300 (The Second Part ?)

[Rasputin]

The Power Of Film:

History is no longer written by the victors, it is written by filmmakers. When will the children of Persia rise up and fight back using the same weapon Hollywood has used for decades to denigrate the legacy of their ancestors? When will we abandon our defensive posture and begin to write our own history again?

Perhaps the movie '300' was a necessary wake up call. But Persia bashing will never disappear on its own. It is the main villain in the Western saga. The only way it will change is through the power of film.

Alex Jovy's epic movie about Cyrus The Great could have done wonders for the Iranian image. Most minority groups in America understand the power of film and are quick to finance films that communicate their stories to the rest of the world. But Alex Jovy's movie today sits idle due lack of money. My documentary film about Cyrus The Great (www.spentaproductions.com) has languished for a mere want of $400,000.

Iranians are the most affluent and educated minority group in America. If we set our minds to it, we could literally change the world. This Norooz, I hope all Iranians, regardless of race, religion or political affiliation, resolve to finally unite in an effort to redeem the reputation of our ancestors.

[Rasputin]

Video:

Jon Stewart explains Hollywood to Iranians

http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/player.jhtml?ml_video=83823

[Rasputin]

The battle against '300'

As the latest Hollywood blockbuster "300" has taken theaters by storm, the Iranian community in the United States has taken great opposition to the film, claiming it is a vile assault on Persian culture and tradition. The film, which is a depiction of a historical battle in which a small Spartan army resisted a massive Persian invasion, portrays the Persians as nothing more than heartless barbarians. Even though the film grossly misrepresents Persians and their civilization, there are much bigger battles to fight than the content of a Hollywood film.
The biggest problem for critics of the movie has been the visual portrayal of the Greeks as beautiful, brave, honorable men as opposed to the Persians who are portrayed as deranged, ghastly, ruthless monsters. Part of the outcry also lies in how the battle of Thermopylae has been narrated, as there are claims of significant historical discrepancies. If the film is supposed to be purely fiction, the fantasy-like characters should not have names that are based on actual historical figures. Given the timing of the film, it is not hard to imagine that the film is a calculated attempt to demonize Iran at a time of intensifying U.S. hostility.

Warner Brothers, the film's producer, has been quick to defend the film explaining that it is a purely fictional work, loosely based on a historical event with absolutely no intent to disparage an ethnicity or culture. It is also important to keep in mind that the film is based on a popular comic book and that the main purpose of the work is to entertain audiences, not make any sort of political statement.

Unfortunately, it is a given that there will be some viewers who will unconsciously internalize the savage depiction of Persians. Given the current state of affairs between Iran and the world, however, bloggers and opponents of "300" should focus on the bigger picture. Instead of taking on Hollywood and moviegoers of which the majority are just looking to be entertained for a couple of hours, these critics should be focusing on battling the increasing threat of military action against Iran.

[persian_king]

man az yeki az doostan Younanim porsidam, Aslan Sparta on moghe ke in jang etefagh oftade boode baraye decomracy najangide boode, Athens faghat mijangide baraye decomracy, omidvaram frank miller shoro kone be mazaret khahi kardan chon in majera dare be jahaye barik keshide mishe.

manam ke inja persian king hastam age asabani shodam frank mrank o miller o shiller saram nemishe hame baham misozan, hala dige frank khodesh midone dige ... hehehe.

[mike435]

buddy i have posted this already in this very thread

Video:

Jon Stewart explains Hollywood to Iranians


http://www.comedycentral.com/motherl...ml_video=83823

but still it is so damn funny i love his smart views on stuff

[Rasputin]

Grossing over 70 million dollars in its first week of release, the movie “300” is set to crash into the list of highest grossing Hollywood blockbusters. Its strong opening is a clear indicator of its success with the North American and by implication, European audiences. Although this picture is based on a graphic novel by Frank Miller and directed by Zack Snyder (“Dawn of the Dead”), it is already being portrayed as a “historical” movie, and will be perceived as such by many (less discerning) viewers. More significant however, are the conclusions that are being derived from this picture.



The producers of the movie (as well as the actors) are honest in stating that they did not consult primary historical sources. The writer of the comic book appears to have relied on the writings of Greek historian Herodotus, whose works, though valuable, inevitably contain an element of bias, as do any historical works from any culture.



My article will not discuss the cinematography (a job best left to the film critics), nor is it a criticism of the cast and crew. There has been no agenda on the part of the original novelist, movie director, cast and crew to promote an anti-Iranian agenda. The movie however (no matter how sincerely it was intended as entertainment), is nevertheless purveying messages; messages most certainly unintended by Miller or the film producers.



The following commentary is specifically directed against the very human biases and distortions that currently pervade against ancient Iran and Iranians; the very same views that “300” has (inadvertently) stimulated.



Though perhaps trivial, I feel my background gives me a unique perspective. Born of Iranian parents in Greece, I am a student of both ancient Greece and its “East Roman” successor, Byzantium, alongside my main research interest, ancient Iran. My Greek friends often cite me as a blend of ancient Iran (or what the west terms as “Persia”) and “Hellas” (Greece). It is often overlooked that an Iranian can admire ancient Greece just as a Greek can do likewise with Persia. A Greek friend stated this to me in an e-mail on Monday, March 12, 2007:



“I watched the movie 300…and I was totally disappointed…The movie demonized the Persians, everything that was depicted in the movie about the Persians was untrue. The movie demonized also the Greeks and through some words of Leonidas Greek philosophers and Athenian civilization were downrated…I wonder why I should watch demons and Spartans with a false image…there was no showing of glorious brave and smart people from both sides. I have learned that what Spartans did in Thermopyles was magnificent, that they did not match any enemy but what they did there was really magnificent because it was achieved against a very brave, worthy and glorious enemy. …very few understand it.”



In the course of their historical intercourse, Greece and Persia have created breathtaking works in domains such as the arts, architecture, sciences, music and of course, democracy and human rights. It is interesting that many modern Greeks acknowledge and appreciate ancient Iran as a civilization as worthy as their own, yet the same is not necessarily true in northwest Europe and North America.



This review will focus on eight items for discussion:

1) The Notion of Democracy and Human Rights

2) What really led to War

3) The Military Conflict: Separating Fact from Fiction

4) The Error of Xerxes: The Burning of Athens

5) The “West” battling against the “Mysticism” of “the East”

6) The Portrayal of Iranians and Greeks

7) A Note on the Iranian Women in Antiquity

8 'Good' versus “Evil”




(1) The Notion of Democracy and Human Rights

What struck me about the movie was its portrayal of the Greco-Persian Wars in binary terms: the democratic, good, rational “Us” versus the tyrannical, evil and irrational, “other” of the ever-nebulous (if not exotic) “Persia”. Central to this dichotomy is the following message:



“300 men stood between victory and the collapse of Western civilisation.… If the barbarian hordes…overran these defenders, Greek democracy and civilisation would fall prey to alien forces whose cruelty was a byword.”

[Christopher Hudson, “The Greatest Warriors Ever”, Daily Mail, London, England, March 9, 2007]



Note the key words “collapse of Western civilization”, “barbarian hordes”, “democracy and civilisation” and “alien forces whose cruelty was a byword”. These key words are reminiscent of political sloganeering, targeting the “other” with slanderous propaganda. These simplistic (and patronizing) statements are a clear indication that the general media and much of the audience is seeing “300” as much more than just a movie of a “graphic novel”. This has been astutely observed by Tomas Engle, a student at a West Virginia College, who has noted with some concern that many people are viewing the movie to “inform themselves on history.'



The citations from popular media outlets (such as The Daily Mail) are yet another vivid demonstration of the gross prevailing ignorance as to the actual origins of the notions of human rights, democracy and freedom, as well as the complex factors that led to the Greco-Persian wars.



The origins of democracy and human rights are not as simple as we are led to believe. As we will see below, these notions share both Greek and Iranian origins.



Meanwhile, the Greeks (the Athenians and their Ionian kin in particular), created the notion of “Demos” (the people) and “Kratus” (government). This government by the people is what excites the imagination of the contemporary “western world”. However, few acknowledge the role of “the East” in helping place modern democracy as we know it today, within the context of racial, religious and cultural equality, or (more succinctly), human rights.



The founder of the Achaemenid Empire, Cyrus the Great, was the world’s first world emperor to openly declare and guarantee the sanctity of human rights and individual freedom.

