Customer Reviews

The Iranians: Persia, Islam and the Soul of a Nation

5 star:		(14)
4 star:		(13)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

I started reading this book with an enormous amount of pleasure. At first I thought my God, this American woman has understood us Iranians better than we have understood ourselves. The chapter on Reza Shah I thought was spot on. Then there were a few minor mistakes, e.g. Mohammad Reza Shah dreaming Abbas Shah, should have been Hazrat Abbas, who is an entirely different character(pp254). This was not too important though and I think we can forgive a foreigner for that. As the history approached the 1979 uprisng, Khomeini's nationalism or his exploit of nationalism was mentioned too often. The book then describes his arrival and says(pp285) - 'As soon the aged Khomeini rose from his poignant act of kissing the Iranian soil...'! I can not remember him doing that but I think most Iranians would remember that he was asked on the plane by a journalist on how he feels returning back to his country after 15 years and he replied without any emotion 'Nothing' !. An important statement which is not mentioned in the book.

Other examples I can give is how Sandra Mackey in her footnote on pp(286) says 'Shapur Bakhtiar was assassinated in Paris by unknown assailants...'. At this point I had to shelf the book. Perhaps she should have visited Vakili-rad and Hendi in the French jails, before France let Hendi go back to Iran, half way through his sentence in return for a petti contract.

If I was to recommend the book, I would say read the first 200 pages or so, after that be careful of what information you are given.

Mackey has written an excellent book in terms of historical facts and detailed accounts of Iran's past. However, her analysis and commentary on Iranian identity leaves much to be desired. She attempts to provide a modern perspective of Iran through discussing its long past, yet it seems to me that Mackey seems bent on forming an all-inclusive idea of what being "Iranian" is. That simply is not possible. Given the long history, incredible diversity, and complexity of the subject (which the author notes), the only way that one could present formula of "Iranianism" is by making many generalizations, which abound in this book. How else could one fit some 2500 years of history into 400 or so pages? All in all, it is a great introduction to Iran and a well-written, engaging book. My advice to readers: take Mackey's conclusions about why Iranians are the way they are with a grain of salt; this is not an academic book but rather, popular reading.

This is a strange book. In its first part it offers a fast reading of the long history of Iranian peoples ( yes, in plural because the Iranian family is broader than is normally assumed), often based on already existing books. In the second part the writer poses as philosopher, ethnologist, sociologist, psychologist and literary critic and, above all, historian. She divided Iran's contemporary history into three neat categories: nationalism, monarchism and Islamism. The book is marred by factual errors that more dilligent editing would have detected and corrected. What is more serious, however, is the fictitious assertions the author makes. For example, she presents the late Ayatollah Khomeini as an Iranian nationalist who supposedly kissed the Persian soil on his return from exile. Such a move would have been anathema to Khmeini who regardsed nationalism as a form of idolatry. In fact, Khomeini banned the word " mellat" ( nation in Persian) and replaced it with " umma", an Arabic word which dentoes the religious community. Khomeini was a pan-Islamist who rejected the Western notion of nationalism. This is why he abolished the Iranian national emblem of lion and sun which symbolised a synthesis of ancient Iran ( represented by the sun) and Shiite Muslim Iran represented by the lion which recalls Imam Ali Ibn Abi-Taleb. In other words Khomeini wanted to go even beyond Shiism in order to promote himslef as leader of a pan-Islamist movement. When it comes to an analysis of political events in the past 50 years or so,The author repeats the cliches that have been in circulation for decades. A serious history of the Iranian peoples remains to be written. And when it is Ms MacKay's book would be useful in telling the historian what not to do. AN UNHAPPY READER

