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!