Cyrus the Great as reconstructed by Tim Newark, 2000, p.21

(Ancient Armies, Concord Publications, painter Angus McBride)



Cyrus was a follower of the teachings of Zoroaster (Zarathustra), the founder of one of the world’s oldest monotheistic religions.

Portrait of Zarathustra as depicted in a Mithraic Temple in Dura Europus (in modern Syria) in the 3rd Century AD.



Zoroaster taught that good and evil resides in all members of humanity, regardless of racial origin, ethnic membership or religious affiliation. Each person is given the choice between good and evil – it is up to us to choose between them. It is that goodness, and a firm belief in its divinity, that is the key to human liberty, according to Zoroaster. As a consequence, every individual is entitled to liberty of thought, action and speech. This is enshrined in Zoroaster’s guidelines: Good Thoughts (Pendar Nik), Good Deeds (Kerdar Nik) and Good Speech (Goftar Nik).



As a result, freedom of thought, action and speech are laden with the awesome responsibility of wielding these for the good of all mankind. Zoroaster taught that there is no such thing as a “bad race” or “bad religion”. The only divide is that between good and bad people, both within one’s own community and those outside of one’s community. Zoroastrians often referred to ancient Iran as “the land of the Free/Freedom” (Zamin Azadegan).



Zoroaster preached the concept of an all-powerful single god known as Ahura-Mazda (the Supreme Angel), who stood for all that is good. However, the acceptance of Ahura-Mazda was a personal choice. There were to be no forced conversions and the gods of all nationalities were fully respected: Cyrus prostrated himself in front of the statue of Babylonian god Marduk after his conquest of Babylon. As noted by Graf, Hirsch, Gleason, & Krefter “Belief in a heavenly afterlife for good people and torment for evildoers may have been partly responsible for the moral treatment that Achaemenid Kings accorded subject nations…”



The Greek warrior-historian Xenophon, spoke highly of Cyrus in his Cyropaedia. Cyrus is described as being void of deceit, arrogance, guile or selfishness. Cyrus is the first “one world hero” in history, namely the ruler who sought to unite all the peoples into one empire while according full respect to all languages, creeds and religious practices. Alexander the Great, who greatly admired Cyrus, adopted his mantle of the “world hero” after his conquests of Persia in 333-323 BC.

[Rasputin]

Cyrus’ system of government has been forever immortalized by the Cyrus Cylinder. This is a clay cylinder of a decree that was issued by Cyrus the Great in 538 BC shortly after his conquest of Babylon.





The Cyrus Cylinder. This is the first human rights charter in history. A facsimile of the Cyrus Cylinder is present at the United Nations building in New York City



There three main premises in the decrees of the Cyrus Cylinder were:

(1) the institution of racial, linguistic and religious equality

(2) all exiled peoples were to be allowed to return home

(3) all destroyed temples were to be restored.



When Cyrus defeated King Nabonidus of Babylon, he officially declared the freedom of the Jews from their Babylonian captivity. This was the first time in history that a world power had guaranteed the survival of the Jewish people, religion, customs and culture. Cyrus allowed the Jews to rebuild their Temple and provided them with funds to do so. The empire continued that support as indicated by a decree by Darius the Great in 519-518 BC by allowing the Jews to complete the reconstruction of the Jerusalem Temple (Ezra, 4:1). Cyrus’ magnanimity is reflected in the Old Testament where he is cited as Yahweh’s anointed (See Book of Ezra 1). Koresh (Hebrew for Cyrus), was hailed as a Messiah by the Jews. Isaiah cites Cyrus as “He is my Shepherd, and he shall fulfill all my purpose” (Isaiah, 44.28; 45.1). The Biblical characters Ezra, Daniel, Esther and Mordecai played historically important roles in the Persian court. The tomb of Esther and Mordechai still stands to this day in Hamadan, the site of the ancient city of Ecbatana, a city that has hosted Jews for over 2500 years. The Persian king Xerxes himself was married to a Jewish queen named Esther.

Professor Victor Davis Hanson (Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Professor emeritus at California University) summarizes the issue of “Freedom versus Tyranny” very succinctly:



“If critics think that 300 reduces and simplifies the meaning of Thermopylae into freedom versus tyranny, they should reread carefully ancient accounts and then blame Herodotus, Plutarch, and Diodorus — who long ago boasted that Greek freedom was on trial against Persian autocracy…in almost all wars, one side is defending its freedom. The Greeks were not the first human beings to defend their freedom…monarchy is not something Eastern…when these 'freedom-defender' Greeks were united under Alexander, they did the same thing…they invaded Persia, Egypt and India and created their own empire…so did their Roman successors…”



[For full text see: http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson101106.html]



(2) What Really led to War: The Untold Story

As noted above, Western popular opinion and academic historiography portrays the Greco-Persian wars as being an epic contest between liberty, as represented by Greece, and “Persian Tyranny”. Professor Richard Nelson Frye, however cautions us that such historical narratives are “…an example of imposing modern concepts on the past…distorting our understanding…” [Richard Nelson Frye, 1984, p.93



Yes, indeed it is true that the Ionian revolt on the west Anatolian coast and the support of the Athenians for their Hellenic ethnic kin against the Persian Empire was a major factor that led Darius the Great (549-486 BC), the father of Xerxes, to invade Greece in 490 BC. But this is only a part of the story. Very few western historians have discussed the role of economic rivalry as a factor in the Greco-Persian wars.



By this time, the Greeks had established a powerful maritime economic empire in the Mediterranean Sea. The Greeks established colonies in southern Italy as well as contemporary southern France; an example of this legacy is seen in the name of the city of “Nice” (pronounced /nees/) in southern, France – “Nice” is derived from the Greek Nicea (modern Nice). Greek trading posts had also been established in the Caucasus, in the Modern Republic of Georgia.



The Achaemenid Empire became a marine empire as soon as it reached the Aegean Sea. Darius the Great built the world’s first formal “Imperial Navy”, many of its ships manned by Phoenician, Egyptian and (Hellenic) Ionians. More importantly, the Persian Empire began to “muscle in” on the economic sphere of the Greeks in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea (see Cook, The Greeks in Ionia and the East, 1962, 98-120; 132-133; Farrokh, Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War, 2007, Chapter 4). Italian researchers such as Nik Spatari have confirmed that Darius had sent naval scouts as far as Southern Italy to gain information on possible trade contacts with the western Mediterranean (Farrokh, Shadows in the Desert, 2007, Chapter 4).

Persia’s growing economic strength in the Mediterranean was certainly of great concern to the Greeks and their prosperity. The Greco-Persian wars were as much about economics, as they were about systems of government. For further references consult the bibliography.



(3) The Military Conflict: Separating Fact from Fiction



There are very few historians who doubt the tenacity and military skill of the Greek defenders who faced the invading army of Xerxes. The 300 movie displayed the equipment of the Spartans relatively well, considering that the producers were intent on reproducing the images of a comic book, leaving little room for consultation with modern scholarship. If the portrayal of the Greek side was adequate, that of “the Persians” was pure fantasy. This being said, there are already a large number of viewers who have taken these images in a very “literal” and historical context – the human mind is indeed a very impressionable organ.



The discussion here is a very quick and overall analysis of the actual military factors that were in place during Xerxes’ invasion of Greece in 480 BC – however we will digress into the post-Alexandrian eras, notably the evolution of the Persian knights during the Parthian (238 BC- 224 AD) and Sassanian (224-651 AD) eras. I will closely scrutinize the veracity of whether Xerxes actually wielded 1,700,000 troops during his invasion of Greece. By no means is this discussion adequate, however it is hoped that the reader’s curiosity will be sufficiently evoked as to encourage further research and readings.



Weapons

Greek spears and swords were longer than their Achaemenid counterparts. This meant that in hand to hand combat, the Spartans held the advantage and were able to “outrange” their opponents with their swords and spears, which were primarily used for thrusting (see Farrokh, Shadows in the Desert, 2007, Chapters 4-5). The swords of “the Persians” in the movie are of no historical relevance – many of the Iranian swords of that era were short and dagger-like. These were known as the “Akenakes”.

[Rasputin]

A racist gore-fest

The release of the box office hit 300 has already been accompanied in the US by indignation, outrage, an online petition and a Google-bombing campaign by the American Iranian community.

