Who ruled better Veeky Forums edition

I'm torn, the Shah because he was a monarchy but Khomeini because he was more conservative and didn't sell Iran out to the West

You'll know them by their fruits.

Half

I'm not sure I've ever heard about any of this. I do know that Khomeini was a two faced rat and that both the US and Israel thought that they could win him over.

Sorry if that came out too aggressive.This is slightly misleading because the Shah (and his dad) built the infrastructure that allowed this progress.

Still, it's nice because it shows that contrary to popular belief, Iran wasn't a Utopia under the Shah and it isn't a shit hole today.

>Literacy 15-24 was less than the overall adult literacy before the revolution

What the fuck

"The Shah's crucial decade from 1965 to 1975 was also critical for the regime's cultural politics. Iran in this period was a discordant combination of cultural freedoms and political despotism - of increasing censorship against the opposition but increasing freedoms for everyone else. It is far from hyperbole to claim that during the sixties and seventies, Iran was one of the most liberal societies in the Muslim world in terms of cultural and religious tolerance, and in the state's aversion to interfere in the private lives of its citizens - so long as they did not politically oppose the Shah. Indications of this tolerance were many: from the quality of life of Iran's Baha'i and Jews to the artistic innovations and aesthetic avant-gardism of the Shiraz Art Festival...

Much to the consternation of the Shiite clergy in this period, the Baha'i enjoyed freedom and virtual equality with other citizens. The same was true about Iranian Jews - some 100,000 of the them, who had lived in Iran for over 3,000 years. In the words of David Menasheri, it was the Jews' "golden age," wherein they enjoyed equality with Muslims and in terms of their per capita incomes "they might have been the richest Jewish community in the world." Some of the most innovative and successful industrialists, engineers, architects, and artists were either Jewish or Baha'i..."

That's ok. It's a touchy subject to for you, and Iran is in a better place then it was under Shah's rule. I just hope the western nations leave them alone. Personally, I wish (I know it wouldn't happen, though. Sadly) countries would leave other countries alone to do their thing. None of this puppet government's or your country sucking ass to another's (Such as my country, Canada, sucking America's dick so fucking much).

where are those figures from and why should we believe them?

>This is slightly misleading because the Shah (and his dad) built the infrastructure that allowed this progress.

Well yes and no. Mainly by enforcing unveiling and mixed schools, the Pahlavis caused several generations of women to never leave their homes, and get education. Obviously some did that because the men forced them to, but their actual social outlook did play a role. While women working were encouraged, in practice this meant that you had to abandon traditional dress and values. This was a pretty big deal since a lot of population was rural or had just moved to the cities.
In practice this meant that while women could theoretically get education and work, this was limited to families who were already well-off and westernized.

By contrast, by enforcing segregated education, girls from more traditional homes were allowed to get education without risking their honour. The fact that women played a large role in the Revolution afforded them a vote in the post-revolution reality, within the context of the Islamic republic of course. A good model would be a current vice-president Massoumeh Ebtekar, who was one of the leaders of the student association that invaded the US embassy (otoh she comes from a well-off family herself and lived in the USA in 1960s). She's also a professor of biology.

A lot of social change is also the side result of population shift that is also the effect of the Revolution. First the government enforced childbirth, increasing the population by like 50% over 10 years. Then, with overpopulation threatening, a different model entered, which allowed women to use a wide variety of anticonception. This led to a lot of population being young women of 20-30 years who could afford to plan their families, and earn an education in the free time.

Basically, the Pahlavis enforced social change that was against the actual outlook of a large part of society, creating inequalities between westernized elites and the rest of people.

The Shah was very good from 1975-1979.

>national before
national interest before*

youtube.com/watch?v=imil1iIpIYA

>cont.

otoh the Islamic republic paradoxically created a more organic model, which caused the society to grow and finally outgrow the Islamic republic itself.

youtube.com/watch?v=82QuRFajeGg

Very interesting perspective. I never thought about it but it makes perfect sense.

Would you say that the genie is out of the bottle and that the Islamic Republic will not be able to prevent women from demanding more rights?

Some people learn to read as adults.

>Henry Brown, president of Marxism4America at MSU

>yfw you realize Khomeini was one of Iran's leading experts on Plato and the wilayat-e-faqih is pretty much an Islamic interpretation of the philosopher-king

ironic that the Islamic Republic might be more appropriately named just The Republic

This is a pretty good and measured article on the topic.
ajammc.com/2012/06/30/misreading-feminism-in-tehran-beyond-chadors-ninjabis-secular-fantasies-2/

>Would you say that the genie is out of the bottle and that the Islamic Republic will not be able to prevent women from demanding more rights?
No idea, the only Iranian woman I know personally is my Persian teacher and she tends to stay away from political and religious stuff, and I don't press her. If I had to guess, demographics will win out in the end.

It might be possible for the young people's influence in general to turn the Islamic Republic model into something more, well, humane. Both Shi'a jurisprudence and the idea of velayat-e faqih have some wiggle room. And for a lot of people it was the general idea behind the revolution, represented by figures such as Ali Montazeri.

OTOH I guess young people are too disenchanted with the entire model, and want to lead more western lives that they've learned of via media, internet and travel. A violent overthrow is out of question after the "Arab Spring" and shitstorm in Syria, with people being quite wary of the same thing happening in Iran.

It takes longer to acquire literacy in Persian because of the Arabic script that's really quite unsuited to the language, in addition to just being harder to write. Even in some Europeans languages written in the latin script children aren't usually considered fully fluent until like 15-16 years old.

What are you talking about? It works out really well, and is no difficult than the easiest languages to be literate in.

The one who actually improved the economy

"THE GUARDIANS" OF THE ISLAMIC JURIST HOLY FUCKING SHIT

Both were fools, but Khomeni was braindead. During the first years of the revolution living standards went to shit because mullahs were too stupid to understand how economics worked. They gave high ranking positions to janitors and taxidrivers because they prayed more often, so they were more qualified.

t. Hajji al-Jihadi al-Wahhab

Wahhabis despise Khomeini and the Islamic Republic. They would absolutely take the Shah.

Your attempt at a witty comment is a failure.

The Shah was well intentioned, but he was tone deaf and retarded.

why are there so many dubs around this post
If I get dubs kek is real and we all must praise him..

>Sunni Arab name
>defending a Shia Persian

They were both shit desu. What happened to Iran was a travesty. Iran still has the potential to unfuck itself though, Khameini is getting old and the latest president is a moderate. Hopefully the US and/or Israel don't go full retard and declare war.

>4 letters to write "z"
>3 letters to write "s"
>2 letters to write "t"
>و can stand for "v", "u", "o", "ou" sounds and also "w" in some dialects
>گل can both stand for flower and clay because "gol" and "gel" are written the same

It's managable and it makes written poetry pretty good with all the double meanings, but let's face it, the Arabic script is more well-suited to semitic languages that use stems, not Indo-European ones.