2021 marks fifty five years since the most important game in college basketball was played. In 1966, Texas Western College (now known as the University of Texas at El Paso), a little known school in El Paso, Texas, upset the powerhouse University of Kentucky. What made the story of Texas Western--to this day the only Texas school to win the Championship-- unique was not that David beat Goliath (Adolph Rupp's University of Kentucky was a four time NCAA Champion). What made it unique was that Texas Western started 5 African-American players...for the whole the game. I know it should not be shocking that black players started for an entire game, but in 1966 it was unheard of.
Texas Western's coach, Don Haskins, never intended to become a civil rights leader. To his dying day he said he simply played the best players he had. His goal was to win as many basketball games as possible. Still, his decision to recruit and play black players--at a college in the south no less--provoked outrage. After all, black players were thought to be undisciplined and stupid, certainly not good enough to play on the same court as white players. The Washington Post quoted a spectator who witnessed the historic event, "We all just assumed that Texas Western would throw behind-the-back passes and shoot the ball from 25 feet...And when the game got started, we all sat there and watched Texas Western run a better half-court offense than Kentucky, and play better man-to-man defense than Kentucky. There were possessions where Texas Western passed it 10 times before taking a shot. . . . It was beautiful."
Although not his intention, Don Haskins and his team (made up of African-American, Mexican-American and white players) changed the face of college basketball that fateful day in 1966. Adolph Rupp, Kentucky's coach who refused to recruit black players until he was forced to by legal decree and his school's president, always believed that somehow Texas Western had cheated. How else can one explain a group of inexperienced players beating the well honed Kentucky machine? Texas Western's win swung open the door for black players in the north (where the rule was: you play two blacks at home, three on the road, four when you're behind) and certainly in the south. Years later, Disney enshrined the story of the black players who changed basketball in the movie "Glory Road." What of Coach Rupp? Former Texas Western player Harry Flurnoy said it best, "No one will remember him without remembering us and I guess there is a certain justice to that."
Presidential candidate and real estate mogul Donald Trump recently caused waves when he referenced a 1950s program that deported thousands upon thousands of illegal (and legal) Mexican immigrants from the United States. The operation which Mr. Trump so obliquely referenced was dubbed Operation Wetback. That was its official name.
A little background: after the attacks on Pearl Harbor, the US entered World War II on the side of Allies. We all know this. Men are needed to fight wars and they volunteers (or were drafted) in droves. This left the agriculture sector of the American Southwest badly in need of workers to till the soil, pick the fruit, and plant the cotton. To that end, the United States, as part of our Good Neighbor Policy, initiated the Bracero Program. Mexican workers would be given work permits to work legally in the United States. This was all in fine and good while the boys were away…but then they came back. I should point out that many Mexican nationals did come here illegally to work. Many came by swimming across the Rio Grande, hence the derogatory name ‘wetback.’ American business owners were more than happy to hire them at low LOW wages.
Universal Newsreel “Wetback Roundup” via youtube.com
A report commissioned by President Truman, indicated that there was a massive illegal immigrant problem in the United States. The report stated, “the magnitude … has reached entirely new levels in the past seven years. … In its newly achieved proportions, it is virtually an invasion.” Obviously something had to be done about these invaders (because we all know that in between picking strawberries they were planning the reconquista). When President Eisenhower lost patience with Congress’ inaction (see, it’s nothing new) he exercised his executive power and ordered Immigration and Naturalization to round up the illegals and kick them out. Dubbed Operation Wetback, the military-like operation deported people en masseusing sting operations, home invasions, and daily roadblocks. Included among the deportees were actual American citizens.
Estimates vary but give or take about 1 million people were deported back to Mexico. They weren’t deported to the border towns. They were put on trains (mainly in Presidio and El Paso) destined for the interior of Mexico, lest they simply tried to cross again once they were unloaded at the border. The operation was a success: the public was happy and the government could say it actually did something.
