Well, I haven't been online for some days now, as my Internet at home was disconnected, besides I was in the middle of my exams. But I'll get back to you now Sepehr.
You say you are "pretty" sure that both your cousins idolized Saddam? How come you aren't sure? Whether you know it or not. So, can you cite them both saying how wonderful of a man he was? Do you remember concrete details of BOTH of them expessing their idolization of Saddam? Or do you just assume that they both idolized him as his picture was hanging in the room, and that if it was only one of your nephews who idolized Saddam, well then why didn't the other one make sure the picture wasn't removed? And therefore you conclude that the other one liked him too. Well, it could be that your conclusion rests on a false assumption, if the case was that one of your nephews disliked Saddam but honoured the principle of democracy and understood that as much it is his room, it is his brother's room as well, and therefore forcing his dislikeness of Saddam to his brother would make himself a little Saddam. But hey, I can understand that you neglected this view, as in general we Iranians tend to get emotional quick and therefore draw conclusions too fast, without good inquiry.
Well, maybe you should get yourself in the Oscar-committee, as you have a totally different approach to the movie than the masses. In the movie what is being ridiculized is not the American prejudicesin the first place, but Borat's characteristics that are portrayed as homogenous for an entire nation, and actually region. The movie ridiculizes Kazachstan, and it is therefore that their government wanted to sue him. Did you see the American government or people being offended? No! Because if anything, the movie portrays a tolerant American society. And wonder not, I have seen the movie.
Hold your horses fellow countryman! You're way too fast with your conclusions again. Who said that is what I meant with Westernization? Who said I am not westernized? Who said the West are pollute? I drew a possible stand contradictive to yours, not to prove the point of views of that stand, but to point out your false assumptions and conclusions and in the same time the hypocricy of your post, under the photo of Borat.
I have grown up in the West and if anything I feel myself enlightened in many aspects rather than being polluted. And indeed...you were getting off track, who was talking about what being truely Iranian means??!! And who said that I link my identity to Islam? Again, you are basing your conclusions on false assumptions. Are you angry about something? Well, it is your damn right to be angry about Islam, but do contextualize it well.
Having a national identity does not mean that there should be any restrictions to any aspects to be included! In contrance, everybody should be free to define his/her "Iranianity" in the way the he/she likes to. What being an Iranian means to me is irrelevant to this discussion. But I can tell you this aspect: it definitely does include speaking fluent Persian and being able to read and write; if somebody is born/grown up in foreign that Iranian should do all effort to be able to speak and read/write Persian --> if not, that person is not necessarily an Iranian to me, but rather an Iran-admirer.
And by the way, nobody said that the image about Iran / Kazachstan or whatever country rests on total fallacies, but the problem is that the aspects or selectively highlighted, exaggerated and generalized and therefore the end product is a false and homogenous image about a people, which allows on allows no space for individual diversification. Now, that I don't find funny and apparently in contrast to you I do find my avator personal and will not put any pictures up there that I don't support.
Maybe that is the reason why you were curious to what I define as "truely Iranian". I'd say: have a look at my avator. I will never change that if it is commented on by another member.
But what you seem not to have understanded, is that my point is not about being an Iranian looking from the side seeing an Arab who has done us so many wrong being hung up. The point was exactly not to get emotional and dtick to the principals of justice and democracy. And as this court is not national, it makes Saddam's crimes and animal like behaviour look less relevant. The discussion was about the court, not Saddam, neither Iran.
You say you are "pretty" sure that both your cousins idolized Saddam? How come you aren't sure? Whether you know it or not. So, can you cite them both saying how wonderful of a man he was? Do you remember concrete details of BOTH of them expessing their idolization of Saddam? Or do you just assume that they both idolized him as his picture was hanging in the room, and that if it was only one of your nephews who idolized Saddam, well then why didn't the other one make sure the picture wasn't removed? And therefore you conclude that the other one liked him too. Well, it could be that your conclusion rests on a false assumption, if the case was that one of your nephews disliked Saddam but honoured the principle of democracy and understood that as much it is his room, it is his brother's room as well, and therefore forcing his dislikeness of Saddam to his brother would make himself a little Saddam. But hey, I can understand that you neglected this view, as in general we Iranians tend to get emotional quick and therefore draw conclusions too fast, without good inquiry.
Well, maybe you should get yourself in the Oscar-committee, as you have a totally different approach to the movie than the masses. In the movie what is being ridiculized is not the American prejudicesin the first place, but Borat's characteristics that are portrayed as homogenous for an entire nation, and actually region. The movie ridiculizes Kazachstan, and it is therefore that their government wanted to sue him. Did you see the American government or people being offended? No! Because if anything, the movie portrays a tolerant American society. And wonder not, I have seen the movie.
Hold your horses fellow countryman! You're way too fast with your conclusions again. Who said that is what I meant with Westernization? Who said I am not westernized? Who said the West are pollute? I drew a possible stand contradictive to yours, not to prove the point of views of that stand, but to point out your false assumptions and conclusions and in the same time the hypocricy of your post, under the photo of Borat.
