Considering 70s styles, they look like a wild cross of modern for the 70s, and modern for today. Like if you saw them walking down the street in America today looking like this, you wouldn’t think they’re going to a 70s party…but there’s definately 70s influence there.
And today, they’d be murdered in the streets for wearing that.
I want to upvote you for being factually correct, but I want to downvote you because I disagree with the message.
Not even sure what I should do with that.
Oh, I hate that message, too. My mom is 73 and married to a woman, and I’m terrified of what will happen to them.
Weep
I feel like hairstyles are a huge part of the times. Those hairstyles with the bottoms upturned just scream 70’s to me. The clothing is something I could totally see today.
Imagine a world without Regan
Imagine there’s no Reagan, It’s easy if you try…
More like US flavor of Nirenberg laws… ( Which were inspired by Jim Crow laws, so it’s a fool circle)
Oh god, apologism for the fascist shah, take it back to Reddit.
The the government Iran had in the 70’s was the result of a CIA coup to oust the progressive leader Mohammad Mossadegh who became prime minister with overwhelming popular support and reclaimed control of Iran’s oil from the British colonizers who had made an extremely exploitative deal with a different authoritarian dynasty before the country had any form of democracy - a deal, which despite being extremely favorable to them, they still consistently broke, lying about how much oil they were taking. This coup crushed Iran’s fledgling democratic movement and reforms, and the shah proceeded to use secret police to hunt down and exterminate his political opponents, primarily leftists. In order to give the country the appearance of modernization, he banned women from wearing traditional religious garb. In other words, even then the government was still controlling how women dressed. This shit is falling for decades old propaganda from an awful government.
Because the shah was so successful in suppressing and killing leftists, when he fell out of favor as a Western puppet and lost foreign support, guess which faction remained that had the power to take advantage of the situation? The Islamic fundamentalists. The modern Iranian state didn’t just spring up from nowhere, it came about as a result of the actions of the CIA and the shah.
Because the shah was so successful in suppressing and killing leftists, when he fell out of favor as a Western puppet and lost foreign support, guess which faction remained that had the power to take advantage of the situation? The Islamic fundamentalists. The modern Iranian state didn’t just spring up from nowhere, it came about as a result of the actions of the CIA and the shah.
Oh yes, remember how the Left was totally dead by the time of the Iranian Revolution, and definitely not a key part of the coalition until the Islamists turned on them and gleefully murdered them? Good times!
Amazing how MLs will simp for literal anti-communist theocrats and the stripping of women’s rights because “All enemies of the US deserve (un)critical support!”
I don’t think their comment was pro-Iranian-post-revolutionary-government. The Shah was awful, was installed by the CIA, and did kill political opponents. US-backed governments don’t typically fall to revolutions, so a lot of people must have been upset to have enough of them to manage that. It’s generally accepted that what came after the revolution was worse, but it’s not just nutters, Stalinists and tankies that recognise it was also bad before, and got that way because the British wanted oil.
As far as I’m aware (which is a bit more than average as I’m British with an Iranian grandparent), both of you posted correct things. If the Shah hadn’t started killing anyone who disagreed with him, it would have been harder for the religious extremists to kill the rest. It’s not like you can ever assassinate all your political opponents as everyone knows other people, and those people don’t like their friends and family being murdered.
I don’t think their comment was pro-Iranian-post-revolutionary-government.
I don’t have the confidence you do. I don’t remember if this specific tankie has expressed this view before, but I have seen and argued with many tankies who are outright supportive of the Islamic Republic.
US-backed governments don’t typically fall to revolutions,
You sure about that? I can name quite a few.
It’s generally accepted that what came after the revolution was worse, but it’s not just nutters, Stalinists and tankies that recognise it was also bad before, and got that way because the British wanted oil.
The Shah was, of course, awful. He was a murderer, an authoritarian who squandered his nation’s wealth, and had no one to blame for his fall but himself and his own tyrannical, torturing regime.
But coming in on a post which is about “Theocracy can reverse women’s rights quickly” and putting it down to propaganda of the Shah is, itself, nuts. It’s beyond a whataboutism, it’s downright deflection and borderline denialism.
Did you mean “before their politicians wanted to get fair prices on oil”?
OP’s picture is after the foreign meddling. Iran was trying to paint itself as a westernized country, and so western styles were part of the way the Shah’s regime encouraged that.
The coup which ousted Mossadegh and reinstated the Shah occurred a full 20 years before this picture was supposedly taken.
