Getting
Lost In Translation: Ahmadinejad And The Media
By Ali Quli Qarai
28 September, 2007
Countercurrents.org
First
I want to make some remarks about that now world-famous statement of
President Ahmadinejad at Columbia: “We do not have homosexuals
in Iran of the kind you have in your country.” The American media
conveniently ignored the second, and crucial, part of his sentence as
something redundant.
Obviously he was not saying,
We don’t have any homosexuals whatsoever in Iran—something
nobody in the world would believe, not even in Iran. And by implication,
he was not telling his audience, I am a plain liar! —something
which his audience at Columbia and the American media construed him
to be saying.
What he was saying is that
homosexuality in the US and homosexuality in Iran are issues which are
as far apart from one another as two cultural universes possibly can
be. They are so dissimilar that any attempt to relate them and bring
them under a common caption would be misleading. “Homosexuality
is not an issue in Iran as it is in present-day American society.”
This was, apparently what was saying in polite terms.
Homosexuality in the US is
a omnipresent social and political issue which crops up in almost every
discourse and debate pertaining to American society and politics. So
much so that I think it was a major issue, if not the deciding factor,
in the last two presidential elections which paved Bush’s way
to the White House and saddled the Democrats with defeat, because a
large so-called conservative section of the American public (the red
states) felt wary of the pro-gay liberalism of the Democratic Party.
By contrast, homosexuality
is a non-issue in Iran and is considered an uncommon perversion (except
as an occasional topic of jokes about a certain town). Prom the viewpoint
of penal law, too, it is does not receive much attention as the requirements
for a sentence (four eye-witnesses, who have actually seen the details
of the act) are so astringent as to make punishment almost impossible.
(It would be interesting to know how many have been accused of it during
the last two decades)
By contrast adultery and
homosexuality are legalized forms of behaviour in most of Europe and
America, and regarded not as criminal acts but as perfectly acceptable
forms of sexual behaviour and as legitimate natural human rights which
need to be taught even to all Asian and African societies as well.
There was also a subtle hint
in his remark that he wanted to move on from this topic to more serious
and relevant matters, a point which would be obvious to anyone conversant
with Persian language and culture (like his another hint concerning
the disgraceful conduct of Columbia president, when, while formally
inviting Columbia academics to Iran, he added that “You can rest
assured that we will treat you in Iran with hundred percent respect.”
Iranians, being linguistically
a very sophisticated people, speak a lot in hints which are invisible
to outsiders. Americans in comparison tend to be straightforward and
often as primitive.
(In general the Persians,
like other civilized societies, have developed the art of making and
responding to harsh remarks in soft and friendly words. Americans, as
Prof. Bollinger proved, have still much to learn from civilized nations
concerning the civilities of civilized hostility.)
Mr Bollinger’s hostility
towards President Ahmadinejad had obviously been fed by devious translations
and interpretations of his earlier—also world-famous—remarks
about Israel and the Holocaust. As if, as one commentator has remarked,
the professor had been watching only CNN and Fox News.
· Unfortunately for
more than an year these remarks have given a ready-made excuse to his
critics to demonize him and attack Iran’s foreign policies. Although
he has made some attempts (unjustifiably belated, I think, and not quite
adequate) to clarify himself, we who hear these remarks have also an
intellectual duty to ourselves and others to see exactly what he exactly
meant.
It is a basic linguistic
principle of civilized discourse that so long as there is an acceptable
and upright interpretation for someone’s remark, it should not
be given a devious meaning. Moreover, as one of my teachers often says,
it is easy to reject and denounce the statements of others, but the
worthy task of every intelligent seeker is to try to understand people
who hold different opinions. This is particular necessary when such
statements originate in a different linguistic and cultural domain.
When Ahmadinejad repeated
Ayatullah Khomeini’s words that “Israel baayad az bayn beravad,”
(which literally means that Israel should cease to exist), what is critically
important for understanding is to see how Iranian people understand
these words of their president. I don’t think any mature Iranian
with some awareness of regional politics has ever thought that the late
Leader of Iran, or the present president of the country, were advocating
some kind of military objectives against Israel. By citing the example
of the Soviet Union and the Apartheid regime in South Africa Ahmadinejad,
too, has clarified what he meant by ‘Israel ceasing to exist.’
By the rules of civilized discourse, every speaker’s clarification
concerning what he means is authoritative as he is entitled, before
all others, to state and clarify what he means by his statements. In
this case, Ahmadinejad has also clarified as to how he thinks that my
happen: a general referendum in undivided Palestine with the participation
of its Arab, Jewish and Christian population.
As for his statement that
the Holocaust in a myth, we all know that the word “myth”
has several meanings in the dictionary. One of its meanings is “A
fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology”
(The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language). Thus a myth
is not something necessarily untrue and Ahmadinejad has not denied outright
that the Holocaust did occur, although he seems to have—what he
considers to be legitimate—doubts about its exact extent, doubts
which are prone to be strengthened, rightly or otherwise, by attempts
to persecute or prosecute scholars whose research leads them to conclusions
different from main-current historiography. What he basically appears
to question is that the Holocaust should be made an ideological tool
for the pursuit of unfair and inhuman objectives—something which
most of us acknowledge has happened in the case of Palestine. Why should
the people of Palestine be made to pay the price for the guilt and failings
of Europe? He asks. I think that is a legitimate question.
The savants of the media
are free to interpret Ahmadinejad’s statement with the purpose
of demonizing him and excoriating Iran, but there are better and alternate
paths for those who strive for understanding and peace between nations,
and to an objective like this should institutions like universities,
including Columbia, contribute.
I hope that Mr Bollinger
will advance a courageous apology to Mr Ahmadinejad and take advantage
of his standing invitation for continuing the exchange of ideas with
academic circles in Iran. Iranians generally are a large hearted people,
like most Americans, and I hope the bitterness which has arisen from
the unfortunate event of the past week will soon be forgotten with the
sincere efforts of well-meaning intellectuals and officials on both
sides. I cannot think of any other way in which good will between these
nations as well as the good repute of an outstanding institution of
higher learning such as Columbia can be salvaged.
Ali Quli Qarai
is an Iranian scholar. He has published several books, including a translation
of the Quran.
He can be reached at [email protected]
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.