Spinoff: Iran Envy?
 

I hope this makes sense....

I have been noticing a lot of facebook statuses changing to say things like:

"...thinks it's crazy that Americans will protest in solidarity for democracy in Iran but sat by when Bush stole the election in 2000. I'm just saying....."


And other ideas that imply that America is too idle, and woo hoo look at the Iranians they are PROTESTING OMG WE SHOULD BE LIKE THEM.

Maybe I'm ignorant... but it's so not the same thing.

If this is being discussed in the other thread, I think we can forgive me for not reading it yet. :)

I don't know if that's Iran Envy.

I think that status isn't so much about admiring the Iranian protest, but instead criticizing the Americans who are speaking out about Iran and were complacent when people THOUGHT/THINK that Bush stole the 2000 election.

I can see how some would call that hypocritical. Similarly, some Americans do international poverty outreach when we have children and adults in America who are starving.

The difference is that many consider America to be on the higher end of the democracy (and economic) scale as compared to other nations. So, perceived injustice here will pale in comparison to injustice overseas to those Americans who think internationally.

I personally think it's more important to take care of our nation before caring about others' affairs. But, I also know that what happens in Iran will impact America politically, economically, etc.

^^^ I can dig it.

What I am gleaning from these updates is the same sort of sentiment among (certain) people of color I went to college with who would look back upon the 1960s and think that our entire generation was lost because we never had sit-ins or took over buildings.

The other thing at play is that some people with the Iran Envy weren't adults when Bush won in 2000 and don't have what I would consider a balanced view of the reactions.

I guess my take on it is that we collectively did what we could to fight Bush winning and stopped when it seemed futile (and even then, not everyone stopped).

Or maybe I'm just picking fights with people.

If I'm not mistaken, people did protest. Obviously no one was out shooting at them so it wasn't as newsworthy.

You're right that it's not a fair comparison. We had courts get involved and examine results at the very least -even though they seemed to ignore most of it. They don't have that type of system in Iran.

Those people are lazy and stuck in the past. I call them lazy because they'd rather sit around complaining than doing something about it.

I liken it to inactive and nonfinancial BGLOers who have complaints or talk about how things went downhill after 1990. Either build us a time machine or shut up and roll up your sleeves.

Those who weren't adults in 2000 shouldn't be taken too seriously. Their idea of outrage and protest is battling it out on the internetz.

The 2000 election was also interesting because it placed Gore in exile and made him look like a mountaineer. That's a much more powerful protest than any of us taxpayers could do.

I'd agree with that.

On a related topic, I also wish people would stop with the "Bush stole the 2000 election" arguments, as even at the time they were (at best) inaccurate. Nine years later, the argument shows a stunning disconnect from reality.

I haven't seen any of those updates from my Facebook friends; many of my friends are journalists, so most of the Facebook-related postings I've seen have had to do with the ways in which news has made its way out of the country through social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook.

ETA: I will say, though, that I've heard similar sentiments expressed whenever people show concern for an international news item, i.e. "If they're so concerned about X country, why aren't they concerned about the problems in the US?"

People hold onto stuff and are willing to believe anything that they think they're supposed to believe based on *dumb* party loyalty.

True - politics makes for long memories, even if those memories aren't accurate.

So, I take it none of you have been there or under the circumstances?

Sorry, this doesn't make sense in terms of the present conversation. What does this even mean?

Go away Tom.

It means that for some reason, the latest incarnation of Earp still hasn't been banned.

Ok, that's what I figured. Glad I wasn't too far off base.

I really like people who still harp on the 2000 election - it's self-selection for idiots!

I'm going to have to call the challenge flag on that one. Although only 13, I did pay very much attention to that election, as well as the one in 2004, where again I wasn't able to vote. My classmates and I DID do stuff, even though we weren't able to vote, like helping those who were register. When the election results came in, we DID protest on things other than the internet.

