Hi everyone,
Yes it is sad that Michael Jackson, the King of Pop, has died. It is sad that Farrah Fawcett has died. It is sad that Ed Mcmahon (sp?) had died. It is sad when anyone dies - even celebrities.
And of course their deaths illustrate the nature of old age, sickness, and death. The things that come to us all as Siddhartha's charioteer told him after he sighted the old man, the sick man, and the funeral procession. We should reflect on these deaths as things that can come to us all.
As much as those celebrities lives have contributed to our culture in various ways (meaningful or not so meaningful) I hope that we do not forget or move on from the much more important deaths of Neda and the other Iranian martyrs who died for freedom of speech and for authentic democracy (or just because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time in a country whose Islamic rulers do not at all believe in the value and dignity of human life - there's is a culture of tyranny of twisted hyprocrical laws and rutheless evil - yes a true Lawful Evil regime).
Some commentors have said (quite rightly I think) that Neda is not the first woman in an Islamic country whose barbarous death has been videotaped and made available on the web - but everyone is shocked because she was young and pretty. It is true that we should not only care about the young, pretty, and cosmopolitan. Still it is a part of our biological hardwiring to care more about the healthy and attractive youth - they are the future afterall. Biology is not sentimental - it is practical. But there is another reason, I think, why people around the world are more shocked by the video of Neda's death - because she appears so much more like us - not like some tribal person or a ghost in black or a distant image of a beheading on a soccer field (like those executions of women by the Taliban when they ruled Afghanistan). It is easier to identify with her and to realize that the common urban people of Iran aren't that diffierent in their hopes and aspirations than the people of London, New York, Paris, or San Francisco, etc...
Neda's death is not like the death of those celebrities - because unlike them she was not killed in the natural course of old age, sickness, and death. She was murdered callously by a regime willing to use terror to keep its thralls in line. She, whether she intended to be or not, is a martyr in the ongoing struggle for human freedom.
Frankly, I have not had the heart to watch the video of her death on youtube, I've only seen stills from it. I don't need to see it to be outraged. As it is I am listening to Tool songs for catharsis - "The Grudge", "Jerk-Off" and so on that express my feelings of outrage and the wish that I had the power to do something for the Iranian people who are not brainwashed dupes and who are struggling for freedom from totalitarianism and religious oppression.
Yes, the death of Michael Jackson and other celebrities is sad - a testament for all of us as to the human condition.
But Neda's murder bothers me much more, and it is for her that I am chiefly mourning.
I do truly believe that there are religions or at least religious people that uphold Law and Good and I see the teachings of the Buddha as pointing to that high standard. But then there are others who use the Law for Evil ends, and unfortunately the Islamic Shariah and those who claim to be its final arbiters whether in Iran or in the mountain and valleys of Pakisan and Afghanistan seems to be in keeping with that type. I know that to those who, as in Somalia, have lived lives of Chaos and Evil, that kind of Law seems like a respite, a bit of order an meaning that is better than the arbitrary violence they have known. But it is still Evil and Evil should not be tolerated. It cannot be fought with more Evil, but is something that must be subdued, broken, and finally healed and assimilated back into its empty elements. That is a discussion for another time, but it is what both Buddha and Jesus tried to demonstrate in their own lives.
Oh, after writing the above I discovered this:
article on how to have a non-violent revolution
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
************************************************************
I don't believe the so-called religious leaders of Iran have anything to do with faith. It's all about power.
Posted by: Michele at June 28, 2009 04:37 PMI know a few Iranians, Afghans, Pakistanis and others from that part of the world. Oddly one is in charge of security at my agency :-)) Religion is complex in that part of the world.
That complexity is what makes some people so violent. The same kinds of people who in our country don white robes and burn crosses, in Iran gravitate towards supporting Shia conservatism.
We just saw a Buddhist majority nation suppress a Tamil (Hindu) rebellion in a very violent way. Our lovely San Suu Kyi has been under house arrest for years by a nominally Buddhist regime that is actually a military regime. Maybe someday the Burmese military will realize what idiots they've been, but in the meantime they are a kleptocracy.
