PD 2 AP ENGLISH LANGUAGE
Earlier this year, we heard Chimamanda Adiche say, "The single story creates stereotypes, and the problem with stereotypes is not that they are untrue, but that they are incomplete. They make one story become the only story." This is incredibly important to remember in our unit on Persepolis and the rhetoric of revolution.
After you have watched Iran and the West and have read part of Persepolis (at least the first 5 chapters), respond to at least of the following questions.
Answer with at least 5-6 thoughtful sentences by Friday at midnight. Reply to two peers by Sunday midnight. Happy blogging!
49 Comments
Puja Chudasama
10/13/2016 03:57:29 pm
I enjoyed hearing from the many perspectives from both sides. At first, it did seem as though we heard more from the western perspective but that may have been due to us having to read subtitles for the middle eastern side. I did not know much about Iran in the beginning, so it did give information for me to build a foundation. The way I interpreted the documentary was that the Westerners were the enemy. It did show the university students acting violent, but they always blamed the United States most of all. The United States did take part in the cause when they helped put a western leaning Shah in charge. The primary concern for the West was if they were still going to get oil at the price they were used to or wanted. Many people in the Middle East blamed the US for not helping accurately and instead made it worse after seeing all kinds of advertisements that offended their culture. Iran and the West seemed more like facts and information. Their intent was not to persuade without any information to back it up. Persepolis is from a single perspective from a young girl. The documentary and the book both show the beginnings of political and religious chaos.
Reply
Connor Hall
10/15/2016 12:21:31 am
I agree with your comments about the west and it's reason for involvement in irans issues. I believe that the only reason the United States was there, was for unfairly cheap oil
Reply
Ben M
10/19/2016 01:53:55 pm
Despite the US intervening for oil, that is not something that should be held against the nation or the administration at the time. Many other powers before us have invaded and enslaved for resources. This is simply part of the cycle of civilizations.
Sage Burdette
10/16/2016 04:49:48 pm
I agree with you on the way they portrayed the Westerners to be the enemy. The documentary didn't seem to elaborate on the total issue between Iran and the U.S, just that Iran wasn't happy and some of the issues were the religious outlook and explicit advertisments.
Reply
Ryan Winkler
10/16/2016 08:03:17 pm
I agree as well with your comments. The documentary primarily focused on Iran's issues, but didn't go into quite enough detail about the connection with the United States. Some more clarity would've been nice.
Reply
Ben M
10/19/2016 01:51:57 pm
Yes; very true. That is another reason I really enjoyed the documentary: it was very unbiased, and all facts. I never thought about Persepolis in that way; however, it was one person's perspective, influenced by other people's but it was one perspective still.
Reply
Brady Michael
10/13/2016 05:12:48 pm
The documentary and Persepolis provide two very different views of the revolution. Persepolis is written from the perspective of a child at the time, and who is not against Western culture. The documentary, however provided a near opposite view. In it, the religious majority, who was against Western way of life, was mostly covered. This purpose was to express tradition of religion, and Persepolis focused on basic freedom of way of life. They are same by showing how the revolution affected the population, and what major events took place.
Reply
Jaelin Cochran
10/14/2016 07:44:35 am
I agree the documentary made it seem as if everyone was on board all the time, while the book showed the people's dissatisfaction.
Reply
Broc glover
10/14/2016 09:30:49 am
The documentary seemed to only show the large groups of people who where for it, it never really showed or talked about the other group who was against the revolution. The book shows both sides, which gives more into the situation.
Reply
Kara Herber
10/14/2016 07:54:53 pm
The documentary did seem to portray the government as all agreeing and easy to get along with. It seemed to lead viewers to think the revolting peoples' actions were unjustified. However in Persepolis, like you said, the book does talk about dissatisfaction within the people and the government as well.
Reply
Connor Hall
10/15/2016 12:27:02 am
I like how you made a point that even tho, Persepolis is from the view of a child, it is still widely respected and read.
Reply
Nikki
10/16/2016 06:13:19 pm
And too because it is written from a child's point of view, many people could understand it and vision it.
