Cultural Context of “Death to America” Chants
languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu
languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu
As a teenager, you don't grasp what you're saying. You're just part of the crowd. In an environment that there's almost no other forms of entertainment at reach; you feel powerful in these rallies. It's like being in a rock concert and singing the songs.
I imagine most people that show up in the rallies these days have nothing else to do. It's a recreational event for most.
Actually I think this is exactly what makes this culture most dangerous. There are big crowds of mostly low or unemployed people blindly following their leaders. And they enjoy it the same way that you enjoy a sport event or a concert.
I speak Farsi and 'death to America', well means death to America. I even didn't know about the historical reference mentioned in the post. But I doubt that the big majority of the individuals that are shouting death to something truly mean it.
I originally thought it was pretty dumb of Trump to tear up the nuclear deal, escalate tensions, and most recently basically try to start a war (by killing a high level government official).
But if "death to America" is literally being indoctrinated into their whole society, maybe war is inevitable, and better for it to start on our terms, when we have an advantage, instead of (say) wringing our hands and kicking the can down the road until they have nukes, like we did with North Korea. Maybe Trump's stance on this issue might not be so crazy?
Supporting war because "[it] is inevitable, and better for it to start on our terms, when we have an advantage" __is__ insane and is not a defensible position.
Older generations (even in some rural areas) have fond memories of Americanization of Iran in the 70s (which finally led to the Islamic revolution).
The problem that I see with Trump's approach is that it alienates these groups of people that had been pro-American before.
The country and the economy was thriving for a brief couple of years after the nuclear deal. People used their money to visit Gulf countries, east Asia and Europe. I think Internet speed almost doubled in that period.
But new sanctions made the economy collapse. And Muslim ban is a real thing if you are born in Iran. And it does not matter how pro-American you are.
Then now we ended up in a situation that even ordinary, middle class Iranians that could've been in American camp, are feeling under attack by a bully. For them everything that the government has been preaching about the great Satan is coming true.
Maybe it's time to realise it had elements of truth from the beginning.
How can Iranians still support that government?
Sanctions are probably the wrong approach - they tend to hurt ordinary people far more than the government - but if I were Iranian, living under a regime that's willing to shoot me in the back, I'd hope for regime change.
1: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-says-iran-may-have-ki...
2: https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/12/iran-death-to...
You're not respectful, as you're insulting 80 million people by saying they all want to murder you and other hundreds of million.
You're not being intelligent either, because you're wilfully ignoring the fact that literal translations from one language to another are incorrect. Even Google translate is in fact smarter than you are: just paste مرگ بر آمریکا into it and see what it prints out.
> Further, I don't think the killing of Soliemani was intended to signal we intend to change the regime. I think rather it was asking a question ... It's time for Iran's leadership to give this era of zero sum foreign policy a proper burial.
Wait, wait. The Iran had an agreement with the rest of the world, all of it. It agreed to a very strict regime of inspections and halting its nuclear program in exchange for an increased freedom to commerce with the rest of the world. This was a win-win for all, the opposite of a zero sum game. Trump has reneged the agreement, against the opinions of everybody else, and imposed a complete economic embargo on Iran through sanctions on anybody who does commerce with it. It is chocking the entire country. This is a zero sum game.
What the US is doing is strangling a country of 80 million- a bloodless death but death nonetheless. And if the dying country kicks and struggles, you say "enough with the zero sum game"? Really?
This is pretty much how reciting the Pledge of Allegiance felt when I was growing up. We'd stand and recite it at the start of every day of elementary school, but no one really paid too much attention to the words themselves and their meaning.
It's common to hear things like "tu abuela nos entierra a todos" (Grandma will bury us all) to imply she's really healthy for her age. I never even considered the alternative and more sinister possible meaning.
Every major problem the US has in the Middle East is self inflicted.
The “embassy” in Iraq isn’t an embassy. It a city. At 100 acres and 15,000+ personnel, it’s larger than many cities.
So to the extent that "death to X" conveys a strong hatred with probable signification of action in English, it is a mistranslation, since "death to X" in Iranian conveys a frustration that has not been analyzed much or that belies an intention for planned action, which is more similar to "fuck X" in English.
should read ', and just as the Iranian says "death to the US" offhandedly,'
Ask how they actually would say “death to America”. It’s going to be the same. So now this interview gives cover to those who are on the fence.
Given that this phrase was used during the storming of the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979, and is often accompanied by flag burning, probably a significant part of the crowds chanting that slogan do actually want death to come to individual Americans.
That is one stupid inference- a complete non sequitur.
When they chanted death/down with Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war did their actions just not coincide with their chants as they bombarded Iraq?
I’m not hitting you to be violent; rather, it’s a sign of affection.
Death threats are common in political speech of that kind.
Iranians were both protesting for and against US actions in recent days in US cities. Let’s try that in Iran if you think it’s the same.
What would you expect Iranians to say in the middle of the war? Death with CIA-sponsored chemical weapons but we're otherwise cool with Iraq?
But still, the point is it didn’t just mean “down with you, bah humbug!” as some people are trying to imply.
