Dedicated to classics and hits.

Thursday, May 26, 2011

Empire of the Mind: A History of Iran

Empire of The Mind
A History of Iran
by Michael Axworthy
p. 2008
Basic Books

   Considering the frequency with which the topic of Iran appears in the mass media, it is perhaps surprising that there aren't more books written on Iranian history.  Perhaps it's because few Americans learn Farsi, or maybe it's because Western/Iranian relations have been a non-stop roller coaster of disaster and missed opportunities for the last hundred years, or maybe it's because Americans don't understand the common linguistic heritage with share with Iranians.  Who knows?  But I am of the opinion that our current differences with Iran are largely grounded on ignorance and misunderstanding, and any attempts to rectify current issues must be preceded by a higher degree of mutual appreciation.

     Looking for an affordable, one volume history of Iran led me to Axworthy's Empire of the Mind- clocking in at 290 pages, Empire of the Mind gives the reader a good jumping off point, but doesn't get to heavy into any particular debate.  The first thing to keep in mind is that Iran really has two histories.  The first is everything before the Arab invasion and Islamization of Greater Iran, the second period is after.  The Arab Muslims conquered the area of Iran, and sporadic attempts by the Shah to revive a sense of pre-Islamic Persianism, wiped out the widespread appreciation for all things pre-Islamic.  Thus, while the pre-Islamic history of Iran is fascinating, it's not really relevant, since no one gives a shit, including the Iranians, today.  Today, Iran is an Islamic society, defined by Shiaism, though heir to a cultural history that includes amazing poetry, advanced science and linguistics as well as it's own tradition of written history.

         Understanding modern Iran requires keeping a thumbnail sketch of the Shia Islam religion in mind.  This split didn't have anything to do with the Persian/Arab ethnic divide- it involved a dispute concerning the successor to Mohamed, but as it turned out, greater Iran and Persian speaking people became the majority of the Shias.  The bottom line is that the Shias are the perpetual underdog and base their entire identity on funeral procession type remembrances of their "murdered prophet."  They also basically created higher education and have nurtured an independent intellectual tradition in a troubled, troubled environment for a thousand years before actually TAKING OVER THE COUNTRY in the mid 1970s.  So, Shiaism is a STRONG cultural tradition that is a blend of a particular kind of Islam AND a pre-existing tradition of Iranian higher education.  There was also a related but separate tradition of Sufism, which was characterized by a fascination with mysticism.  It is one of the peculiarities of the current Iranian regime that their founder, Ayatollah Khomenhi, was a disciple of some of the Sufi inspired mystic thought that has made it's way into the Shai scholarly tradition.

      Outside of Shia Islam, and it's peculiar role in the Iranian environment is the catastrophe of the the early modern period in Iran, namely the 18th and 19th century.  After the Arab/Muslim conquest, Iran was pretty mellow until Genghis Khan rolled through: he hit Iran HARD.  Once the Mongols abated, Turks took over, but they were Turks who were "under the influence" of Persian culture, and thus provided a relatively stable security environment, basically having border spats with the Ottomans in the greater "Mesopotamia" area next door.

    The 18th and 19th centuries are what you call "lost years" for Iran.  While Western countries were industrializing and "westernizing" generally speaking, Iran was lost in a 200 year haze of civil war.  First, the Afghanis invaded the Iranian heartland (1719)  These are the same Afghani Pashtun tribesmen that are fighting Americans in Afghanistan today.  By 1730, the Afghanis had been beaten out by a Turkish/Persian General, Nader Shah.  Shah comes off as a neglected hero, an Iranian counterpart to Napoleon.  Nader Shah's poly-ethnic army disintegrated upon his death and his crowning triumph became Irans nightmare for the rest of the century.

   In a scenario that sounds familiar of Western encounters with non-Western countries/empires, the West just happened to roll in after the end of this century of misery.  They didn't really understand that was the case, and this accounts for some of the racist theorizing that started to be disseminated about "Asian Despots" in this period within the West.  As the 19th century moved forward, Iran experienced the worst Western Diplomacy had to offer as the object of the oft-written about "Great Game" between Russia and Great Britain with Central Asia and Iran the object.  Surely, an Iranian scholar drawing his conclusions about Western Nations from their conduct in Iran in the 19th century could be FORGIVEN for thinking that we are bunch of lying thieves.

  The 20th century was just as bad,  there was a division of Iran into "zones of influence" around the time of World War I, followed by an out-right occupation by the Allies in World War II, with another three way division of "areas of influence," a lop-sided oil development contract with Anglo Iranian Petroleum AND- AND- the concerted effort by all concerned Western nations to PREVENT infrastructure from being developed, in terms of railroads, paved roads, etc.