If only it were a success…the problem then, as now, is that American businesses continued to need cheap labor. NBC News summed it up best, “The core demand of Mexican labor was never addressed. As a result, Operation Wetback was a setback in a larger migratory flow that essentially leads us to our current immigration context.”
Since the end of World War II, Israel honors what they call the Righteous Among the Nations. Yad Vashem's website explains what being righteous means:
In a world of total moral collapse there was a small minority who mustered extraordinary courage to uphold human values. These were the Righteous Among the Nations. They stand in stark contrast to the mainstream of indifference and hostility that prevailed during the Holocaust. Contrary to the general trend, these rescuers regarded the Jews as fellow human beings who came within the bounds of their universe of obligation.
Although not honored (yet) by Yad Vashem, a little known Iranian diplomat assigned to his country's embassy in Paris, was responsible for saving anywhere from 500 to 1,000 Jews in the French capital. Abdol Hossein Sardari was a young, rich, dandy who suddenly found himself responsible for Iran's mission in Paris when the staff moved to Vichy. Many Iranian Jews were living in Paris at the time and logically went to the mission for help in getting the hell out of France (they obviously didn't want to be rounded up and killed simply because they were Jewish).
Sardari strongly believed that his job was to help ALL Iranians, regardless of race. The Jews of Iran are among the oldest of the diaspora. The Biblical Queen Esther and her uncle Mordechai are buriedunderneath a synagogue in the Iranian city of Hamadan. The Germans warped view of racial purity had actually worked in Iran's favor. Like Germans, Iranians (Iran means Land of the Aryans) were/are considered Aryans. Sardari used his lawyerly skills to argue that Iranian Jews were just that: Iranian and, as such, Aryan. Surely, the would not want to kill their own people. So persuasive was his argument, that the Racial Policy Department asked the opinion of the loftily named Research Institute for the History of the New Germany for their official opinion. Try as they might, they could not come up with an answer.
Tomb of Esther and Mordechai. Hamadan, Iran
He used this time to issue Iranian passports to as many Iranian Jews (and non Iranian Jews) as possible. Amazingly when Jews were forced to wear the yellow Star of David, an order was issued that exempted Iranian Jews. Even after Iran declared war on Nazi Germany, he stayed on as long as he could. Using his inheritance to continue issuing passports. Interestingly, President Ahmadinejad's administration thought it fitting to give the green light on a mini series loosely based on his life and exploits.
When asked by Yad Vashem about his wartime activities, Sardari simply said, “As you may know, I had the pleasure of being the Iranian consul in Paris during the German occupation of France, and as such it was my duty to save all Iranians, including Iranian Jews.” Indeed.
This May 5th will mark 38 years since a young Irishman by the name of Bobby Sands died of hunger. It was not because he lived in some drought-ridden country or because war prevented food from getting to him. No, his hunger was self-induced. Sort of, anyway. Sands and his fellow IRA-affiliated prisoners went on a hunger strike to demand their right to be considered political prisoners instead of mere criminals.
This was a last ditch, and desperate, attempt to force Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's government to agree to their demands. The initial prison protests started in 1976. Prisoners went “on the blanket.” They refused to wear the prison uniforms and either went naked or wore blankets. When this did not work after two years, they escalated their protest into the “dirty protest.” Prisoners began smearing excrement on the walls and urinating anywhere and everywhere (well, going around with their schlongs out was not getting them anywhere). So what exactly did the prisoners want? After much deliberation among the prisoners, they boiled down their demands to five things: that prisoners should be allowed to wear their own clothes, that they be given free association time, visits and mail, that they should not to have to carry out penal work and should be given back lost remission. Initially, the government in London seemed to accept their demands. Then the strike ended and they reneged on their promises. It was Sands who decided that something drastic had to be done.
