Anglophiles in the U.S.--lovers of the British and British culture. To call someone an "Anglophile" may indicate some resentment, or some patriotic feeling about America, but it's not at all like calling someone a "Jew lover." The latter has venomous meaning. The former has no such hatred in it, just...well, resentment, or uneasiness. So, is "Arab parast" REALLY like "Jew lover." Do Persians hate Arabs that much? Or is more like "Anglophile"--a defensive statement, a desire to identify with, and promote, one's own culture, and not be dominated by another?

I have a friend with a beautiful upper class English accent, and everywhere he goes in the U.S., he commands attention. He doesn't try to. He's a very unassuming sort of man. It's just his accent, which makes many Americans FEEL inferior, and automatically defer to him. It's quite funny to watch. It's Anglophilia! "Worship" of the English as a superior culture. And it indicates lack of confidence in one's OWN culture. Walt Whitman would say, "Create your OWN culture! Stop depending on that snotty, imperious British SUPERIORITY!" But if I were to call someone an "Anglophile," it wouldn't mean that I would want British people to be harmed, or exterminated.

"Arab parast" seems to have more of a bite than this--but not anything so bad as "Jew lover."

It's just the sense I get from readings (in translation). Any Persians or Arabs here, to enlighten us?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. If memory serves me correctly...

the Shah used to throw lavish parties for westereners at the ruins of Persepolis, at the expense of starving Iranian taxpayers. So it's something of a Castille for Iranian revolutionaries. Not so much a religious issue.