The Iranian representative at Unesco has logged a complaint and last week president Mahmood Ahmadinejad of Iran called the movie a psychological assault on the Iranian nation. The president may not be too accomplished at diplomatic niceties but he can spot a rabble-rouser from 300 paces. This, for the Iranians, is the equivalent of the Danish cartoons, but with go-faster stripes.

The movie is a gore-fest of computer-generated special effects, based on a graphic novel by Frank Miller about the battle of Thermoplyae in 480 BC between the Persian empire and an alliance of Greek states.

Of course, movies routinely take historical events out of context, and 300 doesn't disappoint in its avoidance of historical accuracy. The authors are on record as saying that this is a fantasy and not historical film-making, but they haven't explained why they have such racist fantasies.

History or fantasy, 300 is an out-an-out racist diatribe worthy of contempt. I only need to refer you to Dana Stevens who wrote in her review for Slate: "If 300 had been made in Germany in the mid-1930s, it would be studied today alongside The Eternal Jew as a textbook example of how race-baiting fantasy and nationalist myth can serve as an incitement to total war".

It is an interesting paradox that works of imagination set in the distant past or the future tend to say more about how things are at the time of their making than movies with a contemporary setting. Think of sci-fi movies or swords-and-sandals from the 1950s or 1970s. More than anything else they tell us about the world view, mind set and emotional temperature of the people who made them and the time they were made.

In 300, the soldiers of King Leonidis utter guttural HOAAWTH! in the exactly the same way American GI's do (or at least we are assured by Jarhead), and the soldiers of the imperial Persian army are dressed exactly as modern-day Taliban, badly armed with meat cleavers.

What is most worrying to me is the idea that "western civilisation" is not, as I had understood it to be, the cultural, economic and militarily power dominating the globe, but a civilisation on the back foot, cornered, victimised and under siege. This bit isn't just fantasy; this is exactly the world view of the lunatic fringe of the far right politics of BNP, Jean-Marie Le Pen and Co.

The Spartans behave as the archetypal id of the neo-conservative regime changers' ego - uncompromising and unforgiving. This is the language of the "surge" rather than Baker-Hamilton recommendations. King Leonidis is cynical about diplomatic niceties, slaughtering Persian emissaries against all convention. This is the cartoon version of the way John Bolton behaved at the UN, making it clear that he had nothing but disdain for what he considered to be the double-talking, wheeling and dealing that diplomacy usually is all about.

It may not surprise anyone that King Leonidis repeatedly makes reference to "freedom" and calls the Persian troops slaves. The average audience of 300 - which I assume to be 16-year-olds taking time off from playing computer games - would not know that the Spartans were notorious as slavers, and that Persepolis was built by wage earners.

In the same way that the movie holds a distorting and flattering mirror to a particular narrative of the west, I am equally cynical about the Iranian tendency for the vainglorious. Growing up and going to school in Iran (as I did) you are brought up to think of Persian imperial history as unblemished and continuously glorious.

The past, for many in Iran, is a warm sunny happy country. We love nothing more than to daydream of a time when Pax Iranica had pacified half the known world - where we were the magnanimous and wise overlords. The disconnect is that modern Iran so fails badly in comparison.

The uniting of the secular westernised Iranians in Los Angeles and the so-called religious fundamentalist government in Tehran demonstrates that nationalism is still a principal energising factor in Iranian politics.

This means that all the analysis that sees an "Islamic" threat or civilisitional conflict between imaginary constructs called the west and radical Islam is plain wrong. The fact is that the Islamic revolution and Shia Islam are two of many expressions of Iranian nationalism, and not the other way around.

Iran is an animal blighted by the sin of national pride, but it rarely bites unless it has been kicked first.

[Rasputin]

300 Sparks an Outcry in Iran

All of Tehran was outraged. Everywhere I went yesterday, the talk vibrated with indignation over the film 300 — a movie no one in Iran has seen but everyone seems to know about since it became a major box office surprise in the U.S.

As I stood in line for a full hour to buy ajeel, a mixture of dried fruits and nuts traditional to the start of Persian new year festivities, I felt the entire queue, composed of housewives with pet dogs, teenagers, and clerks from a nearby ministry, shake with fury. I hadn't even heard of the film until that morning when a screed about it came on the radio, so I was able to nod darkly with the rest of the shoppers, savoring a moment of public accord so rare in Tehran. Everywhere else I went, from the dentist to the flower shop, Iranians buzzed with resentment at the film's depictions of Persians, adamant that the movie was secretly funded by the U.S. government to prepare Americans for going to war against Iran. "Otherwise why now, if not to turn their people against us?" demanded an elderly lady buying tuberoses. "Yes, truly it is a grave offense," I said, shaking my own bunch of irises.


I returned home to discover my family in a similar state of pique. My sister-in-law sat behind her laptop, sending off an e-mail petition against the film to half of Tehran, while my husband leafed through a book on the Achaemenid Empire, noting that Herodotus had estimated the Persian army at 120,000 men, not one million as the film claimed. The morning newspaper lay on the table with the headline "300 AGAINST 70 MILLION!" (the population of the country). It was echoed by the evening news: "Hollywood has opened a new front in the war against Iran."

The timing of the computer-generated film, which depicts the ancient confrontation of Sparta and the Persian empire at the Battle of Thermopylae, is certainly inauspicious. It falls on the eve of Norouz, Persian new year, a time when Iranians typically gather in proud celebration, observing rites that date back over 3,000 years, way before Islam, to the age of Zoroastrianism, when their ancient land produced the world's first monotheistic religion. It is not a particularly welcome season to be portrayed as pillaging, deranged savages. Since the entire country will be on two weeks of official holiday, there will be no shortage of time to sit about discussing the slight and what it portends for Iran's current confrontation with the United States.

For a people prone to conspiracy logic, the box office success of 300, compared with the relative flop of Alexander (another spurious period epic dealing with Persians) is cause for considerable alarm, signaling ominous U.S. intentions.

While the hullabaloo over 300 may dampen Iranians' holiday spirits, it offers common cause between people and their estranged government. Top officials and parliament have scorned the film as though it were a matter of state, and for the first time in a long while, taxi drivers are shaking their fists in agreement when the state news comes on.

Agreeing that 300 is egregious drivel is fairly easy. I'm relatively mellow as Iranian nationalists go, and even I found myself applauding when the government spokesman described the film as fabrication and insult. Iranians view the Achaemenid empire as a particularly noble page in their history and cannot understand why it has been singled out for such shoddy cinematic treatment, as the populace here perceives it, with the Persians in rags and its Great King practically naked. The Achaemenid kings, who built their majestic capital at Persepolis, were exceptionally munificent for their time. They wrote the world's earliest recorded human rights declaration, and were opposed to slavery. Cuneiform plates show that Persepolis was built by paid staff rather than slaves And any Iranian child who has visited Persepolis can tell you that its preserved reliefs depict court dress of velvet robes, and that if anyone was wearing rags around 500 B.C., it wasn't the Persians.

It is going to take an act of foolhardy courage to distribute that film in Iran. It will truly be 70 million against 300.

[Rasputin]

have not seen the movie “300” yet, so I can not comment on its details. However, I have seen a documentary on the History Channel about the making of the movie. I do intend to see the movie at some point only because I want to see first hand what all the controversy is about.

I am not going to take your time by detailing the “historical inaccuracies” of the movie, because the last thing this movie should be perceived as is a “historical” remake of the ancient battle at Thermopylae. Instead I want to talk about a very well concealed problem in Iranian community abroad. I stress “abroad” because I have lived abroad for almost 30 years, and that is the Iranian community with which I am more familiar, however, I dare suggest that what I am about to say may also apply to Iranians as a whole.

We Iranians suffer from a severe case of identity crisis!

This problem has its roots in Iran’s long history of being a conquering and conquered nation. A history that is a succession of incompetent, self-indulging, and sometimes plain mad rulers occasionally interrupted with bright spots representing reformers who brought some order into an otherwise long and turbulent history covered with warfare. This, mind you, is not unlike the history of any nation or ethnic group that has a legacy extending over the last millennia or more.

If you take the history of the Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Ottoman empires and remove the names of individuals, places, and dates, you will be left with the same main theme of glory, defeat, honor, deceit, prospering, suffering, freedom, and suppression. Iranian history is no different; however, what sets us apart in present time is what happened in more than half century of Pahlavi dynasty and what followed it.

