This sounds like a source of fear that is likely to motivate people to seek security and stability. I imagine it would remind people of the threat they've been told their community faces from the countries which created Stuxnet, and the weapons carried by Saddam Hussein's army, and the 1953 coup against Mossadeq.
I imagine it would motivate Iranian men to stand together to serve as protectors of the stability of their community and to tolerate the flaws of their leaders.
I imagine it would stand in the way of freedom-loving Iranians trying to create an alternate vision of Iranian civic virtue.
Victor Mair quoting a colleague said:
"In 1998 when the reformist president, Mohamad Khatami, came to power he tried to eliminate this slogan from the political scene and he suggested to replace any 'marg bar' slogan with 'zendeh baad my opponent'."
Why would he try to do this if "marg bar X " neutrally means "down with X", not "death to X". Similarly:
"Alireza is right to try to downplay the slogan — for two reasons: 1) This is an early revolutionary slogan that is quite exaggerated. 2) Not many Iranians actually subscribe to this view…The official government uses this slogan, but not many actually take it seriously."
Again, why is your colleague /so concerned to downplay the significance of this slogan/ as "exaggerated" (whatever that means — do they mean "hyperbolic") and "not taken seriously" if it merely means "down with America?"
Frankly this piece reads like pure political drivel of the type that's increasingly infecting Language Log of late, when it seems perfectly obvious that:
1) Marg bar Amrika literally means "Death to America"
2) Native Persian speakers are perfectly aware of this fact, or else why try to euphenize/euthemize the expression or downplay how "seriously" Iranians take it?
Reza Mirsajadi's effort in sophistry reminds me of David Irving's attempts to prove that "ausrotten" doesn't mean "exterminate". And indeed, given what happened to the Shah, the fact that the phrase originated in the Iranian revolution is the opposite of comforting.
Violent metaphors have a long provenance in all langauges, but in the age of terrorism and the twitter soundbite every English speaker has had to learn to avoid them /precisely because/ you can never know if such threatening language is sincere or not. I fail to see why Iranians should get a free pass and a translational obfuscation courtesy of Mirsajadi on such language. Can anyone trust Mirsajadi to translate honestly after this particular effort?
You may as well claim "go kill yourself" is an idiom that means "I don't like you". An idiom is when it's nearly impossible to infer the actual meaning based off the literal meaning of the words. A hyperbole or a metaphor does not make an idiom. Death is invoked here exactly because of what it implies. "Death to X country" is not any less metaphorical in English. A country obviously cannot die.
The problem they face, is it has become a well-known tradition in American (and Western) journalism, going at least back to the hostage crisis in 1979. If they change the translation now, people will attack them as pro-Iran/pro-regime/etc. It is possibly an even bigger problem when it comes to the use of the phrase against Israel; I wouldn’t be surprised if a change of translation in that context got labelled as anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, even antisemitic. The politically safest course is just to keep on doing what you’ve always done
I think it’s more nuanced and can mean both, depending on what the speaker wants it to mean. Like two buddies trading insults )it could be banter or of could be a genuine insult). The tone denotes the meaning.
Iran is currently in a position where nothing but violent resistance is likely to have an effect. The people in charge live safely in gated communities or abroad and have no shame, protestor deaths in the streets don't faze them even a little bit.
Why would violent resistance be effective at this point? That seems likely to result in Syria or Libya at best.
Speaking uncharitably (and ignoring vast theological differences…), the folks talking about violent overthrow seem pretty naive. ISIS was bad enough when they didn’t have the Zagros mountains to hide behind.
It would be effective because the current leaders would flee the country. ISIS was created due to a power vacuum (actively, but naively) engineered by the US civil administration in Iraq. With some luck, things will turn out differently in Iran.
Let's be careful using words like 'hijack'. Reza Pahlavi (i.e. the son of the Shah) has led one of the most consistent and coherent oppositions to the Islamic Regime for the past few decades (has dedicated his life to it), and has clearly stated his only intent is to create a transition/solidarity council to enable an actual, democratic system in Iran.
Over 85% of protestors are in favour of such a council, and 33% of them believe Reza Pahlavi should be the representative of such a council (which places him as the most popular representative by far).
The Shah regime is still widely despised in the country.
If you're suggesting that we treat the revolutionaries as representatives of the people a la Chalabi and his motley crew in 2003, be prepared for disaster.
Here's a guy who was raised as a prince. Dropped out of two universities. Then got a BSc in political science from private persian professors. Never had to work for anything, and then waited until other people started a movement and then he somehow has a claim to the movement once it started. His supporters then went on to attack anyone that suggested that should he really want to be a part of the movement he should put himself up to vote.
Not only that, but all his addresses where through representatives, never publicly decided to speak, probably because he would fail without his DC speechwriters and you sit here and tell us that he has majority support? In which universe?
It's funny how everyone keeps shouting how great democracy is, but then when it comes to actually putting themselves up for vote, they're "naaah, why would I risk not being elected".
There was massive grassroots opposition to Saddam too.
And there is also precedent of a "grassroots" revolution back in 1953 in this very same country. Sorry that I'm taking this claim with a pinch of salt.
I'm not sure why you keep insisting on equating Iran and Iraq? They are different countries, demographics, cultures, political systems, etc...with very different circumstances. The Iraqi National Congress was setup and funded by the CIA (after the invasion of Iraq by US military), with a banking elite as it's figurehead.
The coalition being built in and outside of Iran is an organic, cross-class, cross-cultural network that is the result of years of activism. Within it, you will find figures like Masih Alinejad, a world-renowned journalist and women's rights activist, and Hamed Esmaeillion, a representative for the families of PS752 (the plane that was shot down by the Islamic Regime with 170+ souls on board). To equate this to a CIA-backed coup is not well-founded.
1. Any political movement will attract people who are hungry for power-for-power’s-sake or to inflate their own ego. Naiveté about this is malpractice in the same way that US naïveté about Chalabi was malpractice.
Iranians who are naive to the point of self-deception will be as misleading as those who are willfully deceptive. Discernment without undue cynicism is necessary but hard.
From the perspective of the US/UK, Iran and Iraq are pretty culturally similar. They are strangers to us. Lets not pretend to be more anthropologically/politically knowledgeable than we are.
2. We don’t have access to reliable intelligence. It is wise to be humble about our ability to sort fact from myth from falsehood.
3. If we want this to succeed, then we want marginal (in the sense of “swing voters”) and civic-minded Iranians to switch to supporting this. Those Iranians will have “CIA-backed coup” as a historical memory so it is worth empathizing with them.
This sounds like a source of fear that is likely to motivate people to seek security and stability. I imagine it would remind people of the threat they've been told their community faces from the countries which created Stuxnet, and the weapons carried by Saddam Hussein's army, and the 1953 coup against Mossadeq.
I imagine it would motivate Iranian men to stand together to serve as protectors of the stability of their community and to tolerate the flaws of their leaders.
I imagine it would stand in the way of freedom-loving Iranians trying to create an alternate vision of Iranian civic virtue.