"Watching in horror as thugs grabbed our blindfolded embassy staff and paraded them before the cameras, Americans instantly learned that this was a regime that had no regard for any international law, traditional diplomacy, or morality. A revived relationship and summit meetings were unthinkable; anyone who met with Iranians on their soil was a potential hostage. The crowd of angry revolutionaries chanted “Death to America,” and the Iranian parliament and other official government meetings and rallies routinely began with the chant. Not even the Soviets began their Politburo meetings like that. By 1987, the regime instituted “Death to America Day.” Their Iranian prime minister introduced the national holiday by saying, “Tomorrow will be . . . a day of God on which America should tremble . . . the day when the arch-Satan will be placed under our feet.”"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_ter...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_state-sponso...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America
As a side note, its fun to see something from Language Log on HN.
Just open Google translate and paste in it: مرگ بر آمریکا
- They're dead to me
- They're killing it
- They're dead wrong
- They're dead in the water
Also, can anyone translate the bottom of the mural that has bombs and skulls with the American flag? To a non-native it’s hard to tell if this is a criticism of the US (supporting the article) or in fact suggesting to bomb the US (thus supporting death to America).
The US (or more specifically, boomers, who still dominate policy and politics to a large extent) has (have) never gotten over the Iran hostage crisis of 1979-90, when the Iranian revolution took American embassy staffers hostage for months on end. Conservatives still demonize Jimmy Carter over it, mostly forgetting the fact that Carter actually tried a military response which failed dismally due a lack of military preparedness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw
You could see a vivid example of this over the weekend when President Trump tweet-threatened to strike 52 sites of national or cultural importance to Iran 'representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran'. In general, rational factors are an input to policy, but many political currents are emotionally driven, and humiliation is a particularly toxic emotion that Trump has historically harped on; whether that's a cynical populist strategy or a personal hangup is a matter of conjecture. Of course, this works both ways; you could argue that Iran's selection of Ahmadinejad and Rouhani were to a large extent driven by their perceptions of George Bush and Barack Obama public personae.
Not sure why people ITT still trying to nitpick and stick with the supposition that the chant is violent and primitive.
It would be very inconvenient for a lot of people's agendas to not be able to portray the folks who use this slogan as bloodthirsty savages hell bent on destroying us.
Translation is not a 1:1 affair much of the time.
+ Fortunately, with a new hard medical pillow I feel much better nowadays.
The United States of America is a poorly designed political science experiment. It provides no means to peacefully revoke consent to be governed. There's no peaceful way out of the experiment, and so it violates a standard ethical norm for science experiments.
I seek the death/transformation of any science experiment not allowing for peacefully revoking consent to participate in said experiment.
Note: if revocation of consent leads to forceful removal from the country, I consider this to be a response that is not peaceful.
And China/Russia would know your probability of saying so a-priori, given their blanket surveillance generating social credibility scores.
That's a tough question, given human nature.
From what I've read, I'd say some Native American cultures, which were ~stable for thousands of years. Also some parts of Polynesia.
I'd say the Hopi. The Iroquois Confederacy also comes to mind. But they were quite warlike. Definitely not the Comanche.
Switzerland, one the only real democracy.
The Swiss were denying women the vote in federal elections until the early 1970s.
And that's the problem with 'tyranny of the masses' - popular isn't the measure of good, just or rational.
Does any country allow that? No.
So why pick on the US?
It does beg broader questions about potentially every government, as well.
"the one your trying isn't going to work, ever, anywhere" is an assumption worth converting into an hypothesis and testing the shit out of cause it's a super disempowered stance to take.
What leads you to say it isn't going to work, ever, anywhere?
And for the government to say that the rules don't apply to you, while you remain within the area ruled by that government, is to ask for the government to become a voluntary organization, that is, no longer really a government. Since more of us what a functioning government than want what you want, that would be asking the government to abdicate its responsibility. So... yeah. You're not going to get it.
And, "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" didn't mean the consent of each individual. It meant the consent of the group.
Back to hacks. A hack, in my book, is an unconventional, unexpected way of doing something. A way that breaks the rules, even. But not a way of beating your head against a wall. For it to be a hack, it has to work.
I'll throw my hat in the ring and suggest sortition (think jury duty, but for 2 years at a time, as the representative of your district/state): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition
There's still an argument for some level of direct democracy (ballot initiatives, but especially to throw out inevitable corruption/idiocy of representatives); though perhaps the threshold should be higher (such as 66% rather than 50%+1).
Bryan Caplan [0] and Jason Brennan [1] have made very sound arguments about voting bringing out our worst tribalist instincts, rather than the informed, enlightened voter that was fantasized by the Constitutional framers. The strongest case for democracy-as-we-know-it is simply the peaceful transfer of power, which it seems to accomplish surprisingly well; but in terms of sound policy, or reflecting the will of We The People, its track record isn't exactly stellar.
(That said, as long as our system is still driven by the vote, we would stand to benefit from bottom-up electoral reform, such as switching from First-Past-The-Post to Ranked-Choice or Approval voting [2].)