During the Pahlavi dynasty there was a conscious effort to create a national identity. One which would unite all Iranians under a central banner and government, one that was much stronger and more stabilized than the weak and unstable governments preceding the Pahlavis under the Qajar Dynasty. This program started with a systematic change in the way history was thought to the Iranian youth as public school system was reformed. With the spread of public schools across the country, history books that thought us the official version of our history tended to emphasize our common glorious past. This trend reached its peak in October of 1971 when the Iranian government celebrated 2500 years of Iranian Monarchy. By then the majority of Iranian kids who were educated under that system were well rehearsed on who the Achaemenids and their great Persian Kings were.

To put this in perspective, the Pahlavi Monarchy’s attempt to streamline and sometimes doctor the country’s history was not anything new. It has been done and continues to be done by many, if not all, nations including the good old US of A.

By 1975, the 50th anniversary of Pahlavi Dynasty, majority of Iranian youth regardless of their political affiliations or ethnic background had a proud Iranian in them who saw the great Achaemenid Kings as their ancestors and took pride in their glorious history. Then came 1979!


The Islamic Revolution brought an end to Iranian Monarchy, and with it came a total and complete dismissal of everything Iranians had learned to be their glorious history.

Like any new ruling system anywhere in the world would do, the Islamic Republic started a systematic campaign of re-writing Iranian history. The problem was that their version was in a direct collusion course with everything that Iranians had been thought over 54 years of Pahlavi Monarchy. The conquering Arab armies, who were represented as ruthless barbarians, were now presented as messengers of Islam spreading the words of Prophet Mohammad, and the glorious Kings of our years past were reintroduced as ruthless tyrants who had to be overthrown in the name of God.

As if that was not enough, in 1980 Iraq invaded Iran, starting a bloody war that lasted 8 years, killed over one million people, and ironically revived Iranian nationalism in way that distinguished it from its neighboring Sunni Arab nations; not unlike what had happened under the Pahlavi Monarchy, but this time with a Shiite vs. Sunni flavor. The fact that many Sunni Arab countries gave Iraq their financial and political backing did not help matters.

During the 70s a large number of Iranians started migrating abroad. Arguably the most prosperous and therefore influential of these Iranian migrant groups was the one that settled in California. These Iranians were now caught in a dilemma. On one hand they desperately longed for a national/ethnic identity, on the other hand many of them were reluctant to associate themselves with the new ruling system in Iran. This model was replicated in other countries in various magnitudes depending on the size and influence of the Iranian migrant communities there.

Many Iranians decided to introduce themselves as “Persians” and not “Iranians” because the world “Persian” served two distinct and strong purposes; first it disassociated them from what had been going on in Iran since 1979, and then it associated them with everything glorious about Iran’s past. The same glorious past that was thought to them during the Pahlavi Monarchy.

The fact of the matter is that today’s Iran is at most only one third of what constituted the Persian Empire under Achaemenids. That Empire covered a vast area from parts of Eastern Europe to North Africa to India and neared the borders of today’s China, and much like today’s Iran, its ethnic makeup was very diverse. Any unbiased student of history would be hard pressed to define a unique look for our Persian ancestors unless (s)he focuses her/his efforts on the ethnic origins of the founder of the Persian Empire Cyrus the Great who before becoming a Great King was a leader of Persian people in Anshan located in Fars province in today’s Iran.

So, that brings us to the movie “300”. While no one can be certain what Cyrus, his people, and his eventual successors including Xerxes looked like, it is safe to assume that they were not 8 feet tall drag queens. But that is not what bothers most Iranians about the movie. What bothers us is the fact that now we find our adopted identity under a two pronged attack, one that started in 1979 and has picked up steam in recent years by the way of Hollywood.

I say “adopted identity” because our connection to the Achaemenid Persians is more of an ideological connection than anything else. Many of us have or genetic roots not in today’s Fars province, but perhaps somewhere in the greater Eurasian continent. While we all speak Farsi (or Persian if you prefer) many of us can find a great grandparent or near past ancestor who spoke a different language.

On the same token, many a people in Eurasia can claim their ancestry to be Persian, and any unbiased Iranian will have a hard time refuting that claim because it is more or less the same argument that we use when we associate ourselves to the Great Kings.

Don’t get me wrong. My intention is not to dismiss our true or perceived glorious ancestry, or discourage us from making those associations; however, be aware that there is always a chance that by going overboard with some of these claims we may be turning into a character not so dissimilar to the father character in the movie “My big fat Greek Wedding”.

In conclusion, by all means sign every petition that condemns the movie, write articles that better introduce the true face of the Achaemenid Persians, and do your best to nullify the enormous affects of the negative publicity that we are getting as a migrant ethnic group, but please do not take it out on Leonidas and his men! Remember that all they did was to give their lives defending their land in the face of an outside invading force, just like Ariobarzan and his men did nearly 150 years later against Alexander the Great.

[Rasputin]

This is not a review of the movie 300. This is a review of certain reactions to it. A multi-sentence account of the movie is unnecessary given its widespread popularity. 300 is set in the war-crazed ancient world, where the Spartans resist Persian intruders. Perhaps it is the androgynous Persian king, Xerxes, in the movie, or the arrant exaggeration of the size of the Persian army, or the implicit conviction of the current Eastern world versus the gallant West; whatever it is, it’s gotten the Persians -- contemporary Iranians -- pissed off.

Imagine your country undergoing a violent revolution, commenced by religious fundamentalists who eventually take hold of the government, having a direct stand-off with the global superpower, while at the same time defying all international norms, in addition to opposing the very existence of a close ally to the superpower by providing financial support to its enemies; further imagine, coupled to all this, that you live in the land of the very superpower whose name is at all times subject to your country’s political rhetoric, and a land in which public opinion, popular culture, and news outlets alike condemn your country for being the epitome of all threats to human civilization.

Such a tale would fit perfectly the thousands of Iranian-Americans who have been most vocal in their dispute against 300. Indeed, to understand the reactions to a simple, fictional movie, one needs to uncover past socio-political undertakings. With modern Iran being overshadowed by Islamic fundamentalism and, more recently, the controversiality of nuclear empowerment, its shinning history has been held onto as a treasure, proving to be a source of national pride and dignity. And an attack on its glory, however unintentional, is bound to cause rage and resentment.

300 has left its mark on all classes. It seems, especially, that waves of educated, Iranian dissident voices have been hitting shore at full force, fuming with anger over the utterly monstrous depictions of Persians in the movie. And they do have a point. To quote an example, from an article by a professor of Ancient History at California State University, “What do you get when you take all the ‘misfits’ that inhabit the collective psyche of the white American establishment and put them together in the form of a cartoonish invading army from the East coming to take your freedom away? Then add a horde of Black people, deformed humans who are the quintessential opposite of the fashion journal images, a bunch of veiled towel-heads who remind us of Iraqi insurgents, a group of black cloaked Ninja-esque warriors who look like Taliban trainees, and men and women with body and facial piercings who are either angry, irrational, or sexually deviant. All this headed by a homosexual king (Xerxes) who leads this motley but vast group of ‘slaves’ known as the Persian army against the 300 handsomely sculpted men of Sparta who appear to have been going to LA (or Montreal) gyms devotedly, who fight for freedom and their way of life, and who at times look like the Marine Corps advertisements on TV? You get the movie 300.” The absurdity of such images puts a smile on my face. It does so particularly because not even the Devil himself, and his army of Evil, are an amalgamation of every conceivable inimical image as are the depicted Persians. This is sufficient in detracting any significance from the movie, other than it being a cinematic achievement and an enterprise of entertainment.

As a Persian, I must say, I can sympathize with the damaged pride of my compatriots, loyal to their nationalistic credos. I cannot, however, bring myself to react similarly, which is nothing short of overreaction. What I call overreaction is a storm of fierce complaints in the form of press coverage, petitions, letters, blogs, online forum discussions, and, overall, excessive debating. Oversensitivity, egotism, and counter-productivity are not the only reasons for my discontent of the inflated Persian response; more simplistically, I see such aversive response as being rooted in emotivity, with little logical grounds. It is simply unnecessary to dedicate this much attention to a fictional movie, created for the sole purpose of entertainment.