Nikki
10/16/2016 06:11:48 pm
I totally agree with you Brady because you see a change throughout the book and the movie however they are both covering the same concept of revolution
Reply
Ryan Winkler
10/16/2016 08:06:08 pm
This is a good way of analyzing Persepolis. The fact that the book is written through he eyes of a child give no true bias to either side of the argument. It does however historically represent the issues that were introduced into the lives of people.
Reply
Calvin
10/23/2016 08:48:22 am
I agree with the points that you made. The documentary presented way more religious views.
Reply
Czar Parrish
10/14/2016 06:58:57 am
The distinction between the documentary and the book is shown through violence. In Persepolis, the perspectivrnis shown from a young girl who rebels in her own small ways like arguing with her teacher or even hitting her. In the documentary, war tanks and riots are shown. The most interesting things thing in the documentary was the lack of peaceful, happy, content people shown. Yes it does show the two sides but there is a hidden third side. Persepolis does a good job of showing the third side.
Reply
Jaelin Cochran
10/14/2016 07:39:45 am
I agree with your analysis of the sides within the two. Violence is definitely the biggest aspect in both.
Reply
Broc glover
10/14/2016 09:38:23 am
I never thought about there being a third side to this but after reading some of the book the other side starts to reveal itself
Reply
Jaelin Cochran
10/14/2016 07:52:50 am
I found the "he said/she said" aspect in the beginning of the document very interesting. Iran and the United States were both preparing for battle with the other, all while attempting to get their people on board. Iran stated that,"... Dictatorship and terrorism always has a trail leading to the west..." The United States had mentioned that they refuse to let Iran gain use of a nuclear weapon. I had always been aware of the Iranian opinion of the United States, however, I never knew that Khomeini was the face to that belief. I had always viewed Iran as more of a dictatorship, it never occurred to me that so many people living in Iran agreed with the choices made by their country.
Reply
Hannah
10/14/2016 04:20:47 pm
I agree, I never realized how intense the majority opinion was toward the west. Video of the protests were kind of frightening, like all the anger was shifted on the western people not necessarily the ideas.
Reply
Morgan
10/15/2016 04:46:50 pm
By he said she said do you mean interviews?
Reply
Sage Burdette
10/16/2016 04:52:50 pm
I agree with you on the fact that Iranaians seemed to back up the countries choices a lot more than we thought. We don't see that a lot on social media and new cast. We only see what the war part and not the reality.
Reply
Broc glover
10/14/2016 08:42:27 am
In the documentary, they use people who where the main focus to describe the events and their thoughts during them. In the book, it is one story from the point of a child getting information about the events through her family. The documentary goes through main details of the events that occurred. The book shows just what the family knows or finds out. Both are about the same topic but one is through many perspectives and the other is only through one.
Reply
Brady Michael
10/15/2016 01:28:10 pm
I agree that their social class did affect what they knew. It's interesting to see how even a key player like Khomeini wasn't mentioned in Persepolis just because the family didn't know very much concerning him. Main events were also unmentioned. Jimmy Carter letting the Shah into the U.S. and the hostage crisis were not discussed in the book, and this was a likely cause for the confusion when we watched the documentary. While in the documentary, changes in everyday life was not heavily discussed.
Reply
Calvin
10/23/2016 08:54:00 am
I agree on your statement on the the book. It paints more of a picture of family life than the documentary.
Reply
Sage Burdette
10/14/2016 03:57:34 pm
The documentary opened my eyes up to the beginning events that would become a chain reaction of violence. What interested me the most was the Shah's negative power and how Khomeini took over. The westernized version was looked at as wrong and not valuable because of how explicit is. From an American's point of view it shows that not only is the western part of the world influencing the east but that we don't see how much we affect it. Iran became violent. Strikes and war happened. It's changed my views because it goes to show that their problems extend farther than the countries around them but also the U.S being involved.
Reply
Hannah Longley
10/14/2016 04:23:32 pm
Yeah I agree it was interesting to see how they should each country working behind the scenes and influencing even presidents. I would like to see if other countries are influencing our current election.
