@@hans7686 Honestly Ali Ansari is a funny one to me because of his familial ties to the Pahlavis and his intellectual obsession with writing about the family dynasty (his analyses generally have the unfortunate tendency to focus on the Pahlavis and Pahlavi state building, while Literally Every Other Object Or Category Of Analysis In Society takes a backseat)
Yeah, very British lecture: "we (Britain) are the torch of freedom", "we came to Iran to offer a liberal society to those poor savages". No need for him to mention that once it became expedient for the British Empire and its shareholders to establish an absolut monarch (Shah in 1953), they quickly forgot some necessity of parliamentarian democracy. And it was a British project (supervised by Norman Derbyshire, a role of Kermit Roosevelt was very minor). Should I believe that around 1906 and years before the Empire was different? :-D They do the same still today! Also the idea that Iranians were going (sounds from him like) exclusively to Britain to get some sense of modernity and (liberal) democracy, and not for example to Paris, is not so much convincing to me. I am not certainly an expert on Iranian intellectuals of that time (before and around 1906), but as I do remember interviews with Iranian politicians from the end of 1970s they were quite frequently talking in French. And there has to be some reason for that, some educational background. Esmail Momtaz od-Dowleh, the actual writer of the Persian Constitution of 1906, was fluent in French and able to copy extracts lifted from the Belgian constitution, Mosaddegh was studying in France, ...
The British empire was extremely influential, as were other empires, like the Roman or the Chinese. Many countries emulated Britain in the 19th century, including European countries, which insituted various forms of parliamentary government and sought to industrialize. Denying facts just because you don't like them is not history.
It's interesting how often folks confuse ONE ideology with unanimous thought. New ideas were indeed circulating in Europe in the 19th century, but these were mixed with older ideas and different new ideas than many look back on and choose to see in isolation. A look at Russia's struggle to determine its government institutions during 1800 - 2000 shows the wildest swings. Diversity is always lurking.
BUT "IRAN" DIDN'T EXIST IN 1906 !!!!!! And the PERSIAN oil company was bought from the Shah of Persia by the "British Empire" when it gained control of 51% of its shares in 1914. In 1954 the British Government renamed the Company British Petroleum (BP), a name it still uses today, although it is now a Public Limited Company (Plc).
How can you say that? Just because he quotes some British people to provide some colour to the lecture? That's not how it works. A lecture like this is based on a huge amount of research, but you can't understand what his sources are unless he provides a bibliography.
After 3 centuries of domination over India and starvation to death of 165 Million Indians while Britain was stealing natural resources of India, you express surprise that Iranians came to British Embassy for help?! Britain was not exactly benevolent to Iranians then. On the contrary, Iranians kept paying Britain every penny you lent Iranians, with interest. In fact, Britain had assumed the role of present day IMF with huge interest leveed on Persian King. Ahmad shah was the last Ghajar King that borrowed money to visit England. Britain's hands were just as dirty as the French and Russians were. Of course later on when Oil was discovered in Iran, British avarice increased many folds more. Ultimately, Britain, in association with their now American Lords in Washington, they managed to foment a coup d'etat against Prime minister Mossadegh and deposed him and sent him to his farm on House Arrest till his death. You play fast and loose with History in your zeal to present England as beneficent and fair whereas the truth lies on the side of Avarice of USA and Britain for cheep Iranian oil and your mutual vilification of Russia,. Britain's former ally who SAVED BRITAIN BY THE SACRIFICE OF SEEING 24 MILLION RUSSIANS DEAD BY THJE END OF WW2. BRITAIN'S AND AMERICAN HATRED OF RUSSIA HAS CONTINUED TO THIS DATE.
Nice to see Ali Ansari!
Iran has the misfortune to have Petroleum which apparently belongs to the West, and not to the Iranian people.
“Why is our oil under their sand?”
- placard seen at a protest in Washington DC.
Why is the transcription so...funny. I thought it was machine transcribed but it seems an actual human did these? Wild.
Aww I've listened to most of it already without the subtitles... Do you remember which bits were the funniest?