With that said, given Iran’s negative press treatment and corresponding negative perceptions of the country, positive action is merited. I use ‘positive’ here to indicate reasonable and informative initiatives, where the goal is to unearth the historical truths which are buried deeply within the ground for the average viewer. I would use ‘negative’ action to denote all those emotionally-driven, bad-tempered attempts of conspiratorial Iranians claiming that Hollywood is merely a White House apparatus by use of which public consent to attack Iran will eventually be given. Nevertheless, after observing a trend of anti-Iranian sentiments in Hollywood blockbusters, Alexander being a case in point, it only makes sense to target the inaccuracies and distorted images. What is particularly alarming about 300, and other such films, is not that it is meant to be an accurate historical account and fails in so being, but that it inadvertently paints a grotesque and gruesome (not to mention untrue) image of Persians for an uninformed audience. This very fact ought not to justify any call for the movie’s ban, but, rather, campaigns of information to lessen false perceptions.

Project 300 is an initiative that would fall under the described category of ‘positive action.’ This creative project aims to unveil the truth in the most civilized and elegant of ways: “300themovie.info is an ongoing collaborative art project featuring art by artists using the theme of ‘ancient Persia.’ Driven by an admiration for arts, and united by a common concern about the barbaric and demonic portrayal of Persians in Frank Miller's graphic novel and the movie 300, we have come together to voice our objection in a uniquely artistic fashion.” 300, as repeatedly mentioned, is not a factual reconstruction of a historical battle -- nor does it ever claim to be so; for it is but a highly stylized, computer generated film of passionately violent men, aimed for the viewing pleasures of the average Joe and the financial super-success of its makers. Accordingly, it should only entertain and not produce even more obfuscated views about Iran and Persians. Project 300 is an admirable attempt to prevent just that.

300 is merely an exoteric representation of a Greco-Persian war. It might be intellectually unsatisfying, or even intellectually demeaning, but it never promised to be more; “You want realism and devotion to the hard facts, watch the History Channel. You want to experience the Battle of Thermopylae as a non-stop thrill ride, here's your ticket” says Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun-Times. I agree with him. What I don’t agree with are the views giving this cinematic pseudo-history historical worth, claiming it to be the true story of brave representatives of the West (Spartans) fighting off the Eastern savages (Persians) to shape the enlightened, free, and democratic path that the West has ever since travelled. I have in mind, here, John Kass, editorialist of the Chicago Tribune, who bluntly asserts the movie “is true to is sources” and hence its “truth…is worth telling today.” Yes, Mr. Kass, truth is a tale worth telling. How unfortunate that you cannot stand by your own palaver.

300’s inauspicious timing has triggered a domino effect of reactions by the descendents of the Persians. Even CNN, the Warner Brothers’ corporate cousin, took note of this by broadcasting Iranian frustration and their assertions of American plots against them. Now, personally, I do not definitively rule out this movie as part of a series of attacks on Iranian culture given the current political context -- but the probability with which I view this as being true is as much as an extraterrestrial encounter with humans. That all this hype encourages movie-goers to hit the theatres and increases profits is a fact that cannot be overlooked. And those who advocate 300’s boycott or call for the proliferation of protests, petitions, or proposals of removal should take heed of their counter-initiative actions.

After all, to the historian, this movie is the nadir of factuality, making it a ‘historical comedy’. To the movie fanatic, this adaptation stays true to its ‘comic-al’ origins. To these two poles, and to the rest of us in between, 300 is then nothing but truly comical.

[Rasputin]

Recently there's been a lot of pressure telling us how insulted we're supposed to be at the surprisingly gloriously delicious depiction of ancient Persia by large American film artists.

That combined with the recent anti-war peace rallies held to commemorate the 5th year of the US/Iraq war, makes at least me ponder the relationship between the two. Because these are two somewhat relevant issues that affect Iranians in some way.

I have now seen 300 twice. Albeit the second time at matinee prices, so as not to reward the producers too much. Not that my frugality will have any effect, make no mistake, this is a blockbuster.

Both times, while trying to carefully observe and record the depictions we've all become way too sensitized to, I also listened to the audience. As expected from a gore and violence spewn movie-going culture, the deep breaths at a glorious cut down, or the "Ah"s of a heaven sent lunge with a spear, were to be expected. Even chuckling, as Leonidas smacked his lips while eating an apple as Spartans finished off the wounded Persian soldiers after one of the green screen battle scenes, was another.

But whenever the sheer size of the Persian army was shown, the crowd often went silent. It sounded like a somewhat jealous silence, as if to say, "Wow!" Blown away by the luxurious details and adornments and meticulous decoration of the slave driven carriages, the ecstatic harems, and the generally opulent entourage of one of a great many Persian kings, sadly in this case, Xerxes.

But you can look at the film either as a slap in the face, or any one of many other insults, if you're really looking to find them. Sure, you could think the Spartans are meant to depict America trying to fight for freedom, against the Persians who are meant to depict a huge Islamic fundamentalist machine, but the opposite could also be true.

Because, you could also draw the conclusion that the Spartans are meant to be the terrorists, always using violence to get their way. And you could also see the Persian army more akin to the massive US forces trying to shove Western customs and way of life, and frequent perversions, down the throats of any other cultures or factions that dare stand in their way.

So you could take it that way too, if you fall for the whole trying to interpret a film ploy. Because this is precisely what makes this film such a success. Everyone thinks they have figured out what it really means, which I think is precisely the filmmakers' intention. Strange we haven't heard a peep out of them. They must be too busy counting large bills. But I don't expect easily bruised Iranian pride to understand this.

What I suggest that everyone do though, and what I am doing with all my non-Iranian friends, is grinning at them, and saying, "Pretty cool huh! Now you know why I am so cocky about being Iranian! We used to own everyone and everything!"

Because as PR goes, it certainly does not hurt us to be one of the main fixtures in an epic blockbuster, even if you happen to think we were portrayed as the bad guys. Maybe a good box office take, will make funding truer to life and more historically accurate films like Cyrus Kar's "In Search of Cyrus the Great" a bit easier.

Reading Kar's recent commentary on 300, he certainly knows his history, but two things jump out at me. First, Kar should seriously review his film's budget, because if as he says, all it takes is a measly $400,000 to wrap it up, then all he's done is think small. These days a normal opening title sequence alone costs well over a million, and I would expect nothing less than normal for an epic about CTG. But business as usual for Iranians I guess, always looking for a way to do something big on the cheap. Second, Kar's choice of name for his film company, Spenta Productions? It certainly isn't what anyone would expect to be charmically suitable for giving investors a warm and fuzzy.

Spenta little, Spenta lot. Anyway you say it, the answer is Not!

But sing this to the tune of Tom Jones' "Why Why Why Delilah", Persians, Iranians, Shooshtaris or Tabrizis for all I care, ought to be complaining about the real issues and the source of real ongoing embarrassment to all Iranians, especially those living in Iran. And that is the far greater outrageous acts and continuous implementation of perverted religious ideas, that altogether harm our image and heritage far far far more than films and comicbooks ever could.

Ahmadinejad or Khamenei? Frank Miller, or Oliver Stone? Who do you think ought to be petitioned?

On to the rallies.

The past week the Bay Area of San Francisco/San Jose also saw Iranians albeit the liberal, leftist, globalist, serenely idealist, and sublimely naive variety, once again take to the streets of the US with misspelled and grammatically incorrect $7 a square foot vinyl banners waving, at the all too obvious perils and foibles of US foreign policy, and its less then unobvious hints that Iran is next on the greatest hits list.

Good observations? Try painfully obvious observations! Because it doesn't take a rocket scientist, or a Green party Iranian computer engineer with a PhD telecommuting to Oracle, to recognize that historically speaking, US foreign policy is an oxymoron, as in this most recent case in Iraq.

Should the US foray into Iran, it would only be another classic example of the repeatedly unauthorized mistakes made ever since this mad concept of 3rd world nation building was hatched by the Eisenhower administration after WWII, starting with the pilot project of all this idiocy, the Mossadegh Fiasco. No one seems bright enough to figure out that more often than not, these meticulously planned schemes backfire and are almost always betrayed by "loyal" allies, of the 1st world.

So you can furrow your brow, cock your beautiful swooping Persian eyebrow, and rage against a big fat hormone fed dumb cow of a machine all you want. You are merely screaming the obvious into the steaming hot wind coming out the back end of that cow. It's also a bit much, and quite embarrassing, to have to explain why we are screaming at the US, but keeping super quiet against our own country's foulplay.