I have grown up in the West and if anything I feel myself enlightened in many aspects rather than being polluted. And indeed...you were getting off track, who was talking about what being truely Iranian means??!! And who said that I link my identity to Islam? Again, you are basing your conclusions on false assumptions. Are you angry about something? Well, it is your damn right to be angry about Islam, but do contextualize it well.
Having a national identity does not mean that there should be any restrictions to any aspects to be included! In contrance, everybody should be free to define his/her "Iranianity" in the way the he/she likes to. What being an Iranian means to me is irrelevant to this discussion. But I can tell you this aspect: it definitely does include speaking fluent Persian and being able to read and write; if somebody is born/grown up in foreign that Iranian should do all effort to be able to speak and read/write Persian --> if not, that person is not necessarily an Iranian to me, but rather an Iran-admirer.
And by the way, nobody said that the image about Iran / Kazachstan or whatever country rests on total fallacies, but the problem is that the aspects or selectively highlighted, exaggerated and generalized and therefore the end product is a false and homogenous image about a people, which allows on allows no space for individual diversification. Now, that I don't find funny and apparently in contrast to you I do find my avator personal and will not put any pictures up there that I don't support.
Maybe that is the reason why you were curious to what I define as "truely Iranian". I'd say: have a look at my avator. I will never change that if it is commented on by another member.
But what you seem not to have understanded, is that my point is not about being an Iranian looking from the side seeing an Arab who has done us so many wrong being hung up. The point was exactly not to get emotional and dtick to the principals of justice and democracy. And as this court is not national, it makes Saddam's crimes and animal like behaviour look less relevant. The discussion was about the court, not Saddam, neither Iran.
Sorry to interrupt, but I agree on this one more with Sepehr.
Baron Cohen could have used any other country too instead of Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan to me is just a random country symbolising western ignorance about the region. What is said about Kazakhstan is not true, but even without Borat out, if you had asked anyone in the west about Kazakhstan, they would have probably given you such a view on Kazakhstan.
However the way as an example the students behave, or the guy organising the rodeo, or the guys cheering at Borat when he says the disgraceful stuff, that's all for real. People in the west talk about the supposed backwardness of eastern countries, while as a fact those being really backward are those who supposedly laugh.
It also shows how people hide themselves because of political correctness. As an example, the students want to sue Baron Cohen now because they didn't know the movie will be shown in the US, otherwise, they would have behaved and not been that racist. How ridiculous is that?
Baron Cohen plays more with the ignorance of the people he interviews and faces than anything else. You never see him make fun of minorities in his movies and interviews, while in fact people coming from racial minorities, like the black guys in the movie being the only friendly bunch to him, or as an example Mohammad Al-Fayed in his show, all look rather positive and cool instead of dumb.
But anyway..carry on!
Oh..last but not least, the case of Bruno, his other character is a bit different though. Austrians are really like Bruno..that's no joke!
Baron Cohen could have used any other country too instead of Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan to me is just a random country symbolising western ignorance about the region. What is said about Kazakhstan is not true, but even without Borat out, if you had asked anyone in the west about Kazakhstan, they would have probably given you such a view on Kazakhstan.
However the way as an example the students behave, or the guy organising the rodeo, or the guys cheering at Borat when he says the disgraceful stuff, that's all for real. People in the west talk about the supposed backwardness of eastern countries, while as a fact those being really backward are those who supposedly laugh.
It also shows how people hide themselves because of political correctness. As an example, the students want to sue Baron Cohen now because they didn't know the movie will be shown in the US, otherwise, they would have behaved and not been that racist. How ridiculous is that?
Baron Cohen plays more with the ignorance of the people he interviews and faces than anything else. You never see him make fun of minorities in his movies and interviews, while in fact people coming from racial minorities, like the black guys in the movie being the only friendly bunch to him, or as an example Mohammad Al-Fayed in his show, all look rather positive and cool instead of dumb.
But anyway..carry on!
Oh..last but not least, the case of Bruno, his other character is a bit different though. Austrians are really like Bruno..that's no joke!
westi jan ,i am sure sasha has a bad taste in mouth about those ghazagh ,well my grand mothers and mother remember those years when russian army in ww 2 poured in iran ( shomal gilan mostley ) ,so they were absoltely scary people ,they said they moved from the cities of gilan and went to those villages to be more proteced ,there are many stories of their raping and looting in gilan and mazanderan ,so if borat's mothers like many jewish who used to live in that part of iran would remember those years .i am sure brorat ( agha sasha ) has been doing a sweet revenge ,he can't be too far off from realities . in my opinion .well my grand pa who use to come from baku would say same bad sotry about those ghazaghs .btw ghazagh used to come iran even prior o that . some confirmed that stalin after ww1 spend his commanding mission with ghazagh in gilan .