@@hans7686 Babis (the Islamic sect followers) are exclusively referred to as Barbies (the American fashion doll) in the subtitles!!
@@travis7573 😂
@@hans7686 Honestly Ali Ansari is a funny one to me because of his familial ties to the Pahlavis and his intellectual obsession with writing about the family dynasty (his analyses generally have the unfortunate tendency to focus on the Pahlavis and Pahlavi state building, while Literally Every Other Object Or Category Of Analysis In Society takes a backseat)
51:50 the bahi problem _JC
Great presentation. We in the US need to better understand that part of the world.
Yeah, very British lecture: "we (Britain) are the torch of freedom", "we came to Iran to offer a liberal society to those poor savages". No need for him to mention that once it became expedient for the British Empire and its shareholders to establish an absolut monarch (Shah in 1953), they quickly forgot some necessity of parliamentarian democracy. And it was a British project (supervised by Norman Derbyshire, a role of Kermit Roosevelt was very minor). Should I believe that around 1906 and years before the Empire was different? :-D They do the same still today!
Also the idea that Iranians were going (sounds from him like) exclusively to Britain to get some sense of modernity and (liberal) democracy, and not for example to Paris, is not so much convincing to me. I am not certainly an expert on Iranian intellectuals of that time (before and around 1906), but as I do remember interviews with Iranian politicians from the end of 1970s they were quite frequently talking in French. And there has to be some reason for that, some educational background. Esmail Momtaz od-Dowleh, the actual writer of the Persian Constitution of 1906, was fluent in French and able to copy extracts lifted from the Belgian constitution, Mosaddegh was studying in France, ...
The British empire was extremely influential, as were other empires, like the Roman or the Chinese.
Many countries emulated Britain in the 19th century, including European countries, which insituted various forms of parliamentary government and sought to industrialize.
Denying facts just because you don't like them is not history.
Then there's the point that this lecture is only on the 1906 period, rather than later.
It's interesting how often folks confuse ONE ideology with unanimous thought. New ideas were indeed circulating in Europe in the 19th century, but these were mixed with older ideas and different new ideas than many look back on and choose to see in isolation. A look at Russia's struggle to determine its government institutions during 1800 - 2000 shows the wildest swings. Diversity is always lurking.
did empires issue shares back then? could u clarify this
BUT "IRAN" DIDN'T EXIST IN 1906 !!!!!! And the PERSIAN oil company was bought from the Shah of Persia by the "British Empire" when it gained control of 51% of its shares in 1914. In 1954 the British Government renamed the Company British Petroleum (BP), a name it still uses today, although it is now a Public Limited Company (Plc).
What does he mean by Persian constitution ? Persian is a language, not a country.
Relies 100% on British sources lol
How can you say that? Just because he quotes some British people to provide some colour to the lecture? That's not how it works. A lecture like this is based on a huge amount of research, but you can't understand what his sources are unless he provides a bibliography.
After 3 centuries of domination over India and starvation to death of 165 Million Indians while Britain was stealing natural resources of India, you express surprise that Iranians came to British Embassy for help?! Britain was not exactly benevolent to Iranians then. On the contrary, Iranians kept paying Britain every penny you lent Iranians, with interest. In fact, Britain had assumed the role of present day IMF with huge interest leveed on Persian King. Ahmad shah was the last Ghajar King that borrowed money to visit England. Britain's hands were just as dirty as the French and Russians were. Of course later on when Oil was discovered in Iran, British avarice increased many folds more. Ultimately, Britain, in association with their now American Lords in Washington, they managed to foment a coup d'etat against Prime minister Mossadegh and deposed him and sent him to his farm on House Arrest till his death. You play fast and loose with History in your zeal to present England as beneficent and fair whereas the truth lies on the side of Avarice of USA and Britain for cheep Iranian oil and your mutual vilification of Russia,. Britain's former ally who SAVED BRITAIN BY THE SACRIFICE OF SEEING 24 MILLION RUSSIANS DEAD BY THJE END OF WW2. BRITAIN'S AND AMERICAN HATRED OF RUSSIA HAS CONTINUED TO THIS DATE.
a redacted history of the constitutional revolution !