  So perhaps we should all be a little more sympathetic to our enemy in this regard.  Clearly, they have grounds to be upset, set on top of a non-Western history that itself was pretty disastrous in more recent centuries.   It's a testament to the strength of the Iranian "empire of the mind" that it has endured despite all that hardship, certainly to compare Iran to failed states like Afghanistan or reclusive dictatorships like Turkimenistan is to compare horse to a pony.

  My opinion is that our attempts to solve the problems of countries like Afghanistan and Iran are hampered by our inabilities to actually understand the problems they face there.  Maybe if we did a better job of understanding their history, we'd spend less money and fewer United States soldiers would die.

  

This Blog is Five Years Old: Its History in 25 Headlines

    This blog turned five years old, unnoticed in the middle May.  It seems like an appropriate time to reflect.

    When it comes to past events, all the participant can do is say "this happened."  I've already done a BUNCH of culling of old posts, so that the material I was pulling from was already "highlights."  There is a clear progression between the beginning of this blog in 2006, and the San Diego Fires of October 2007.  Although I continued to blog between October 2007 and mid 2008, the posts were unfocused.  As far as this blog goes, 2008 was a low point, easing into 2009.  The Wavves show review published on 4/20/09 was when I came "back" rediscovering a passion for local music through a new group of Southern California based artists.

      The period of summer and early fall in 2009 was certainly the artistic high point of the five year period covered here.  Within the period of three months, the Crocodiles started playing with a full band, Dum Dum Girls began playing live shows, Best Coast and Pearl Harbor were still accessible- it was a "golden age."  I think, with the sole exception of the Dirty Beaches Show Review in April of 2010, that this blog was spent as a source of information on the local music scene from January 2010 to the present. Although I edited them out, there were a couple of in public temper tantrums that seem to go with regular writing about a subject you are passionate about- perils of the net.  I have noticed that it is not true that something on the internet is "forever," to give a blog related example, the only "Cat Dirt Records" logo used to be on the mast head of this blog and since I deleted it, you can't find another version on the web.

       There is a clear shift of focus and movement away attending live music events and talking about live music and a general diminishing of "relevance" to any possible readership and I expect that to continue.  You could say that five years represents a natural stopping point, but I think as long as you edit the old posts down to a manageable size and number you can keep it going forever.

THIS BLOG'S HISTORY IN 25 HEADLINES: 2006-Present

The Extra Long Cat Dirt Weekender: Or There's A Holiday on Monday? (published 5/26/06)
Show Review: Cat Dirt Records Presents Chicken! w/ Fifty on Their Heels, The Power Chords, Atoms (6/18/06)
Los Angeles: 1955-1985 n'aissance de un capitale artistique 6/29/06 @ The Centre Pompidou PARIS, FRANCE  (7/12/06)

Show Review: Golden Hill Block Party (10/29/06)
A Frank Assessment of Cat Dirt's All Ages Show Efforts (10/29/06)
Cat Dirt Sez Welcomes: San Diego: Dialed In (11/07/06)

The Artist and His Role in the Production of Mass Culture (1/17/07) (LINK)
Show Review: Fifty On Their Heels, The Muslims, New Motherfuckers & The Corvinas @ the Che Cafe (5/6/07) (LINK)
Tonight: Skull Cat Kontrol at Beauty Bar (7/7/07) (LINK)

Sessions Fest Photo Gallery (9/16/07) (LINK)
San Diego Fire Photos (10/24/07) (LINK)

The Over Saturation of Local Music Coverage EX. A. San Diego City Beats "OB24" (7/9/08)(LINK)
Show Review: Crocodiles at the Casbah (8/17/08) (LINK)
Just Call Them "Hipster McDouche" (8/21/08)(LINK)

Show Review: Wavves at the Echo (4/20/09)(LINK)
"New" Band Alert: Best Coast (4/30/09)(LINK)
New York Times Loves Crocodiles (5/4/09)(LINK)

The Limits of Amateur Music Enthusiasts (6/11/09)(LINK)
Show Review: Pearl Harbor, Best Coast, Beaters (7/19/09)(LINK)
Local Music Scenes and Interaction Rituals (6/11/09)(LINK)
Show Review:  Dum Dum Girls, Crocodiles *full band*, Best Coast, Pearl Harbor @ The Che Cafe (10/3/09)

The Art of the Renaissance and the Market for Popular Culture (1/10/10)(LINK)
Show Review: Dirty Beaches & Jeans Wilder @ The Whistle Stop (4/1/10)(LINK)
Culture of Hits (5/10/10)(LINK)

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

All About Ostrogoths

BOOK REVIEW
A History Of the Ostrogoths
by Thomas Burns
p. 1984
Indiana University Press

   The Ostrogoths are best known for being the briefly in charge of the Italian part of the formerly Roman Empire in the very "Dark Ages" in the 5th and 6th century AD.  They were eventually dispatched by the Greek-led Byzantine army in the mid 6th century, and they left little behind except a well known Gothic language Bible that has become a cornerstone of Indo-European comparative linguistics.

