Hacker News Reader

> people who fled in the aftermath of the revolution and are extremely antagonistic towards the regime

Iranian who left Iran here. Do you have stats or reference for this critical piece of information?

It’s as if someone’s says, since Bangladesh is predominantly muslim, the majority aligns with what the Islamic regime does for ideological reasons and would try to undermine the account of atrocities.

But one shouldn’t believe this before seeing some polls, stats, etc.

Anecdotally this does seem to be true in US. I know several Iranians in US, from completely different social circles, but all of them strongly anti-clerical and not shy about it.

Also, as a Russian who left Russia, it's certainly a familiar pattern.

Note, by the way, that this doesn't really imply anything about whether those people are wrong to be antagonistic.

> Also, as a Russian who left Russia

I've noticed there's two distinct 20th century Russian diaspora groups in the US. Those who came here prior to the fall of the USSR, and those who came after.

In talking with the ones who came after the fall, life wasn't glamorous but got truly unlivable in the wake of the collapse.

In talking with the ones who came before the fall, they wanted to make money.

There's a group here, largely those expats kids in my experience, that swears they had things better back in Russia and ravenously consume Russian media. I used to encounter them a lot in Sheepshead Bay.

> I used to encounter them a lot in Sheepshead Bay.

My friend is one but wasn't always like that. He was never critical of Russia or the USA and was pretty quiet until befriending some Russian dude in his apt building during the blackout of hurricane Sandy. Now he frequently criticizes and rants about capitalist USA then sings praise of Russia. We keep telling him to go back but he doesn't. He's unfortunately "that guy" in our group of friends now -_-

Most immigration in 00-10s was economical, and yes, for that group of people it's often the case that they are very much still enmeshed in Russian imperial agitprop. It's common enough that there are memes about this: https://lurkmore.media/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%91%...

However there was a smallish wave of political immigration after the 2011 protests and 2014 conflict with Ukraine, and a much larger one since the invasion of Ukraine in 2022. And those people tend to be very anti-Russian-government for obvious reasons.

I really do not understand immigrants who still love their home country. I’m going to die 12 thousand miles away from where my ancestors are buried going back tens of thousands of years. After spending most of my life with ashy dry skin because I’m somewhere I’m not designed to be. All because my ancestors fucked everything up! Fuck those people.

You are looking at this from the perspective of someone to whom "my ancestors fucked everything up" is obvious and self-evident. Many people don't see it this way.

FWIW when it comes to Russia specifically, I would broadly agree that the problem there is not just the government but the culture as a whole (although we'd probably disagree about the specific things in that culture that are problematic). It is not obvious, though, and I think it always behooves one to be careful when making sweeping generalizations like that and carefully rationalize them.

> FWIW when it comes to Russia specifically, I would broadly agree that the problem there is not just the government but the culture as a whole

You’re correct about Russia. And the same observation applies to the Indian subcontinent, where I’m from, as well. And, while you’re correct that each place requires a separate analysis, I would guess it applies to most places people leave.

People’s emotions and tribalism often make them romanticize the places they left. They attribute the good things about their society to the people and their culture, but externalize the bad things about their society. That’s usually self-deception.

> It’s as if someone’s says, since Bangladesh is predominantly muslim, the majority aligns with what the Islamic regime does for ideological reasons and would try to undermine the account of atrocities

That’s true. Bangladeshi people strongly supported amending the constitution to make Islam the official religion. Islamization of the country has accelerated since we left, and now it looks like the Islamist parties will get a seat at the table in a coalition government.

My spouse (Bangladeshi) and I (not) went to a rally in Jackson Heights when the first protests were going on and we were surprised by how pro-Islamist the crowd leaned, from their signs and chants. We jumped on video with my in-laws at one point and they were even like "oh no you guys should leave, these young people are Islamists".

It seems to be true across the Muslim world. My father is from North Africa, and any time we've been back there over the past decades it's very clear a large swath of the youth are embracing the more religious political movements.