The harder and more skilful challenge is to call things the way you really see them, right when you see them! So all of you with all the energy, try this mental challenge for a change, take a good look at your situation, then think of stuff, the most obvious stuff, and then actually say something about that! If you still need a clue, take a good hard look at Iran, and the stuff we've been seeing for the past 27 years.

A protest march against the war in Iraq? Or a demonstration of our outrage against the likely next one in Iran? That is fine, but only as long as we also march equally pissed off against Ahmadinejad, when he comes to NY next month for another one of his quackingly holier than thou sermons. That kind of stuff.

But if all we have the courage to do is stand up lethargically to the obvious, the easy, and the safe, on Saturdays the weekend we have the kids, because we're off work, and it's sunny, then we are about as mature, real, and valid as a 9 foot Xerxes.

And then we should all just call ourselves, Jerxes.

[Rasputin]

"Youth is wasted on the young," Oscar Wilde once remarked. One can also say that history is wasted on those with history. My recent trip to New Zealand showed that a nation doesn't have to be 'old' and 'rich' in history and tradition in order to create something original and new in any cultural and scientific areas. On 19 September 1893 women's suffrage was made law in New Zealand . By this act this youngest democratic country put herself on the map as among the most civilized and progressive nation of the world.

Those political activists who recognized the equal rights of women to vote also paved the way for other nations who were centuries older than NZ. In today's world people remember the gold medalist only and New Zealand is going to be forever in the collective memory of people who care about human rights. One does not need a long history in order to be able to act like a human being as if acknowledging and defending the rights of others need a long history of cultural heritage. No. It depends on how you perceive yourself and what is your worldview and how far you are going to defend those values.

One thing Iranians living in the West do not perhaps realize is that people who lived in the land that is called Iran today, whether the Sassanid, or Parthian or the Achamenians, had hardly anything in common with the present Iranians. They had totally different set of values to most Iranians living today. They followed a different religion that gave them a strong sense of identity and their role in the world, not just as conquerors but keepers and protectors. They wrote and spoke differently and knew exactly what their cultural, and religious boundaries were. And if they were alive today, for many good reasons, they would dissociate themselves from the people who happen to live in Iran (or Iranians living outside) who call themselves Iranians or 'Persians'.

Now if any Iranian really identifies with ancient Persian history as part of their heritage or identity you can go right ahead and make a movie, documentary or write a book etc... who is going to stop you? Cyrus the Great is just one great story that Cyrus Kar is working on. All the best with his initiative and efforts. There are hundreds or thousands great stories in history (be it Persian or Irish or African) that could be of great interest to the people of the whole world and it wouldn't just help Iranians with their identity crisis.

You see Iranians today are waiting for Hollywood to tell the world about who they are. And when Hollywood makes a movie like 300 they feel betrayed. They keep forgetting that they no longer are living in Iran. There are no censors or ministry of moral or cultural guidance in America or Europe that would stop them from telling any kind of story. Just as they haven't stopped them from voting for their preferred government, fill their bank accounts with money or educate theri kids.

So let's not blame Hollywood for any misrepresentation but our own ennui.

[Rasputin]

:«براي مقابله با فيلم ضد ايراني 300 بايدطي فراخواني از وكلاي زبده ايراني خواست تا در يك واكنش هماهنگ از فيلمساز و كمپاني سازنده اين فيلم به جرم ساخت فيلم نژاد پرستانه، جعل و تحريف تاريخ و توهين به هويت ملي ايراني به يونسكو و سازمان هاي ديگر شكايت كنند.»
دكتر شاهرخ رزمجو، باستان*شناس و متخصص دوره تاريخي هخامنشي با محكوم كردن ساخت و اكران فيلم ضد ايراني 300 با اشاره به اين كه پيش از اين هم بارها چنين توهين*هايي به تاريخ ايران شده است، به ميراث خبر گفت:«اين براي نخستين بار نيست كه اين گونه به هويت ايراني با اين نگاه نژادپرستانه تاخته مي*شود. اما تاكنون كمتر اعتراضي نسبت به اين موضوع شده است. در خارج از كشور گروه*هايي هستند كه در مقابل چنين مسائلي اعتراض مي*كنند. اما اين كار نياز به حمايت داخلي نيز دارد. لازم است فراخواني منتشر شود كه از وكلاي ايراني خارج از كشور دعوت شود تا از سازندگان اين فيلم به عنوان خراب كننده چهره ايران و ارائه ديدگاه نژادپرستانه به سازمان هاي مربوطه همچون يونسكو شكايت كنند. از طرف ديگر بايد پايه* كاري را بگذاريم كه در آينده جلوي چنين حركت*هايي گرفته شود. يعني گروههاي مختلف از جمله تشكل هاي داخلي نيز بتوانند با حمايت و بدون گير و بندهاي اداري به چنين مسائلي اعتراض كنند. »

وي با بيان اين كه اين فيلم مشوق نژاد پرستي است، معتقد است:« نمايش 300 به گونه اي ساخته شده كه كينه از ايرانيان را در دل بينندگان بوجود مي آورد كه باعث مي شود ايرانيان توسط افرادي كه با ديدن اين فيلم مغزشويي شده اند، مورد تحقير وآزار قرار بگيرند. پيام اصلي فيلم تشويق به كشتن ايرانيان آنهم در حد زياد است كه همگي در اين فيلم مانند هيولا يا موجودات عجيب الخلقه فيلم هاي فضايي نشان داده شده اند در حالي كه يوناني ها همگي مانند كشتي گيران ورزيده نشان داده شده اند. به اين دليل اين تصوير نادرست و دلايل ديگر حتما بايد از كمپاني سازنده و داستان پرداز فيلم شكايت كرد. چنين تصوراتي حتي در نوشته هاي يوناني ها نيز ديده نمي شود. اين فيلم اولين فيلم نيست و آخرينش هم نخواهد بود. در داخل و خارج از ايران وكلاي ايراني زبردستي هستند كه به هويت ملي كشورشان علاقمند هستند. بايد از اين وكلا دعوت كنيم جمع شوند و هرچه سريعتر از كمپاني فيلمساز به دليل بي*توجهي به اسناد تاريخي و از سازنده فيلم به دليل جعل تاريخ و اشاعه نژاد پرستي شكايت كنند. اين فيلم فرقي با همان هدف فيلم "پيروزي اراده" ساخته لني ريفنشتال ندارد كه هدف آن تبليغات براي رايش سوم داشت. تنها تفاوت خوش ساخت بودن فيلم ريفنشنال از نظر سينمايي است و اينكه در آن فيلم تنها رايش سوم تا حد اسطوره سازي بالا برده شده بود و كسي مورد تحقير قرار نگرفته بود. اما فيلم 300 آن جنبه هنري را ندارد و سراپا پر از صحنه هاي ساختگي و دروغين است و تحقير تاريخ درخشان يك ملت است. حتي در فيلم هايي چون پادشاهي آسمان كه داستاني از جنگ هاي صليبي را روايت مي كند، در هر دو جناح انسان هاي خوب و بد وجود دارند و حال هر دو طرف تا حدودي رعايت شده. فرانك ميلر، خالق اين داستان، تم اصلي داستان خود را از هرودوت گرفته اما به هرودوت نيز كاري ندارد و همه چيز را به ميل خود ساخته و پرداخته است. اما كار او نشان مي دهد نگاه او چقدر سطحي، ابتدايي و حتي ساده لوحانه است. او از تاريخ هيچ نمي داند و كارگردان نيز همين نگاه بدوي را براي كار خود مي خواسته. تبليغ اينكه غير يوناني بودن يعني بربر بودن، همان تلقي نادرست قديمي كه باعث آن همه جنگ و خون*ريزي شده است، دوباره آغاز شده است. ديدگاه فيلم حتي از متحجرترين تفكرات كلاسيك قرن نوزدهم نيز فراتر رفته است.»