Sands during his hunger strike via telegraph.co.uk
Sands wasborn in 1954. His Catholic family lived in a largely Protestant area of Belfast, Northern Ireland. Violence between Catholics and Protestants forced his family to move to a more Catholic part of town. It was there that the he was recruited into the Provisional IRA. The Provisional IRA was formed in 1969 after breaking away from the Official IRA. They advocated the use of violence and terrorism as a means of winning independence for Northern Ireland. When people talk about THE IRA, it is the violent one (in time, they became the only IRA and it is them who are still a political force in Northern Ireland). Anyway, Sands, at age 18, was first arrested and convicted for taking part in a string of IRA robberies. In the early 70s, when a person was convicted of IRA-related offenses, they were given “special category status” and sent to a prison that was more like a prisoner of war camp. They were allowed to dress how the pleased and freedom of movement within the prison grounds.
Sands was again arrested in 1977 for gun possession and given a 14-year prison sentence. This time, however, things were different. The British no longer gave IRA prisoners “special category status.” Instead, they were sent to Maze Prison south of Belfast like any common criminal. On March 1, 1981, the anniversary of when Britain did away with “special category status,” Sands launched his hunger strike. It was actually his second. The first was done along with the dirty protests. He lost sixty pounds in nine weeks. Then something incredible happened. Something that would get the attention of the world. On April 9, while starving and in prison, Bobby Sandswon a seat in parliament. For whatever reason, the world listens when a politician is jailed and on some kind of strike. Not surprisingly, Parliament quickly introduced legislation to disqualify convicts serving prison sentences for eligibility for Parliament.
The British governmentrefused to give in. So did Sands. Pope John Paul II sent a personal envoy to plead with Sands to eat. He refused. Finally, on May 3, an emaciated Sands fell into a coma. On May 5thhe died. He was 27. Ten more strikers would soon follow. These non-violent deaths galvanized Belfast. Rioting broke out and68 died. Finally, Prime Minister Thatcher agreed to allow the prisoners to wear civilian clothing and the right to receive mail and visits. However, she refused the big one: official recognition of their political status.
That Sands died for his cause should not be surprising. He wrote in his diary: “I have hope, indeed. All men must have hope and never lose heart. But my hope lies in the ultimate victory for my poor people. Is there any hope greater than that?”
The tragic events that transpired in Paris this past month are inexcusable. The terrorist attacks that took place on September 11th were horrendous and killed thousands of innocent lives. In 1998, the US Embassy in Nairobi and the US Embassy in Dar es Salaam killed scores of locals who had nothing to do with the United States. In Madrid in 2004, terrorists detonated a bomb in the city’s metro system killing 191. Groups collectively called Muslim extremists/Muslim fundamentalists are given credit for these acts. Why do they hate us (the West) so much? Many have posited that it is simply because they hate us for our liberal and modern ways. They hate us because we are free and we flaunt our freedoms.
Maybe. Truthfully, however, it is much more complicated that that. Like always, we never take the time to try to understand WHY they might hate us. For no other reason than to stop them from doing it again. The journalist Patrick Smith put it best when he said, “What has not followed [after the Paris attacks] is too familiar. No one, once again, asks the simple question, “Why?” This line of inquiry is so obvious, and so obviously of use in devising an effective response—know your enemy and his motivations, as any military strategist will tell you—that our avoidance of it amounts to a pathology at this point.”
Map drawn up by the Sykes Picot Agreement via america.aljazeera.com
1. The West drew the lines and then expected everything to just work.
After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the West carved up the Middle East into various mandates under the auspices of the newly formed League of Nations. Although promises had been made to the Arabs that they would have their own large state in exchange for fighting the Ottomans, the British and French had other ideas. They created the brand new countries of Jordan and Iraq. They drew borders with little regard to tribal or religious allegiances. We live in a country where the birthplace of our current President was made an issue by some on the right. You would have to forgive the people of the region for not being keen on being ruled by an non-native. The British installed one King in Jordan another in Iraq. Neither had ever been to their respective new domains. Importantly, they left the question of Palestine (as Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza were known then) unanswered. They promised the European Jewish community one thing and the Arab Christians and Muslims yet another thing. No matter that all these groups had fought on the side of their new overlords, economic and strategic interests had to be protected.