The Iranians : Persia, Islam and the Soul of a Nation by Sandra MacKey is in the tradition of nineteenth century European orientalism at its worst. The book is so ill-informed as to be contemptable. To illustrate this let us examine McKey's attitude toward gender relations in Persian culture. Ms McKey compares ancient Iranian traditions with late twentieth century European societies and by doing so shows her ignorance of her own heritage as well as that of Iran's. Patriarchy is shown as the exclusive reserve of Persian culture, giving the impression that Europe has always been as enlightened as it reports to be. In Roman society women were little more than objects of entertainment for the amusement of males. In ancient Greece, in contrast to Persia, very few women amassed significant power as Atossa the Achaemenian queen did. In fact the Greeks had contempt for the effeminate nature of Persian culture that allowed too much power to be accrued by the female gender. The Jews also noted the 'fool-hardy' attitude of Persian women by contrasting the defiance of Queen Vashti with the placidity of Esther. In the book of Esther an offical who is versed in the tradition of the Assyro-Babylonian traditions reprimands the king for being too lax on his queen. Ms Mckey reveals her simplistic view of Persian culture in an amusing attempt to link veiling to Cyrus the great. This is partly because she is of the belief that Persian culture begins with Cyrus. The fact is Persian culture was already thousands of years old before Cyrus. She should read Yasna of seven chapters to realise that in the traditional Persian culture, as far back as 2000 BC, women were agents of choice and that the Zoroastrian faith regarded them as spiritually equal to males. Harems in the Achaemenian empire were instituted by Kings emulating the traditions of their more affluent neighbours. Did not the Assyrians and Babylonians have harems? And later the Romans, the Byzantines... all had harems. The large domestic staff of English gentry had sexual purposes as well. After the first world war the much diminshed staff of English properties competently managed what ten times their numbers were employed to do previously. Polygamy is and has been widespread and Iranians on average are one of the most monogamous people in the world today. The hypocrisy of a member of the culture that promote philandering and polygamy is obvious. It is true that males and females frequent different circles in Iran and that Persepolis depicting the military might of Persia and the subordination of other nation only depicts males. However McKey should enlarge her knowledge by acquainting herself with the vast body of Persian iconography that more than adequately depicts the participation of women in Persian politics and society. Ms McKey is an ill-informed orientalist that having had written a few books on Arab culture is of the belief that she can make the leap to Persian culture. She should start by reading the most basic books regarding Iranology before she attempting another disasterous book. I recommend, the Avesta, the Shahnameh, the Cambridge History of Iran and the Goldden Age of Persia. Her book is an insult to the work of serious scholars in this field like Peter Avery, N. G Frye and Ehsan Yar Shatter. Her book will be added to the list of books like "not without my daughter" that illustrate the extreme racism against Iranians in the late twentieth century.

Ms. Mackey has written a decent popular overview of Iranian history that is hampered by certain limitations of focus and technique.

As the title suggests, she frames that history as an almost continuous tension between a Persian identity with a 2,500 year heritage and the later influence of Islam. As with most "grand theme" histories, she's forced to simplify the elements of the theme (reducing Persian culture and Shia Islam to a few key elements) and squeeze a complex history into this framework. Such an approach lends coherence to the book, but results in elimination of many influences and trends that would round out our view of the Iranians and their history.

For instance, I was hoping she'd delved more deeply into the various tribes whichare eoncompassed by modern Iran. She suggests that frequent tribal unrest occurred over the last 100 years, but gives us no idea of the possible competing interests and worldview of these groups.

Similarly, we get a very sketchy idea of economic history except the suggestion that resources have not been fairly divided in Iran for most of its history. Economic factors frequently can be directly related to revolutionary activity, but we find only hints of this from Mackey. There are other threads I wish she had taken up as well.

What we do get is a decently written trip through 2,500 years of history which hits most of the key figures and events without really delving into anything terribly deeply. The book devotes more pages as we reach modernity, but the yoke of her thesis keeps Mackey from generating a broad picture of even the 20th century. Overall, not a painful way to approach the subject, but not really satisying for anyone wanting a really in-depth history of the subject. Read it, and then read on.

Finally, a word to some of the criticism voiced below. First, Mackey doesn't strike me as terribly "orientalist," merely shallow. She seems generally sympathetic to her subjects but she doesn't really get under their skin. Her sympathy serves her especially well towards the end where she succeeds in reducing the demonization of the Iranians by modern America.

Those who suggest that she paints Persian culture in a bad light by, among other things, overemphasizing patriarchalism and failing to compare it to similar attitudes in ancient Greece and Rome seem to me to just have an axe to grind. Had this book been published by a university press and presented itself as a scholarly book, I might have agreed. But, this is clearly meant as a general POPULAR history, so those who expected more shouldn't have been surprised.

Lastly, I can't speak to the factual mistakes some people cite, but I can say that since I would only consider this an introduction to the subject at best, further reading ought to clarify any ambiguities.

Today, with the cultural pendulum seemingly going full swing away from Islamic Iran towards Persian Iran, I thought I should spend a weekend recapping my knowledge of Persian Culture and Shia religion. What is in the first 1/3 of the book is, I believe, an accurate reflection of both.