فيلم 300 تنها دشمني و فاصله ميان ملت*ها را تشديد مي كند. در صورتي كه دو تمدن ايران و يونان جدا از مشكلات سياسي روابط فرهنگي بسيار نزديكي داشته اند. براي نمونه مي توان به روابط افلاتون با ايراني*ها اشاره كرد. افلاتون براي ديدن موبدان ايراني به شرق سفر كرد. او هم استادان پارسي داشته و هم شاگرد پارسي. پس از مرگ افلاتون، پارسيان مجسمه نيم تنه اي از وي سفارش مي دهند و در آكادمي آتن نصب مي كنند. به جاي اين كه فيلمسازان درباره روابط زيباي ميان دو تمدن ايران و يونان فيلم بسازند تا باعث تاثير مثبت وگسترش روابط دوستانه ميان فرهنگ ها گردد، جنگي را نشان مي*دهند كه تنها در داستان سازي هاي هرودوت ديده مي شود و ايراني*ها را زشت، وحشي و بربر نشان مي*دهند. پاسخ روشن است، زماني كه تاريخ آلوده به سياست شود به هر صورت كه زمانه ايجاب كند تاريخ مورد سوء استفاده قرار مي گيرد. روابط ايران و يونان مانند يك كوه يخ است كه همواره سطح كوچك بيروني آن كه روابط سياسي است، مورد توجه قرار گرفته. اما حجم عظيم روابط فرهنگي ايران و يونان در زير قرار گرفته و به عمد فراموش شده است.»
شكي نيست چنين تصويرسازي غلطي در آينده منجر به بروز احساسات و برخوردهاي نژادپرستانه خواهد گرديد. چگونه در كشور سازنده فيلم كه نژادپرستي جرم به شمار مي رود، كسي عوامل اين فيلم را بازخواست نميكند؟ امروزه حتي داستان مصور "تن تن در آفريقا" متهم به داشتن ديدگاه نژادپرستانه مي شود، اما فيلم 300 با ديدگاه شديدا افراطي خود براحتي در صدها سينما در جهان به اكران در مي آيد و به تاريخ و هويت يك ملت توهين مي كند و كسي در صدد پاسخگويي نيست. تنها عده اي در پاسخ مي گويند اين به تاريخ باستان مربوط است و نه امروز، يا اينكه به دليل آزادي بيان هر كسي مي تواند داستان را هر طور كه مي خواهد بازگو كند. اين درست است به شرطي كه اين كار باعث اهانت به ملت ها نشود.»

وي درباره دلايل نژادپرستانه بودن فيلم 300معتقد است: «در اين فيلم تعدادي از ايراني*ها از جمله سفير ايران و حتي خشايارشا را سياهپوست و مانند روساي قبايل آفريقايي نشان داده اند. اشكال اصلي در اينجاست كه ايرانياني را كه از نظر تاريخي بد نيستند، بد و وحشي نشان داده اند و از طرف ديگر آن گروه بد سياهپوست نشان داده شده اند. اين نه تنها توهين به ايراني*هاست، بلكه توهين به سياه*پوست*ها هم هست. در واقع براي سازندگان فيلم، غير اروپايي بودن و يا سياهپوست بودن يعني بد بودن و براي نشان دادن بدكاران از سياهپوستان استفاده شده است. اين يعني رواج ديدگاه نژادپرستانه. حتي تفاوت ظاهري افراد در فيلم، يعني با نشان دادن اروپاييان خوش اندام و از سوي ديگر زشت و ناقص الخلقه نشان دادن غير اروپاييان، نشانه ديگري از اين ديدگاه نژادپرستانه است. »

به عقيده رزمجو:« اين ديدگاه ناشي از تفكر نژادپرستانه اين جور فيلمسازان و آدم*ها است اما خود چنين تصوري ندارند. در بحثي كه رابين لين فاكس مشاور اليور استون در فيلم اسكندر در لندن داشت، متوجه شدم او به هيچوجه نگاه علمي و آكادميك ندارد، بلكه كاملا خود را يكي از سربازان اسكندر تصور مي كند! ايشان در حين صحبت خود ضمن اينكه از سوزاندن تخت جمشيد و كشتار مردم آن توسط اسكندر دفاع مي كرد گفت:« ايراني*ها خيلي نژاد پرستند! به دليل اين كه به من اعتراض مي*كنند كه در فيلم، چرا به جاي ركسانا همسر ايراني اسكندر، يك زن سياه پوست بازي كرده است! ايشان مي*گفت چه اشكالي دارد كه يك خانم هنرمند سياه*پوست در اين نقش بازي كند؟ او متوجه منظور ايراني ها نشده بود، هيچ ايرادي به بازي يك زن سياه پوست نيست، اما مسئله اين است كه چرا فيلمسازان، يك سياهپوست را براي بازي در نقش اسكندر تعيين نمي كنند. اسكندر كه در همه نقاشي*هاي سنتي اروپا با موي سياه تصوير شده است چرا بايد در فيلم موهاي پريشان و بور داشته باشد. اگر اين نژادپرستانه نيست، پس چيست؟ چرا اسكندر كه يونان را ويران كرد در فيلم براي افتخار يونان مي جنگد و شعارهاي سياسي امروزي مي دهد ؟ تمام اين موضوع سر اين است كه برتري تمدن يونان بر تمدن هاي باستاني ديگر بويژه شرق نشان داده شود. البته يونان نقش مهمي در تمدن بشري داشته و كسي منكر اين نقش نيست. درحالي كه نقش تمدن هاي ديگر به هيچوجه كمتر از تمدن يونان براي بشر نيست. اما تحريف تاريخ و لگدمال كردن هويت تمدن هاي ديگر براي بالا بردن تمدن يوناني كار غلطي است كه بايد در برابر آن ايستاد. حتي يوناني هاي امروز چنين افراطي فكر نمي كنند.

[Rasputin]

به اعتقاد اين متخصص دوره هخامنشي، اين دوره يكي از مهمترين و درخشان ترين دوره*هاي تاريخي ايران و جهان بود كه بيشتر از همه دوره*هاي تاريخي ديگر مورد حمله قرار مي*گيرد: « بيشترين بخش هويت ايران در دوره هخامنشي شكل گرفته است و اگر كسي در مورد هخامنشيان مطالعه كند و نقاط مثبت فراوان آن را بداند، درمي يابد كه نمي*شود آن را به راحتي كوبيد. در اين دوره افراد ملل مختلف بدون توجه به مليت و رنگ پوست در مشاغل گوناگون مشغول به كار بودند و حتي يوناني ها نيز مي توانستند تا سمت فرمانده ارتش ارتقا يابند. همه مردمان ايراني و غير ايراني نيز بدون تبعيض نژادي در كنار هم ميزيستند. به همين دليل هركسي كه مي خواهد به هويت ايراني حمله*كند، حمله خود را از اين دوره آغاز مي*كند كه بنيان تاريخ و هويت ايراني به شمار مي رود. هيچ كس به دوره اشكاني، ساساني، ساماني، صفوي يا هر دوره ديگر از تاريخ ايران نمي*تازد. ما تا اين قسمت از هويت تاريخي*مان را براساس پژوهش و مدارك مستند تاريخي محكم نكنيم و آن را در جهان ارائه نكنيم، هرمغرضي به آن حمله مي*كند و پس از آن نوبت به شاخصه هاي ديگر هويت ايراني مي رسد. »

رزمجو بخشي از ساخت چنين فيلم*هايي را ناشي از كم كاري ايرانيان در زمينه نمايش فرهنگ و تمدن خود مي*داند و معتقد است:« ما خودمان هم بايد از هويتمان حمايت كنيم. بايد جاي پاي خودمان را محكم كنيم و تمدن ايران را به خوبي آنگونه كه بوده معرفي كنيم. اما از كنار اين موضوعات بي*توجه مي*گذريم در صورتي كه بايد حساسيت داشته باشيم. تا به حال چند فيلم در حمايت از تاريخ خود در اين زمان ساخته ايم؟ درست زماني كه لازم بود، هيچ توجهي نكرديم. وقتي جاي موضوعي را خالي مي*گذاريم، ديگران مي*آيند و آن را با اطلاعات غلط پر مي*كنند. اين فيلم پيش از اين به صورت كميك استريپ چاپ شده بود. هيچ كسي آن را جدي نگرفت و به چاپ آن اعتراضي نكرد. يا اگر هم اعتراضي كرد، حمايت نشد. همين باعث شد تا همان كميك استريپ كوچك تبديل به يك فيلم سينمايي هاليوودي *شود تا در همه دنيا به نمايش در آيد. » به گفته وي :«در خود ايران كساني كه از فعاليت هاي داخلي براي معرفي درست و علمي اين دوره از تاريخ ايران حمايت نمي*كنند، در واقع به ساخت اين فيلم هاي توهين آميز عليه هويت ايراني كمك مي كنند.