2. The West has treated the countries of the Middle East like pawns in a chess game.
Unfortunately, it is no exaggeration when historians say the Great Powers used these countries as actual pawns in the Great Game. We can look at Iran and Iraq as examples. When Iranians demanded constitutional reform in the early 1900s, the West backed the Shah and ensured that no meaningful political change took place. The Russians and the British had large business interests in the country and the Shah was happy to protect them. When the Qajar dynasty ceased to be effective, the British helped a little known general, Reza Khan, ascend the Peacock Throne. He, in turn, was ousted by British and Soviet troops when he would not allow Allied troops to use Iran’s neutral territory. In 1953, the US and British overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran because he had nationalized the British owned oil industry. The US was a strong supporter of the Shah, lavishing him with aid and (in the 60s and 70s) military hardware. The US did this with full knowledge of the Shah’s human rights abuses. While the West cannot be blamed for all of the Shah’s sins, our support and blind eyes certainly emboldened him.
In Iraq, we gave Saddam Hussein (no doubt a horrible and violent dictator) an ultimatum: step down or we are coming after you. Think for a moment, what we would do if another country told us the same thing. Not surprisingly, the Iraqi people didn’t take up arms against Hussein. What would we do, even if we disagreed with our leader, if an outsider attacked us? Interestingly, we had told one people group in Iraq, the Kurds, to rise up against Hussein once before. Shortly after the end of the first Persian Gulf War, the first Bush administration encouraged the Kurds to revolt. But then the political mood changed and we abandoned them. Hussein’s still powerful army had no trouble crushing them. Many forget, but Saddam Hussein was once our ally. Donald Rumsfeld famously went to Baghdad in 1982 to show the world the US had his back. We secretly gave him intelligence that would help his military in their war against Iran. We turned a blind eye when he used poison gas against the Iranians and Kurds. Again, we cannot be blamed in full for the actions of a tyrant, but we aren’t completely innocent.
3. Israel
This one is a doozy. This is such a sensitive topic I feel compelled to make it perfectly clear that the state of Israel has a right to exist, the Holocaust did happen, and Israel should not disappear into the sea. That said, for many in the Muslim world, the West’s (and in particular the US’s) one sided policy on Israel, shows them that their views and concerns don’t matter. During the Holocaust, the Germans murdered six million Jews (and six million other ‘undesirables’). The West was finally convinced that the Jews deserved their own country, their own homeland. Palestine, the historic home of the world’s Jews was seen as the logical place. No matter that there were already millions of non-Jews living there. No matter that those living there (both Muslims and Christians) had nothing to do with the genocide of Europe’s Jews. The US, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union were deciding the fate of these Arab Christians, Arab Muslims, Druze, and Jews in the halls of the United Nations in New York. What would Americans do if, shortly after the Second World War, the United Nations had decided to carve up part of the United States (the home to the largest Jewish population then and now) for a new state?
The new Jewish state would have 500,000 Jews and 450,000 Arabs. One also has to realize that, to many, it seemed like the West was carving up its own little outpost in the Middle East. Many of the new Jewish immigrants were secular and European in demeanor and outlook. Over the past sixty years, the West has consistently turned a blind eye to Israeli actions in the West Bank and Gaza. Israel won the 1967 war. So, in theory, you take over land and integrate said land into your country. Israel has refused to make the West Bank and Gaza part of Israel because it would mean a loss of its Jewish essence. So instead we have a sort of occupation limbo with no end in sight.
4. Outright Colonialism
For the most part, the West has only indirectly controlled the countries of the Middle East. In some cases, however, they were the outright owners. Algeria is a perfect example. Starting in the early 1800s, the French actively colonized what became Algeria. The French took the best lands for themselves and kept the Arab populace at bay. Interestingly, Algerian Jews received full French citizenship rights. The local Arab population was heavily taxed and given no political power (sound familiar?). It’s classic colonization really. A violently bloody civil war took place before Algeria gained its independence. It had been a French colony for 132 years. The memory of this civil war, and the preceding years as a colony, is still remembered vividly by most Algerians. The same can be said for the Moroccans and Tunisians (under French rule), the Libyans (under Italian rule) and the Egyptians (under British rule).