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter
Practically, I understand the concern. I think our hyper-partisan politics has us accustomed to a 51/49 dynamic that occasionally flips sides; my hypothesis is that reducing democratic influence on representation (in favor of RNG), coupled with electoral reform for the democratic processes that remain, would make it far more feasible to build consensus in the range of 60-80%.
To unpack the latter: my preferred system is Approval Voting, as it definitionally measures the greatest quantity of "consent of the governed", and game-theoretically rewards compromise and consensus. A person or policy that is extremely popular among 55% can potentially be outcompeted by one that is moderately popular among 75%.
I can dream. :)
Bhutan.
It's technically a Third-world country, but they seriously have their shit together.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhutan#Political_reform_and_mo...
The old women wept when the King decreed democracy.
> Bhutan's political system has recently changed from an absolute monarchy to a constitutional monarchy. King Jigme Singye Wangchuck transferred most of his administrative powers to the Council of Cabinet Ministers and allowed for impeachment of the King by a two-thirds majority of the National Assembly.[38]
They track not GDP but GNH: Gross National Happiness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_happiness
Unfortunately, they're likely doomed:
> In 1999, the government lifted a ban on television and the Internet, making Bhutan one of the last countries to introduce television.
One great thing about our experiment is that you have a lot of liberty, included your constitutional right to travel. You can live in other cities and states which more closely align with your ideologies without ever needing to even think of violence of force.
Or, if you can't find a home here in any of our states or cities, you're welcome to seek a new home anywhere in the world.
That's the kind of liberty our experiments grants you.
—written from my iPhone
Also, I think Bhutan shifting their government to metrics based around well-being is a great example of orienting the state away from money and toward human needs.
And I don't know of a state that's been designed to fully meet the human need of autonomy.
I'd like to design and implement one, perhaps through exercising the inalienable right to found a nation, just as the founders of the USA did. Or did they found a nation only to strip people of the right to found their own nation?
If anyone can unilaterally decide not to be governed, then the government ceases to have any purpose. I think there's definitely a case to be made for allowing people to have more personal control, but what you're advocating is basically anarchy.
I was just rereading Abercrombie's A Little Hatred, and came across this, said by Sand dan Glokta (a notorious torturer) to a young associate:
> The goal of government, you see, is to load the unhappiness on to those least able to make you suffer for it.
Example: today, I was in court to convert traffic fines to community service. I was then informed community service must be performed for a 501c.3 to be recognized by the court.
Society and the government don't typically consider parenting or healing oneself physically/mentally/emotionally as something to be valued the same way as any paying job. Both take work and arebeneficial to society & the government, but people who help others accomplish those goals are currently paid/valued far more in capitalism.
So, I'm starting a 501c.3 to validate time spent parenting, supporting parents, healing and supporting healing for legal community service. The board will likely be stacked with anarchists (initially) and may be required to demonstrate a willingness to operate as such. In the face of by-laws requirements, this may be tricky to codify.
In any case, I see this as a way to starve the government of fines levied against people who fall into any of those categories (which can easily be met by anyone simply by hanging out with friends). Or at least I think it can apply to anyone. If I'm leaving anyone out, let's try to expand the mission to easily include them!
So we starve the state together through forming a nonprofit while meeting human needs.
It'd be nice if we could just say "This requirement doesn't meet my needs. Can we figure out another arrangement that doesn't require so much administrative overhead? I'm a full-time parent seeking to minimize the amount of time away from my child until I have broader solidaritous community support in my life."
I can write more on this, as this idea spawned out of already-in-place thoughts on peacefully revoking consent to be governed (for Lent and for All). But first I'm going to eat, clean the living room, and meditate on the nonprofit more while my partner and child nap.
I read your comment below, and I really like what you said about parenting and healing, by the way. I also think that learning to create things together without the permission of governments or corporations is something that we would all benefit from very much. I'm not sure it's necessary to throw off the shackles of government to make a lot of real, concrete improvements in the way we live.
In Lincoln's day, rail travel and the telegraph were the cutting edge of technology; news was beginning to commonly travel faster than it could be carried by couriers on horseback. (Of course, long-distance signaling systems existed for centuries before that, but had very low bandwidth and were at the mercy of weather conditions). Now we are in an era of ubiquitous instantaneous communications in developed countries (which I'll define here as any country with functioning electrical/cellphone infrastructure). One ramification of this is the use of mass networking services like Telegram, Whatsapp etc. as the organizing medium for political demonstrations/uprisings in numerous countries around the world.
18th-century social/political technology is no longer responsive to the tempo of a 21st century world. And while it would be a mistake to situate the mechanisms of the government in the fastest conceivable context (as evidenced by volatility in financial markets), being locked in to various years-long political cycles (particularly the 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 year cycles of the American political calendar) clearly comes with a cost of reduced flexibility as well as a benefit of increased stability. Like a tank falling into a ditch, once it passes a tipping point of instability there's no bringing it back.
No, it's not. It's not a well-designed one either. It is simply not a political science experiment.
> It provides no means to peacefully revoke consent to be governed
Nor could it without being replaced as a government with one that did not.