وبلاگ نیمه فعال مهدی درباره‌ی تصویر ایران در رسانه‌های جهان
چند مطلب درباره نظرات داده شده راجع به مطلب قبل:

۱) رویای آمریکایی: آیدا گفته‌است که آمریکا برای ایرانیها یک رویا شده‌است و کسانی باید این رسالت را بر عهده بگیرند که این رویا را بشکنند. مشکل این ادعا این است که باید قبول کنیم که جوانانی در ایران هستند واقعا فکر می‌کنند آمریکا جایی کاملا بدون عیب و ایراد است. بنظر من این عقیده تا حدی بی احترامی به هوش جوانان در ایران است. ‌ در ایران تا جایی که من بخاطر دارم جوانان تنها جنبه‌های خاصی از آمریکا را ایده‌آل می‌دانند مانند راحتی نسبی پیدا کردن شغل، آزادیهای جنسی و اجتماعی. که اتفاقا در هیچ کدام از آن موارد اشتباه نمی‌کنند و وضعیت در آمریکا بارها بهتر از ایران است. اگر مایی که در آمریکاییم بخواهیم در این موارد ایران و آمریکا را یکی نشان دهیم عملا داریم آنها را فریب می‌دهیم. تازه مقابله با اینکه جوانان از آمریکا از هر جهت بَتی برای خود نسازند، راهش همانطور که خواننده دیگری، بیژن، گفت گفتار «یک سونگرانه افراطی» نیست بلکه راهش نشان دادن واقعیتهای خوب و بد است. بنظر من اگر کسی که وبلاگ سیما را می‌خواند هشیارانه بداند که سیما فقط یک طرف قضیه را می‌نویسد اتفاق بدی نمی‌افتد.

۲) چرا مقایسه می‌کنید: نیکی انتقاد می‌کند که چرا هر حرفی در مورد آمریکا زده می‌شود با ایران مقایسه می کنید. نیکی جان، خودت در نوشته سیما می‌بینی که بخشی از دلیلش برای نشان دادن یک سویه کاستی‌های جامعه آمریکا، شکستن ایده‌آل آمریکا در میان ایرانیان ساکن ایران هست. بنابراین می‌بینی که این من نیستم که باب مقایسه را آغاز می‌کنم بلکه نفس مقایسه بطور ضمنی در نوشته‌ها و هدف سیما هست. این را هم بگویم که مقایسه چیز آنچنان بدی هم نیست. ما باید اول وضع ایران را با دیگر جاهای دنیا مقایسه کنیم تا ببینیم چقدر عقبیم و شاید یک تلنگری بخوریم و شروع به حرکت کنیم. همیشه چه در سطح شخصی و چه جامعه مقایسه کردن و الگو داشتن یکی از راههایی است که علاقه به پیشرفت بالا می‌رود. اگر نوع حرفهای سیما در میانمان حاکم شود به این نتیجه خواهیم رسید که ایران با آمریکا که ثروتمندترین و یکی از دموکراتیک ترین کشورهای دنیاست، در یک سطح است بنابراین نیازی به تغییر جهتی جدی در وضع ایران نیست.

۳) بابک سراجه و امیر ت. دو نکته اشاره کردند که خیلی مهم است. بابک بدرستی می‌گوید:«به نظر من یه چیزی که منتقدان جامعه ی آمریکا از نوع فرنگوپولیس نفهمیدن اینه که «مسئله» داشتن و حل کردن در واقع وضعیت طبیعی زندگی فردی و جامعه است و شرط پیشرفت... من فکر می کنم این آدمها به دنبال جامعه ی «بی مسئله» هستند و تنها اون رو شایسته ی ستایش می دونن. این دید فلسفی نادرست، آگاهانه یا ناآگاهانه، باعث می شه که نتونن این دستاورد بزرگ رو درک گنن که داشتن مسئله مشکل ما (آدم ها، جامعه، ...) نیست بلکه روشی که آدمها برای حل این مسئله ها در پیش میگیرن. این فرق تعریف کننده ی جامعه ی آزاد و غیر آزاده». امیر هم به یک نکته اساسی که جامعه ایران و آمریکا را متفاوت می‌کند اشاره می‌کند که بنیان آمریکا درست است و امید برای بهبود و حل مشکلات جامعه وجود دارد، ولی در ایران چنین بنیانی وجود ندارد و تنها آشوب و بی‌نظمی در تاریخ صدسال اخیر ایران حاکم بود‌ه‌است.

کامنتهای خوب و آموزنده دیگری هم بود که خودتان باید بروید و بخوانیدشان.
لینک دایمی مطلب را به بالاترین بفرستید: Balatarin
مطلب بالا را به دوستان خود ایمیل کنید:     11 نظر
نظرات:
Anonymous Omid گفت:
Hello,

Nice post (this and the original one before).

To me, Sima's greatest shortcoming in her view is that she thinks poverty and inequality can be fixed with spending money. This never can happen. Any country, as big and diverse as US, we will have poverty and wealth next to each other.