Hosni Mubarak and President Ronald Reagan via cnn.com
5. We continue to support horrible regimes.
Everything, except for the support of Israel, is in the past. One might (MIGHT) be forgiven for asking: why don’t they just get over it? That is all fine and good, except that we still back totalitarian countries. Who gets billions in American foreign aid? Egypt (depending on the source, Egypt is either the first or third largest recipient of aid). This is the same country that Amal Clooney (yes THAT Clooney) traveled to defend journalists for merely doing their job. Ironically, one of the few areas that enjoys bipartisan support is a continued relationship with Saudi Arabia. This is the same country that does not toleratepublic worship by followers of religions other than Islam (including Muslim religious minorities, notably Twelver Shia and Ismailis) and forbids women from obtaining a passport, marrying, or traveling, without the approval of a male guardian. They have also helped, with tacit American approval, the Emir of Bahrain, suppress protests that called for democratic reform. We originally supported Muammar Qaddafi, until we didn’t. We originally supported Hosni Mubarak, until we didn’t. Qatar, one of the West’s biggest allies in the Persian Gulf, continues to suppress freedom of expression and rarely allows for public dissent. The West’s support may come from the fact that, to quote the Guardian, “Qatar owns lucrative chunks of Britain such as the Shard, a big portion of Sainsbury’s and a slice of the London Stock Exchange.” They have also announced that they will invest $35 billion in the coming years in the US.
President Barack Obama with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia via www.ibtimes.co.uk
6. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
This is self-explanatory.
7. We only get involved when it suits us
The civil war in Syria has been going on for years. Millions had already been displaced. Horrendous human rights abuses occurred daily. The West would condemn the situation, but do nothing about it. It was not until the attacks in Paris that air strikes against ISIS began in earnest. The news is filled with the atrocities committed by ISIS and Syrian government troops against the local population. Again, none of this is new. The Muslim populations of these areas might be forgiven for thinking we only care because the terror finally reached our doorstep. Nor is Syria the lone example. The Taliban (and before them our allies: the Northern Alliance) publicly executed dissidents, religious minorities, and women for a full decade before 9/11. Women were denied an education and forced under the burqa long before 9/11. Again, it wasn’t until after we experienced the wrath of those being harbored in Afghanistan, that we seemed to care.
It is important to note that in every case, people on the ground helped the West in its endeavours. Many elites in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, etc. conspired (and conspire) with the West. It is dangerous, however, to simply say they hate us because we are free or because we represent liberal secularism. I am sure that is partly the reason. But we have also helped keep this region of the world stagnant culturally and economically. We have consistently thought of the people as simply pawns in a great scheme. First by Europeans trying either to gain warm water ports (Imperial Russia) or as buffers to protect India (Imperial Britain), then as proxies in the Cold War (Egypt’s Nasser was first supported by us, then by the Soviets, then by us, then again by the Soviets).
My name and appearance makes it impossible to hide my Middle Eastern roots. There is no question that I am beyond grateful to have been born and raised in this country. I can speak my my mind with no fear for my personal safety. We can elect who we want without fearing the British, Russians, or Chinese will invade us to make sure their preferred candidate is put in the White House. No one else decided what our boundary lines would be. We don’t take directives from other countries on how we should govern ourselves. The people of the Middle East, partly because of us, have rarely had these luxuries.
Nothing excuses the thousands of innocent lives lost in New York, Madrid, Paris, London, Washington, Mumbai, or Bali. But, unfortunately, we aren’t as innocent as we would like to think.
In the 1920s and 1930s a group of rich white aristocrats lived a life in the highlands of Kenya that would make Hugh Hefner blush. At the end of the 19th century, an influx of British nationals moved to various parts of Kenya. The area became popular with rich aristocrats because their already considerable wealth could go even further. They acquired large swathes of land and lived a life of genteel luxury. The British aristocrats (and their nouveau riche American friends) who lived in the Wanjohi Valley, known as Happy Valley, outside of Nairobi took it to the next level, however. They spent the Depression and the war years drinking, smoking, snorting, injecting, drinking some more, having sex and having more sex. They passed sexual partners around. This habit would prove to be deadly.