Another thing I would like to point out, and I may be opening a can of worms here, is all of those who are complaining about the most recent election. When we (democrats) put the "January 20, 2009, Bush's last day" stickers on our cars we were called out for being unpatriotic. Now, I see peoples stickers with "January 2013, end of an Error" stickers. Am I suppose to be calling them unpatriotic?

The things that are happening in Iran right now are terrible. Anyone that disagrees with me, well I'm sorry that you are that ignorant.


*ends wicked long rant*

Erm, yeah - good work? Anecdotes aren't my preferred method of "calling the challenge flag" (as it were) - but the point isn't that you specifically were incapable of doing such, just that the youngest generation is much more likely to use "new media" to reach out, whereas before you'd need a sit-in or whatever.

Has literally anyone on Earth who is not Basij said "the things happening in Iran right now are pretty much OK" or anything resembling disagreement with you? I mean, I'm all for a good idiot-wranglin' but you're really screaming into the wind here, aren't you?

You and your classmates were the minority. So, my generalization stands. :)

Arguably, the mode of social action has to change with the times.

My issue with it is that social action can sometimes become more of a fad than anything. The deceased student Nadea's image is circulating the internet as the image of young Iranian protest. There's even one of those drawn image thingies that folks created for Obama during the election (ya know, the annoying trendy fad Obama stuff that caught on).

I have no issue with it as long as it conveys a MESSAGE rather than relying on trendy imagery for young people who don't know what the hell is going on.

Ohh rude people never seem to amaze me, even on the internet.

I'm sorry but isn't this what every generation has said about the newest? The generation of my grandparents call my mothers generation the hippies who don't do action. My mothers generation is calling us lazy who only care about fashion and celebritys.

Please -- not that I heard anyone say those bumperstickers were "unpatriotic," but lots of "us" (Democrats) did not put those on our cars.

Who's being rude?

On a scale of one to ten, what would be the normal range for the intensity of one's ( likely emotional) reaction to the comparison of the 2000 US election and the situation today in Iran?

I'm wondering if my this-is-too-absurd-to-do-more-than-snort is normal.

Sorry I had to specify when I said us. I did not put one on my car, but a lot of my friends did, and got called unpatriotic for not supporting their president, the war, etc.

Ksig is being rude.

Quite normal, I think. As a yellow-dog (okay, a green dog) Democrat, it never occurred to me to compare the two events until someone mentioned it here.

Of course, while I might be a Democrat, I always thought the "Bush stole the election" claim was . . . irrational? . . . at best.

Huh? How?

Well, there's a certain amount of that for me although I can understand being frustrated with the whole Florida mess, particularly if you were a Gore fan. It wasn't an especially desirable way to resolve a US election, and it was going to seem sketchy no matter how the vote was resolved, sort of like the Coleman-Franken recount seemed to GOPers last fall.

But more than anything in regard to Senusret's OP, it's the failure to appreciate the differences in the whole process in both countries that kind of makes me dismissive of anyone who could seriously make that kind of claim.

Maybe I was reading too much into Ksigs post. I dunno, I was at work and reading fast. I also was not one of those democrats who was the with the whole "bush stole the election either". I get you.

Exactly. Frustration with the disaster that was Florida in 2000 (or the mess that Minnesota is now) is one thing. Conspiracy theories of stolen elections is another altogether. And as you say, we're talking about two very different processes/systems.

No.

I agree.

That's why I think a loose comparison can be made, at best, in that some Americans are interested in international affairs more than domestic affairs.

Here's the question, will the end result follow what happen in Indonesia, where the student movement were able to forced the dictator resigned. Or, will it follow China where the student movement was crushed?

My guess is that it'll mirror neither. I think the present protests will ultimately be crushed, but there are still a lot of people in the Iranian establishment who are trying to cash in on this revolutionary movement in improving their own political standing. I think that eventually those folks will find themselves in the majority and we'll see something of a quiet revolution.