Reply
Hannah
10/14/2016 04:24:47 pm
*showed
Hannah Longley
10/14/2016 04:17:02 pm
I've never read or learned much history about the conflicts between Iran and the US or west ingeneral. Now having some information to go on, Im rethinking my intial thoughts. I used to think that a alot of the conflicts were from religious differences I still believe that but I think maybe they failed to see a majority of people in the west aren't a fan of the strong profanity and lack of modesty just as they are, except they attacked all westerners. I still hold firm with my idea that it is extreme and intolerant, but now I can at least see how they may have had a understandable reason for their actions.
Reply
Dominique W.
10/16/2016 07:25:04 pm
I agree somewhat with your point, but at the same time I disagree. As shown in Persepolis and some parts of the documentary, many people were unsatisfied with the Shah's leadership and policies, some that had nothing to do with religion or western values. Marjane was even a huge fan of western media like Michael Jackson. Maybe I'm misinterpreting your post, but I think its wrong to say that they attacked all westerners for their views as that seems to lump them together.
Reply
Emma Stone
10/14/2016 05:03:29 pm
What I found interesting about the documentary was that there were different views on the situation. It changes my understanding about Iran because I did not know much about it in the first place. In my opinion the documentary and the book differ because the documentary has many stories from people involved with the revolution. The book on the other hand has a one sided story because the girl was living in the revolution at the time. They are the same because they are both talking about the revolution and how it changed Iran.
Reply
Puja Chudasama
10/15/2016 02:48:46 pm
The documentary and the book really helped teach everyone especially since a large amount of us didn't have any knowledge to start out on.
Reply
Calvin Covington
10/14/2016 07:09:23 pm
Probably the most interesting thing I took from the documentary we watched was seeing how different our culture is different from the rest of the world. Obviously we are separated by ocean but so many things are contrasted between our cultures such as religion. Seeing how much of an impact religion had on how Iran made their government descisions was really interesting. It really changed the prespective I've had on the religion of Islam, I never really knew what to think about it because there is so many limitations of what people of the religion do. If a government is centered around religion it's wrong to throw another culture in the face of your people as the Shah did to his people. As we saw the people will stand up to a leader who affects the morals and values and tries to change their traditions.
Reply
Nikki
10/14/2016 07:43:29 pm
Watching the documentary really put a different perspective on my head about the Middle East. I really have always thought that everything over there was war and all there was conflict. However, the video showed me the roles of the Shah and how he affected his people. I also learned what ties the US had with the Middle East. There really is no right or wrong answer for the argument, but in my opinion, I would say people on the Middle East are tired of people being judgemental and cruel towards them. That's where the conflicts begin and it's sad really. But reading Persepolis there were some major differences between the book and the video. The book mainly focuses on the veil while the video relates to war and crisis.
Reply
Kara Herber
10/14/2016 07:51:20 pm
I agree with your statement about how easily people in the west judge the culture and people of the Middle East. The documentary taught me a lot about their government and the deep desire most people have for a more stable way of life. My single story of them was incorrect; the people in Iran are just life us. They want a fair, stable life with freedom.
Reply
Kara Herber
10/14/2016 07:45:38 pm
The Iran and West documentary has a very factual based argument in that it includes many pieces of evidence that describe the events of the revolution. The documentary uses interviews from people that were involved and asks them important questions regarding their opinion and role in the revolution. Experts on the revolution way in on the subject too. While the documentary has a slight bias, the video does a good job of presenting true information.
Reply
Caleigh Pumphrey
10/23/2016 07:25:15 pm
I agree. I am glad that we were able to get both views from different age groups on one story.
Reply
Ryan Winkler
10/14/2016 08:47:15 pm
The documentary provided a good historical view of the events that took place in Iran. My views were not swayed by it for the most part, but I have a better understanding of what actually happened in the Middle East during this time. The primary point of the documentary seemed to be that the United States was the cause of most of Iran's modern conflicts, starting with having a westernized Shah, and going on later to issues such as oil. The argument seems to be, and was clearly demonstrated by the university students, that the U.S. shouldn't have involved itself politically with so many things. The book and documentary are two very different articles, Persepolis being a single view, and the video being multiple, with a slight bias. They are however the same by providing a detailed history of the tension in Iran.