The group became infamous when Josslyn Hay, 22nd Earl of Erroll, was found dead on a stretch of road leading to Nairobi. Who was his killer? Some say it was his lover’s husband, another aristocrat by the name of Sir Henry John Delves Broughton. He was tried and acquitted of murder by a colonial court. His suicide a few years later seem to many as further proof he did, in fact, kill Lord Erroll. Others say it was the lover herself: the 20-something Diana Delves Broughton. Yet others say it may have been another one of his Happy Valley lovers, Alice de Janze. This would be plausible, considering she had already been arrested and tried for the attempted murder of her then husband.
This surreal world of wealth and hedonism is even more bizarre when one remembers that at the time the world was in the grips of the Great Depression. Most native Kenyans were living in abject poverty, chafing under British rule.
Another Happy Valley resident, Kiki Preston, would send an airplane to fetch more morphine when she ran out. She became known as the “girl with the silver syringe,” because she had the habit of keeping one in her purse and simply using it when she felt the urge. She died after jumping out a fifth story window in New York.
Tom Cholmondeley via www.telegraph.co.uk
The carefree life of most of the white elite in Kenya came to an end when the colony gained its independence in the 1960s. However, many of the white landowning families stayed on. Included in this group were the descendants of Hugh Cholmondeley, 3rd Baron Delamere, one of the unofficial leaders of the Happy Valley set. His great grandson, Thomas P.G. Cholmondeley, caused an uproar in his native Kenya when he used his power and influence to get away with murder. Literally. He was accused of killing a man who had trespassed on his huge ranch (this was actually the second man he killed on his property that year). He was charged with manslaughter, not murder, and was released after serving only a few months. The Happy Valley set lives on…
Recently, the BBC ran a documentary on the the famous (or infamous) party held in the desert plains of southern Iran near Persepolis in 1971. It was one of the last royal spectacles of the short-lived Pahlavi dynasty. It was slated as the greatest party ever thrown, a modern-day Congress of Viennawhere heads of state could discuss the problems of the world in an atmosphere of pomp and circumstance. This was Iran’s chance to show the world that it was no longer backward Persia dominated by the old Imperial Powers but rather modern Iran, the Great Civilization, who was ready to take its place among the leading nations of the world.
The party had the largest fireworks display the world had ever seen. It attracted leaders from sixty-nine countries. An emperor, two sultans, thirteen presidents, ten sheiks, nine kings, five princes, and an array of vice-presidents, ambassadors and lesser princessesand princesattended. The Today show on NBC extended its regular programming to report live from the festivities. The New York Times and the Washington Post wrote numerous articles in the months leading up to the event. In the United States, First Lady Patricia Nixon was honorary chair of a committee dedicated to advertising the festivities. The estimates of the celebrations ran in the millions. In the end, however, the party was the most glaring example of the Shah’s extravagance and complete disregard for Iran’s Islamic past (during the week-long festivities no mention of the 7thcentury Arab conquest was made). Few Iranians were invited. What's more the party took place while power shortages still plagued many major cities.
Inside the main tent via parismatch.com
The idea for a big Iranian extravaganza was first floated around in the early 1960s. The Shah strongly opposed the idea because he felt it was not the right time. For whatever reason (probably because he had imprisoned, silenced, or tortured enough dissidents), by 1971 the Shah felt the time was right to celebrate the achievements of both the Persian Empire and himself (naturally). Although both the Shah and his Empress were aware of the discontent among their people, it was not the majority of their people, right? Besides it was time the world knew Iran was now a force to be reckoned with. The Empress was chosen by her husband to preside over the organizing committee. According to her memoir, she was concerned that most of the people hired to take care of the event were predominantly French and not Iranian. She didn't DO anything about these concerns... but she DID voice her concerns.