Religion, spirituality, and "Religious" are similar terms but not the same. The Ayatollahs started out resisting a very pro western but violent Shah who was seen as illegitimate because he'd gotten to power and subsequently been propped up by our Anglo-American neo-imperial shadow Government. The older generation remembers this. The younger generation just remembers the craziness, tyranny and insanity of the current regime.
The Ayatollahs went from revolutionaries devoted to purifying Iran to being kleptocrats living in mansions. That is the heart of the conflict there -- not religion. Religion is an excuse.
Hence, like Tiennamin Square, a democratic revolution is possible, but cannot be sustained unless the elites, and their military arm, can be made to go along. How would Gandhi have faired if the British had trained and coopted his generation instead of alienating them? As it was he had to wage an economic campaign aimed at the common folks. Real change is always driven from below.
The idea that the choice is between chaotic violent conflict and tyranny; between oligarchs and tyranny is a false choice. Elites become violent when the numbers reach a threshold where they are a tiny minority of the people, but there is more than one hierarchy sharing power. That violence reflects them doing mafia style business. Usually the only thing they agree on is that ordinary people are marks and looting for the sake of power is okay. War and tyranny are both plagues on mankind in general for the sake of a few well connected demagogues.
Early Tokugawa Spain, Somalia, Korea and Iran all have the common property of having rival hierarchies vying for the top spot. Once they have monarchy (here used in the sense of one person rule rather than in its hereditary sense), they seem stable until the person at the apex grows old, feeble and dies, then the oligarchs start fighting among each other for who will be number one again -- all over again.
It's an illusion that hierarchies are more stable than democracies. They simply manifest their extreme violence over a cycle where the amount of violence seems proportional to the amount of time between transitions.
Real Democracy is actually the most stable form of Government. This is because any other kind redistributes power among the already powerful until the stakes become so high that folks gamble on violence. Democracy allows for orderly transition of power, and less violent resolutions of conflicts. Buddhists used to solve conflict with their feet. Democracy allows something similar.
Blaming Islam for the state of Iran might make sense if we didn't have so many examples of human violence not connected to any of the Judeo-Christian religions. Humans can learn to play better games. We have to teach them.
And we have to engage. It's not enough anymore to sit on our duffs and pooh-pooh the world around us. Iran has better medical coverage than we have. That is part of what gives their students such a sense of empowerment. Unfortunately their police have learned from Tiennamin Square, our CIA, and the Mafia. They are shooting people from rooftops, disappearing people, and arresting key people.
I wish the Iranians luck. There are people in our country who want to imitate the Ayatollahs. Ironically those are the same people who want to bomb them.
Chris
Posted by: Chris at June 29, 2009 02:07 PMHi Chris,
Thanks for your comments and I totally agree with you. I think many (not all) of the Red-staters are no different than their Iranian counterparts except that they would use Christian excuses instead of Muslim excuses.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Many? Wow! Few, very few. Those that are probably secretly child molesters who put on a pious show as a disguise. I live in a 'red town.' I think we should be careful who we stereotype. People here have a less than flattering impression of San Franscisco.
Posted by: robin at July 1, 2009 03:04 AMHi Ryuei,
I really have to take exception to your Red State comment.
Neither Huckabee nor Palin would suggest women be covered up head to toe as a matter of law. Pat Robertson, whatever else his flaws, would not advocate stoning as a punishment for adultery.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479752,00.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106092195
The idea that most Red Staters are zealous fundamentalists is a cartoon caricature of most Christians, even fundamentalists, and to promote such a view actually harms the very real objections that can be made to the polices they'd pursue. You cannot reasonably take them on in important issues like gay marriage if the critique includes painting them as something they aren't. This is the left wing equivalent of equating homosexuals with pedophiles. Neither is right speech.
Posted by: Lotuslaw at July 6, 2009 02:18 PMI thought there were lots of good comments. Looks like there was a spam attack.
I agree with Lotuslaw. I am pretty much a red-stater myself.
Posted by: robin at July 15, 2009 10:30 AM