I found fault in the second third of the book in just one area. The author has a difficulty or inability to say that Shah Mohammed Reza did any good at all! She begrudgingly acknowledges his liberal policies, though gives credit to the US government for them, and makes the last 2 decades of Pahlavi reign seem like the last 9 months, namely a regime with a dying icon and a crisis of leadership.

It all became clear reading the last third of the book. The author must have some personal relationship with the offices of Rafsanjani / Khatami, and is whistling their tune. The mood on the street at the time the book was written may have given the "farr" to the moderate Rafsanjani, but he has since been discredited for his secret murder campaigns. The mood at the time the after-word was written may have been in favor of the moderate Khatami, but that is changing also, after the cheating and duplicity (good cop, bad cop games) of all the leadership of the Islamic Republic has becomes apparent.

In promoting the Islamic Reformist camp, the author is obliged to write in a way that suggest the path taken in the Islamic revolution, being a reaction to Pahlavi rule and Western monkey business, was inevitable. This false premise leads one to think the current status-quo is inevitable and should be respected, and further assisted.

In any case it is a good book all in all. Here are a few minor factual errors that the author might want to change in future re-prints: (p175) he ranked as the largest landowner - wrong the government became largest landowner. (p224) it's publication gave Khomeini status of Ayatollah - very wrong, he became Ayatollah after recommendation by clerics as a technical solution to prevent his execution at the instigation of Pakravan (ex-head of SAVAK) (p242) historically, Iranian side of Shatt Al-Arab marked Iran-Iraq border. Not historically, only since the British drew the line half a century earlier. (p255) man who commanded no authority other than military/SAVAK. Wrong and deceitful. This is what the revolutionaries keep telling us. The strength of public support for the Shah in the 1960's and early 70's was visibly no less than that for Khomeini in 1979 or Mossadeg in 1953. Policies that lead to this change in popularity is the key to Iranian character and cultural identity that I was hoping to read about. (p261) Showy, empty development projects. What's that suppose to mean? 20 nuclear reactors, largest petrochemical industry in world, largest steel furnaces in the world, industrial-military complex, all this basic infrastructure and growth in excess of Malaysia/South Korea is empty development? (p286) Bakhtiar assassinated by unknown assailants. Wrong they were very well known and linked with Rafsanjani, the authors friend it seems.(p299) flag of Pahlavi Iran. Wrong, Pahlavi's had no flag of their own. (p346) Yasser road is one mile up, not down from Niavaran.

MacKey's history of Iran is a fine introduction for those wishing to learn more about this often misrepresented society. While her representation of Iranian society as a duality between Islamic and Persian culture is somewhat simplistic, it should nonetheless help readers to understand that there is a great deal more to Iran than militant Islam. The Iranians is well written and accessible. Even though at times Mackey tends to over-romanticize Iranian history and culture, this work does provide an antidote to the current demonizations that persist in many Americans' view of Iran.

This book is the epitome of modern orientalism. As one rater has mentioned before me " the writer poses as philosopher, ethnologist, sociologist, psychologist and literary critic and, above all, historian" - and indeed Mackey does overstep her bounds. I do not mean to say that a single author should not even attempt to dabble in all these areas, but instead, that in this instance they have painted a highly reductionst picture. Yet what really quilifies it as oreintalism is the fact that in this process of reductionism, many cliches and common stereotypes of these people and thier situation, that exist in the American perceptions especially, are reiterated. E.g (1) she continually portrays the iranians as "aslways willing to learn" and extremely adaptible by pointing out thier supposedly innate eagerness to adpot foriegn ways...which peoples or culture (especially after having been conquered - and this is the situation that serves as the background for almost all of her 'examples') throught extended periods of time don't? (2) She draws the tired line between 'cultured iranians' and 'religous arabs', wherein a seemingly endless rift exists between the two, and the former not only allowed for the golden age of 'Islam', but also has had to endure or 'deal' with the other. Indeed these two notions have some merrit to them...but reverse them both and they will still have merrit.

Further more, the author represents arabs and islam as not only synonymous but in an extremely bad light, and even wrties at one point that a sort of consensus exists that arabs have their 'religion' and Iranians have thier 'culture'. (My applogies for failing to find the exact quote.I think it comes in chap 12) It must be reiterated, that by spreading her resources EXTREMEMLY thin, Mackey effectively compartmentalizes Iranain and Arab, (both of which can only be treated as general terms), into neat and precise little personalities that are and have been essentially the same for millenia. Of course it comes as no surprise that this book is written in a time when 'cultured' Americans or whoever, are 'dealing with' a volitile 'Arab World'.