The event certainly brought worldwide attention to Iran. Any concern about the cost of the event was largely dismissed in the West because of the large amounts of money Iran was receiving from oil. This was partly true. The Shah had recently been instrumental in raising the price of oil, much to the chagrin of the rest of the world. Still, the Western media did not hold back and called Iran both backward and largely impoverished. The Shah defended his party. This was all part of a grander development plan he railed. One has to wonder how a tent city decorated by the Parisian house of Jansen in the middle of desert was development. If the goal was to make Iran look ‘western’ and ‘modern’ to the rest of the world in that too it was successful. Cynthia Helms, wife of the American ambassador to the Peacock Throne, writes, “[I]f the celebration represented only the Pahlavi vision for Iran… it was at least a vision which made Iran a participant in the modern world.”
Many Iranians saw it as just that: a vain attempt to make Iran a mirror image of the West. After all, Maxim’s of Paris provided all the food. Except for the caviar (Iranian caviar is the best in the world), every morsel of food was flown in directly from France. No matter that the province it was held in was going through a severe doubt, a party is a party. The tent city was built by a French company and was equipped with the latest technology. No matter that the the capital did not have a working sewer system and still suffered from power shortages, again a party was a party. Each tent (which resembled a hotel room) was decorated by the House of Jansen in the most sumptuous of fabrics. In a Muslim country where modesty was praised, Elizabeth Arden created a special line of cosmetics named Farah in honor of the occasion. Lanvin, also a Paris-based institution, created the uniforms of the court. Even the hairstylists were flown in from Paris. Surely there must have been women in Iran who were experienced in the art of styling hair. Although the majority of Iranians were Muslim, which forbids alcohol, Persepolis was flooded with the bestFrench wines. Oh and the uniforms actors wore representing the various eras of the Persian Empire? A team of French experts were flown in to consult. Obviously no Iranian scholar could know as much about Iranian history than French scholars.
The Shah constantly pointed to the all the new schools, roads, and public works that were built as part of the celebration. It is true. Schools were built. There just wasn't enough teachers to staff them. Roads were built, yes. But few in the countryside could afford the cars to drive on said roads. And those were just the superficial shortcomings of the event. Iran was not a full democracy and the peasants were as poor as ever. Although women were given the right to vote and given increasing legal rights under the Shah, they still needed permission from their husbands to travel abroad. Many fathers, fearful of the Shah’s Western non-Muslim ways, refused to send their daughters to public school for fear of being tainted.
The ruins of Persepolis
The party at Persepolis was supposed to be a modern-day Congress of Vienna. It was far from that—it was just a party. Most visiting representatives were heads of state, not heads of government. Arguably the two most powerful men in the world at the time, the Presidents of the Soviet Union and the United States were not present. The French president, reportedly angry that he was not put ahead of Emperor Halie Selassie, sent the prime minister instead. Queen Elizabeth sent her husband and daughter. Another guest, the King of Greece, did not even rule his country any more. The American delegation was represented by Vice President Spiro Agnew. The only person he outranked was the Chinese Ambassador to Iran. Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines only sent his wife and daughter. One has to wonder how important matters were discussed about world events when the leaders of the United States, the Soviet Union, France, Spain (Generalismo Francisco Franco sent his heir Prince Juan Carlos and his wife), Great Britain (the head of government, the Prime Minster, was also absent), and China were absent. In the end, the celebration was more of a party to celebrate the man that coined himself Aryemehr Shahanshah (Light of the Aryans and King of Kings).
The festivities of Persepolis were lambasted by Ayatollah Khomeini. He took the opportunity to highlight the Shah's excesses and his obsession with the West. The Shah intended his party to be one of many. It was meant to show the world that Iran was ready to take its place among the community of nations. Instead, it was the beginning of the end. Seven short years later, widespread strikes and street protests paralyzed the country. Finally, in January of 1979, with a small bag of Iranian soil, the Shah left Iran ending 2,507 years of monarchy.
Inside the main tent via parismatch.com
The ruins of Persepolis