Reply
Sarah Fonner
10/14/2016 08:56:27 pm
Before watching the documentary and reading Persepolis. I didn't know anything about Iran. I learned and understand a lot better now after reading Persepolis and watching the documentary. The documentary and Persepolis have to different viewpoints. The documentary has to do with grown adults living in the revolution and understanding what is happening. It also focused on the religion and taking down the Shah. However in Persepolis it is a child's viewpoint and she may not understand why everything is going on completely and she just wants freedom for everyone.
Reply
Caleigh Pumphrey
10/23/2016 07:23:57 pm
I agree. Before watching the documentary and reading the book, I figured that Iran was just a country and that me knowing about their culture had no importance; however, I enjoyed both of them and i feel more educated.
Reply
Dominique W.
10/14/2016 09:28:52 pm
I really enjoyed the documentary we watched in class and thought that it was very interesting in how ot portrayed its message. I was most interseted in the parts describing the relationship between Iran and America, and how they influenced each other because I hadn't heard much on what our involvement was. The documentary seemed to use that as their main argument, with America inadvertently causing some of the conflicts in Iran, and Iran's responses shaping how we would react. For example, the revolution occured partly because of a dislike of western culture and the Shah there, who we had help come into power. Another thing was how much Iran contributed to President Carter not getting reelected. The way Persepolis and the documentary differ, is the point of view that they are told from. Persepolis is more about the people and their feelings, including personal moments like the story about her maid's crush on a boy or the main character's talks with God. This helps you identify more with them, rather than information given after the fact from the BBC. Both are very good in their own way with what they are trying to accomplish however, with both giving good information on the start of the revolution and its reasons for existing.
Reply
Morgan Smith
10/15/2016 04:46:03 pm
I agree the documentary gave a great perspective into global repercussions of the revolution
Reply
Puja Chudasama
10/15/2016 06:27:17 pm
I'm glad I read the book as well as watched the documentary because it is necessary to read about personal moments where you can see the thought that went through most of Iran. The documentary presented more with facts or events that occurred than personal stories.
Reply
Connor Hall
10/15/2016 12:34:43 am
I enjoyed hearing from each different person who had survived the war. Before watching this doc, I didn't know some of the traditions Ik now. I believe this doc blames the USA, and other westerners for its extremism. It is argued that, the west is blasphemous to Iran and the Muslim culture, with basically their customs and every day lives
Reply
Brady Michael
10/15/2016 01:40:13 pm
With the Shah's support of Western culture, I agree that the people in part blamed the western powers' involvement for the dilution of their culture. We see the differences between stories by reading Persepolis and seeing how the family has a more western way of life.
Reply
Dominique W.
10/16/2016 07:33:48 pm
I don't really agree with your point, the documentary is mainly just facts about what happened and the causes/effects of those actions. It never really blames the U.S to me, what I saw was that the U.S. had it's fingers in too many pies really. It gives both an Iranian and American viewpoint but never really blames the other in my opinion. I can understand why you'd think that way though.
Reply
Morgan smith
10/15/2016 04:45:04 pm
The documentary gave a more worldwide perspective of the war while persepolis gave a more local and naive version of the Revolution. I believe the documentary has a western biased and the book also has a slightly but less apparent western biased. Both have really educated me on the revolution and life in the middle east in general
Reply
Ben M.
10/19/2016 01:48:34 pm
I really enjoyed this documentary. When writing this post, I appear to be confusing Persepolis with the documentary; they went very well together. For the most part, the documentary reinforced my knowledge on the topic and filled in details I had forgotten or glanced over. I always wondered why the people supported the Ayatollah, despite his radicalism. I was also surprised by the Shah's perspective. In World History, we learned he did not care, however this video showed he and his staff were not carefree.
Reply
Caleigh Pumphrey
10/23/2016 07:21:10 pm
I really enjoyed watching the documentary ans reading the book. It provided me with more information on Iran and prevented me from having a "single-story mind." The video was from the point of view of older, more experienced men who seemed to fully understand what they were talking about ans why things were happening the way they did. the video failed to mention how the kids at that time had felt. Therefore, I am glad we read Persepolis because it was from an innocent's child point of view who wanted to help but did not fully understand how to help or why thins were happening. There are always two sides to every story.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
September 2017
Categories |