رزمجو برگزاري نمايشگاه هخامنشي در موزه بريتانيا را در مقابل ساخت فيلم اسكندر حركت خوبي دانست كه تاثير مثبت و فراوان در روشن شدن افكار عمومي داشت:« نمايشگاهي كه اين قدر خوب كار مي*كرد، تا حدود زيادي تحت تاثير مشكلات اداري داخلي قرار گرفت و هر مطلبي كه در خارج از كشور منتشر مي*شد ناچار به اين مشكلات هم اشاره مي*كرد. اين مسائلي است كه خودمان پيش آورديم، پس چه طور انتظار داريم شاهد چنين دشمني هايي نباشيم. »

جنگ به تلافي آتش زدن شهر سارد
رزمجو در بخشي از اين گفتگو درباره نبرد ميان ايران و يونان در زمان هخامنشي توضيحاتي داد. او با رد مسائل تاريخي كه در فيلم 300 در مورد نبرد ترموپيل و رويارويي خشايارشا و لئونيداس پادشاه اسپارت؛ به نمايش در آمده است در مورد روايت واقعي تاريخي آن گفت:«ما در مورد اين جنگ هيچ مدركي به جز نوشته هرودوت و تكرار آن توسط مورخان بعدي نداريم. نبرد ترموپيل برخلاف اسطوره* سازي هاي يوناني*، نوشته هاي مورخان قرن نوزدهم و سپس فيلم سيصد ، نبردي سرنوشت ساز ميان شرق و غرب نبود. اگر چنين جنگي براستي رخ داده باشد، جنگ كوچكي بوده كه سر راه خشايارشا پيش آمده. اما يوناني*ها با اسطوره سازي آن را تبديل به يك نبرد بزرگ ميان بربريت شرق و تمدن غرب كردند. تنها سه روز معطل كردن سپاه ايران نيز كمكي به يوناني ها نمي كرد تا در اين فرصت اندك آماده مقابله با ايران شوند. هدف تصرف موقت آتن و مجازات آن بود كه آنهم بدون مشكل انجام شد.» وي افزود: افراد سپاه ايران تماما پارسي نبودند بلكه ملت هاي بسياري در اين لشگركشي بر ضد آتن شركت داشتند. اين، به طور نمادين گوياي اتحاد دسته جمعي در برابر دست اندازي ها و آتش افروزي هاي آتن از سوي جوامع متمدن آن روزگار بود.

وي نگاه منفي يوناني ها و مورخان اروپايي به تاريخ دوره هخامنشي را محدود به حمله خشايارشا به آتن ندانست:« مشكل ميان يونان و ايران از دوره قبل از خشايارشا آغاز شده بود. از زماني كه يوناني*ها متوجه شدند بازار*هاي تجاري آن ها در مصر و قبرس و آسياي صغير، زير سلطه ايران قرار گرفته تلاش كردند تا اين تسلط را با مشكل روبرو كنند. بخصوص چون دولتشهر آتن كه از وجود همسايه جديد نگران بود، به دنبال راهي براي تضعيف سلطه ايران بود. ايراني ها هيچ نياز و علاقه اي به گسترش قلمرو خود به يونان و جزاير آن را نداشتند.»

به گفته رزمجو: «آتني*ها مرتب سربازهايي به سرزمين*هاي تحت نفوذ ايران مي*فرستادند تا شورش بپا كنند. چنين تحريك هايي براي برقراري دموكراسي و آزادي انجام نمي گرفت و تنها مقاصد سلطه جويانه براي آتن داشت. آتني هايي كه به ايوني رفتند به همراه شورشيان مورد حمايتشان به شهر سارد هجوم بردند. سارد در آن زمان شهر مهمي در آسياي صغير بود. آتني ها اين شهر را سوزاندند، معابد را نابود كردند و جنگل مقدس آن را به آتش كشيدند. داريوش در مقابل چنين حركتي تصميم به تنبيه كساني مي گيرد كه به قلمرو ايران وارد شده و باعث شورش و ويراني و كشتار شده بودند. اين جنگ مسئله ميان ايران و آتن تلقي مي شد، يعني كل يونان مطرح نيست. زماني كه مي*روند تا سياستمداران آتن را تنبيه كنند، نبرد ماراتن پيش مي*آيد كه به نظر من آن هم يك جعل تاريخي است. نبرد ماراتن اگر براستي روي داده باشد، جنگ كوچكي براي جانشيني بوده ، تاكيد مي*كنم كه اين نبرد بسيار كوچك بوده براي اين كه يك نفر تحت حمايت ايران به آتن بازگردد و سياست خصمانه آتن را تغيير دهد. بقيه داستان نيز همچون دونده ماراتن نيز همان روش اسطوره سازي بدون مدرك است.»

وي با اشاره به اين كه در فيلم هيچ اشاره اي به دليل لشگركشي ايران به يونان و دخالت هاي نظامي آتن در ايران نمي شود، مي گويد: بعد از مرگ داريوش، خشايارشا تصميم داريوش در تنبيه آتن را دنبال كرد. او سفيراني براي مذاكره به يونان مي فرستد. در بيشتر شهرها سفيران را به خوبي مي پذيرند. اما در آتن و اسپارت با سفيران رفتاري غير انساني مي شود. در اسپارت آن ها سفراي ايراني را به درون چاه مي*اندازند و مي*كشند. كاري كه خلاف عرف ديپلماتيك آن زمان نيز بوده كه براي جان سفرا ارزش قائل بودند. با اين عمل صبر ايران تمام مي*شود و لشگر كشي مي*كنند.» متاسفانه در داستان فيلم، فرانك ميلر كشتن سفيران را كاري پسنديده و شجاعانه جلوه داده است و از اين كار احساس شرم نمي كند. چيزي كه در فيلم اصلا به آن اشاره اي نمي شود اينست كه در مقابل، خشايارشا سفيران اسپارتي را كه براي عذرخواهي كشتن سفيران ايران نزد او رفته اند، به انتقام سفيران خود نمي كشد. خشايارشا در پاسخ آنها مي گويد: »من نميخواهم با كشتن شما مانند اسپارتيها باشم. آنها با كشتن سفيران، قوانيني را كه ميان ملت ها محترم است نقض كردند، اما من با شما كاري ندارم و مانند شما رفتار نخواهم كرد. رفتار ها خيلي با هم فرق دارد، اما در اين فيلم حقايق و رفتار دو طرف كاملا وارونه به بيننده نشان داده شده.»
رزمجو با تاكيد بر اين كه اين نبرد ميان ايران و آتن بود، در مورد ورود اسپارت به اين جنگ معتقد است:« اسپارت تنها دولتشهري بود كه براي رقابتي كه با آتن داشت مي خواست خود را بيشتر در ميان يونانيان مطرح كند.

اين پژوهشگر دوره هخامنشي براساس اسناد تاريخي معتقد است علت اين كه كه اسپارتي*ها جلوي تنگه را مي*گيرند، بيشتر به دليل ترس از مجازات مردم اسپارت براي اعدام سفيران ايران بوده. اين ناشي از عدم شناخت يوناني ها از ايراني*ها است. در فيلم مي بينيم كه لئونيداس در روياي خود تسلط ايرانيان را برابر با بردگي و كشتار و سوزاندن تصور مي كند. « اما واقعيت درست خلاف اين بوده است. ايراني*ها اگر جايي را مي*گرفتند كشتار نمي*كردند و اجازه نمي دادند زندگي مردم آن سرزمين برهم بخورد. اين توهم اسپارتي*ها از ايراني*ها بود. مي بينيم كه پس از نبرد ترموپيل خشايارشا كاري با اسپارت ندارد و به سوي آتن پيشروي مي كند. اكنون فرانك ميلر و زك سنايدر با بي توجهي به مدارك تاريخي آن را وارونه نمايش مي دهند و قصد ايرانيان را تصرف يونان و به بردگي كشاندن مردم اروپا عنوان مي كنند.» واقعيت اين است كه مردم سرزمين هايي كه زير سلطه ايرانيان مي زيستند، آزادي بسيار داشتند در حالي كه در يونان چنين آزادي هايي وجود نداشت.