  The Ostrogoths are often compared to their better known cousins, the Visigoths- the Visigoths were the conquerors of Spain until the Muslims wiped them out after the Ostrogoths lost Italy to the Eastern Roman Empire.  If you look at a chart comparing the various branches of the Germanic language family (which includes English, yeah?) the Ostrogoths are in the "Eastern Germanic" branch.  By Eastern Germanic linguists are not referring to the 20th century East Germany, rather the Goths had their roots in the Steppes of Russia.  The general consensus is that they came west as part of the Hunnic armies, and probably first entered the Roman Empire during the great western raids Attila of the Hun.

  After the Hunnic Emprie collapsed, the Ostrogoths perambulated about the Balkans, unable to settle down and farm (which is what they probably wanted to do) until their great leader Theodoric (one of several Gothic Theodorics who were running around at the same time.)  Theodoric managed to unite a bunch of related Gothic tribes into the "Ostrogoths" and they stormed into the Italian peninsula, eventually establishing their capital in Ravena.  The Ostrogoths settled inside of Italy, and Theodoric spent the next thirty ish years (490 AD-526 AD) trying to establish the kind of Indo-European Kingdom that is familiar to readers of the Rig Veda: a military elite ruling over a pre-existing domestic population.  Theodoric was mostly a failure in this regard, but the fact that the conquered peoples were in the heartland of the Roman Empire means that we know a fair deal about Theodoric, his empire and Gothic society.

   One of the main points that Burns makes is that the Ostrogoths were uncomfortable with what we moderns call "institutions."  Loyalty to government was family and personality based: Most often both attributes needed to be embodied in a single individual for Ostrogothic government to actually exist in any substantial form.   The Ostrogoths practiced the Germanic/Indo-European custom known as Comitatus, wherein a leader is supported by a small group of warriors (King Arthur and his Knights of the Round Table is an English remnant of the larger Germanic concept.)  These Warriors were bound to the LEADER, not to the "state" or "nation."  Such was their loyalty that the death of the Leader meant the death of the remaining members of the Comitatus.

    The Comitatus was remarkably successful both inside and outside Indo-European speaking traditions.  For example, the Mamalukes of the Ottoman Empire (a Turkish speaking state) were as pure an example of Comitatus as any Indo European version.  Another example is the so-called "Slave Empire" of the Mughals.(another Turkish speaking group)  The Mughal Empire was called the "slave empire" because the Mughals had been in the Comitatus of the Persian speaking armies of Islam during their conquest of Central Asia.

  The Establishment of Ostrogothic rule in Italy is one of the better documented transitions from "barbarian" Indo European traditions to the "civilized" Mediterranean/Greek/Roman model of government.  Unfortunately, this book does little to explore that interesting development, being content to lay out the history, customs & culture of Ostrogoths in more or less conventional fashion.  Honestly though, I couldn't find anything better. Not written in English, anyway.

Monday, May 23, 2011

BUCK OWENS AND THE BAKERSFIELD SOUND


          


         His signature style was based on simple storylines, infectious choruses, a twangy electric guitar, an insistent rhythm supplied by a drum track placed forward in the mix, and high two-part harmonies featuring Owens and his guitarist Don Rich


       Buck Owens, was an American singer and guitarist who had 21 No. 1 hits on the Billboard country music charts with his band, the Buckaroos. His highest rank on the Pop Chart came in 1966, with Waitin' in the Welfare Line. In that year he had FIVE NUMBER ONE HITS on the Billboard Country Music Chart.  FIVE.


    Definition of the "Bakersfield Sound":

      The Bakersfield sound was a genre of country music developed in the mid- to late 1950s in and around Bakersfield, California. The many hit singles were largely produced by Capital Records country music head, Ken Nelson.  Bakersfield country was a reaction against the slickly produced, string orchestra-laden Nashville sound, which was becoming popular in the late 1950s. Buck Owens and the Buckaroos and Merle Haggard and the Strangers are the most successful artists of the original Bakersfield sound era. (WIKIPEDIA)

Blog Archive