I have family around Jackson Heights and one is reposting stuff from Jamaat-e-Islami (the main Islamist party) on FB.

It’s very odd. I saw lots of younger Bangladeshis supporting the overthrow of the Awami League government (the most secular of the parties). I wasn’t sure if it was people who just didn’t realize it would leave a vacuum for Islamists, or or people who wanted that. It seems there’s some of both.

My boss was a BNP supporter (at one point I deduced) and regularly used to tell me that Chhatra league was as bad or worse than Shibir.

Growing up with my militantly secular dad, I've always been shocked to even meet BNP supporters in the wild.

He always told me he didn't support any one party outright but he also told me Pakistan was a great country so I could put two and two together. He also called Prothom Alo communists.

I agree that actual studies would be good.

All I can do is throw my anecdotes into the pool: I mostly have met two types of Iranians: Those that fled in the 80's post-revolution, and those that come to the US for university (90's, 00's, and 10's).

All of them have been anti-regime.

I have met a few that came for other reasons (not education and not the 80's stock). Yes, those are either pro-regime or neutral.

My guess is that what rayiner says is correct: The majority of the Iranian diaspora in the US is self selecting and not representative of the full population.

> The majority of the Iranian diaspora in the US is self selecting and not representative of the full population.

My guess as well. As an Iranian outside of Iran, I see that my folk in Iran are way angrier, more disappointed, braver and determined against this injustice than I (we outside) am. It’s common sense.

> But this is not an uncommon sentiment among the Iranian diaspora

Iranian-American here, I have never heard a single Iranian badmouth Carter or his family in my entire life. This is the first time I'm hearing of it.

> extremely antagonistic towards the regime

On the other hand, this point is very accurate, I can confirm. There's a reason we left, after all. To my earlier point: this is consistently the direction of our anger - towards the regime - not the Carter administration.

"People who were fine with it stayed" surely you must be joking right?

How come they blame carter instead of REAGAN over this shit?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980_October_Surprise_theory

President Nixon was an outspoken friend of the Shah. It was Carter administration that stabbed him in the back and negotiated with Khomeini in the first place. The hostage crisis happened about 9-10 months after Khomeini was in power and only towards the end of that crisis you could argue Reagan was in the picture at all. The love for Islamists by the Democrats in power never ended and Clinton, Obama, and Biden all were desperate in appeasing the Mullah regime. It's the ousting of the Shah and appeasing the Mullahs that garners the hate.

Clinton using executive orders and legislation to keep Russia and Iran from cooperating on defense was a desperate act of "Mullah" appeasement? It was the iranians that called for the Negev summit?

Yes, it is all relative. It is appeasement compared to war and much heavier sanctions that ended up being necessary. Clinton and even Bush II administrations were hoping internal change would come up during Khatami era and hoping for him to be Gorbachev. Regardless of Bush II harsh rhetoric, the real animosity only really started after Ahmadinejad was installed in Iran. You are correct that Clinton was still not as friendly as the other two, who very explicitly played into their hands.

In any case I was simply responding to OP's "why" question and that their theory on blaming Reagan allegedly vs Carter on a narrow point, highlighting that particular case is temporally much later, and has no relevance to the underlying reason Carter is hated over there.

Fine, show some quotes from "Mullahs" where they acknowledge this supposed appeasement.

I don't think them acknowledging anything in public is either necessary or relevant to the discussion. None of this is germane to the original question posed and I have no intention to change the narrative in your head so I'm out of here.

What "narrative"? You made a claim about "desperate appeasement", and if that was true, I imagine that iranian politicians and twelver clergy would brag about it incessantly.

> After 12 years of varying media attention, both houses of the United States Congress held separate inquiries and concluded that credible evidence supporting the allegation was absent or insufficient

> The people who disliked the Islamization of the country and had the financial means to do so left while the people who were fine with it stayed.

You say it yourself, the ones who "had the financial means to do so left" - so it's very disingenuous to then state "the people who were fine with it stayed." What about those who couldn't afford to leave?