On a more practical note, (and thus all the more revealing), i urge the reader to pay attention to chap 4 'Faces of authority: father, king, anf cleric'...how many ridiclously sweeping statements does the author make? Besides simply STATING the most fundamental aspects of 'The Iranian Family', what are her methodologies? Is it only coincidence that her banal depiction of the Iranain authoriatrian character can be perfectly superimposed on the ancient Greek propoganda of 'The Persian', brought to you by influential Greek writers that have made their way down to today as 'the father of history' for example? To get to the point: if a reader can relate to the bounty of generalizations that MacKey provides, it's not because of her empiricall methodologies - she has none - it's because they are actually recalling already existing cliches regarding the Persian or oriental that are quite prevalent in their society's history of representing this 'other'.And these banal depictions are anything but untainted.

Though i can take the author to task on many many more issues both minor and major, i cannot end this little essay without underlining the significance of context. What other works has this author produced? - "The Saudis", "Passions and Politics:the turbulent world of the Arabs" etc. She is an American Journalist...what is the position of that country towards the Middle East and why? And of course while her journalism is perfected enough that she may single-handedly 'capture the essence' so to speak, of both the Iranians and the Saudis, i wonder - can she speak Farsi or Arabic? And even more revealing: i wonder how serious someone would be taken if they write a book discussing 'the sole' of America or the UK without being literate in English?

I thought "The Iranians" was informative, fact-filled, and fair. Sandra Mackey clearly knows Iran and writes with a lot of authority. Overall, the book provided exactly what I wanted: a balanced and very valuable summary of the history and culture of Iran.
"The Iranians" approaches its subject primarily by means of historical narrative. From Zoroaster to Xerxes and Khomeini to Khatami, the account is mainly factual and descriptive. However, Mackey also intersperses her own personal experiences in Iran, and she is not timid about drawing conclusions or stating opinions. For example, she describes with equal candor the follies of the British, the Americans, and yes, the Iranians themselves. This is sure to offend some people, as any 400-page summary of one of the world's great civilizations inevitably will.
My one major complaint about "The Iranians" is that it could have been edited better. The writing is generally very good, and the book is filled with relevant facts and perceptive observations. But it is choppy and repetitive at times. A second edition would be great, slimmed by 50 pages, and with maps that tie better to the text!
Living in southern California, it's been interesting to get to know some of the many Persian emigres here. They hold contradictory views on many subjects, except when it comes to the uniqueness and historical importance of their country. I know a few things about the world's other major civilizations, and I'm old enough to remember clearly the hostage crisis at the U.S. embassy. But I knew very little else about Iran, and was looking for a good one-volume introduction.
I started with Elaine Sciolino's book "Persian Mirrors." This is an excellent description of Iranians as people, and of life in the Islamic Republic. Sciolino is quite a story-teller, and she clearly likes Iranians, without fawning. Yet though she often refers to events in Iranian history, "Persian Mirrors" cannot really stand as history itself. So I felt I needed another book to fill in the background. "The Iranians" does just that. The two books were quite complementary.

I found this book an excellent summarized review of iran history and revolution. I am now a US citizen but escaped from Iran 3 years after the revolution. I have lived through the Shah's era and his idea of great civilization, the revolution and the war. I started reading this book with skepticism at first. However, shortly after reading the first couple of chapters, I realized that the author has depicted the Iran history and revolution very well and to my opinion, very acurate. Even though she had to eventually interpret the situations and make conclusions, those are overall very close to the truth from a cultural and political standpoint as far as I am concerned. I believe those represents a realistic and factual interpretation of Iran culture and politics overall. I have to admit that I was very impressed by the depth of her understanding specially for a foreign author. Maybe that was her advantage since she had to look at all facts realistically with no legacy bindings to any cultural or political parties in Iran. I would highly recommend this book as a must read for Iranians who have an open mind and foreigners who would like to understand the country beyond the streotypes.

I believe two groups of Iranian people would not like the conclusions and comments in the book. The first group is the last regime's proponents including all those that got anywhere under the shah's corrupt police state. The second group are the current die-hard proponents of Velaiat-e-Faghih (Supreme Leader) as a means of governing. These groups are the two extremes of Iranian politics and culture that are both against democracy and have got used to dictatorship way of governing. Both naturally have a lot banked on their relationship with the ruling parties either Shah or the Status quo and will protect it as they have shown with the most brutal ways of suppression.

That leaves a big majority of Iranians and foreigners that will enjoy reading this book to get a realistic point of view apart from extremism. Highly recommended.