US is built around the consept of "liberty" not "equality". It's like a very good jungle. In a "good jungle" there are "good lions" and "good deer" but there is no equality. Having an equal society is a chilldish dream which can not be ralized on earth.

Sima, rightly, feels bad when she sees injustice and inequality but she fails to put her observations in perspective or find "the root cause" of inequality. She, like many other left-wing naggers, dosn't want to admit that the root cause of inequality is not US government, it's the way God (Aleyhe Salaam ) has created life on earth. Life on this plannet leads to "food chain" not "equality"! :)

Anonymous Payman گفت:
Omid has a thoughtful perspective, but in his responde I'd say the following:

The most profound manifestations of our humanity have come about when we have tried to stand against rules that have been forced upon us by nature (and which contradict our common sense of morality/justice/...). Such attempts are perhaps most fruitful when coupled with a deep understanding (and a basic acceptance) of such rules. But if, for instance, our understaning of the inevitability of injustice in this world leads us to total submission, there will be no room for improvement.

Though I disagree with extremists on both end of the spectrum, I think we should never forget that if it weren't for the (sometimes childish) dreams of some humanists, there would have been no justice for the disadvantaged people in this world.

It is perhaps a combination of the zeal of the dreamers and the insight of the wise that gets things done.

-Payman

Anonymous Anonymous گفت:
Omid,

Very well said. I really enjoyed reading your comment.

Anar
thoughts.blogfa.com

Anonymous Anonymous گفت:
agha Mehdi: khili khob baladi az har dou tarafe dahane gonde at harf bezani; inha ro ke gofti, laagahl dar bareye oun comment haye ke pakesh kardi ham harfi bezanid. kholase, adame , dou ro, bisavad, mozakhraf v kallashi hasti Sahand

Anonymous B گفت:
Omid and Payman,

As far as I understand your points, I think Omid is saying we cannot fix poverty by *government* spending. Payman's comment can be summarized in his last sentence: "It is perhaps a combination of the zeal of the dreamers and the insight of the wise that gets things done." This is not in itself in contradiction with Omid's point. We can still really try to fix poverty, but not through more *government* spending. In fact our current wisdom suggests that we do not do so. Instead we should provide the right foundation and legal framework for *people* to work and build and progress. This is by and large how poverty has really decreased through the past 200 years in most of the world.

Blogger TARANTULA گفت:
iran jaye khoobi ast.. albate faghat baraye tolid asare bastani va zamin shenasi... hame fosil mishavand

Anonymous Anonymous گفت:
agha in francula ro ye kashfi befarma! tu mayehaye khodete!!
http://francula.blogspot.com/

Anonymous pejman گفت:
The points mentioned in your post seems fair, but I like to make a few comments:

1)What is iranian's youth source of information about US- whatever their IQ are? How many Hollywood films an Iranian adult watches compared to reading analytical articles about US society? A film critic said "almost all Hollywood films had the same message: "America is a great place to live. Come and live here" (quoting the content). I believe the number of people who use English non-technical analytical content are very low compared to those who watch glamourous Hollywood movies regularly. I'm not sure they know much about "at-will dismissals" or have seen Jerry Springer shows.

2)I understand it is only fair to "compare like with like". US, and many other like countries, went through a "welfare government" era and are now in "ioformatic" and "neo-liberal" government era. Iran has not even entered the "democratic" or "industrized" phase. Although It is possible to compare, but any conclusions should be carefully based on fair 'normalized' metrics. What you are talking about is more conclusions than comaparisons.

3)About solving the problems, I believe any society tries to solve its problem the best it can. The point is the possible options and their relative value and feasibility for the decision-makers. E.g. attacking Iraq was a way for Bush admin. to solve a number of its internal and global problems.They tried to justify it through the myth of WMD but when it failed they had the power to continue anyway. The same goes with Iranian gov. who seems to try control its internal problems through creating a crises with other countries.

Anonymous Azadeh گفت:
Omid Jan,
Very well Said, Bravo..
also "b" made some good points and O think furthur clarifay Omid's point.

Thank you both.

Anonymous Omid گفت:
Thnk you guys for your encouraging comments. Obviously, this is a very complicated debate as the people who put comments above mentioned. It's good to dream once in a while but it's foolish to be a dreamer. There is a difference bewteen informing people and missleading them. Simmilarly, there is a difference between coffee-sipping, weed-smoking psudo-intellectual critiques who always "feel deeply about things" and true leaders like Teddy Roosevelt:

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."

[T.R. speaking at the Sorbonne
Paris, France April 23, 1910]

Anonymous Payman گفت:
Thank you Omid for the beautiful quote.
But being a "foolish dreamer" is not in any contradiction with being a fighter in the front. Being a "foolish dreamer"
is more the result of one's personality rather than one's approach (though he two are linked somewhat).

-Payman

لینکهای داده شده به این مطلب:
Create a Link