شنبه، آذر ۱۴، ۱۳۸۳

Persian Gulf

‎ببينيد اين‌كه اسم خليج فارس ديگه حالا خليج فارس نيست يك كمي هم تقصير خود ماست. قبول ‏كنيد. ‏
به‌عنوان يك بخشي از اين ماجرا ببينيد كدوم يكي از ما مواظب كلمه‌ي ‏Persian ‎‏ بود. اگه از يك ‏انگليسي‌زبان يا فرانسه‌زبان، كه خيلي با سواد هم باشه، بپرسيد ‏ Persian‏ چيست؟ شك نداشته باشيد كه ‏بيشتر خواهد گفت: «اين كلمه به تمدن باستاني منقرضي اشاره مي‌كند كه قبل از ميلاد مسيح در ايران ‏كنوني وجود داشته.» شوخي نمي‌كنم. همين منوي اضافه كردن زبان‌هاي جديد به سيستم عامل ويندوز ‏‏(يا هر منويي در اينترنت كه زبان‌ها را فهرست كرده) را ببينيد. ‏Persian‏ كجاست؟ باور كنيد كه اين يك ‏مسئله ساده نيست. يك مشكل هويتي كلان است. ما به‌عنوان صاحبان فرهنگ و تمدن ايراني تغيير نام ‏داده‌ايم. همه اسم جديد ما را مي‌شناسند و كسي اسم و شخصيت قبلي ما را به ياد نمي‌آورد، خيلي ‏راحت، پاك شده است. من مشكلي با كلمه‌ي‏ Farsi ‎‏ در آن منوها و در هيچ فهرستي ندارم. اما يك كسي، ‏يك جايي، نهادي، مرجعي چيزي بايد به اين عالميان بگويد كه منظور از ‏ Farsi‏ همان ‏Persian‏ قديم ‏است. راه ديگرش هم اين است كه برگرديم به همان اسم اولي و از همه ـ مترجمان سازمان ملل، ‏نشست‌هاي بين‌المللي، طراحان نرم‌افزارها، مايكروسافت، ياهو، گوگل، رسانه‌ها و . . . ـ بخواهيم ديگر ‏از كلمه‌ي ‏Farsi‏ استفاده نكنند. سخت است. ‏Persian ‎‏ بارهاي معنايي خوبي داشت، تاريخ داشت، ‏جغرافيا داشت، فلسفه داشت، در قصه‌ها بود، اگر مي‌توانيد دوباره همه‌ي آن بارهاي معنايي را سوار ‏كلمه‌ي ‏Farsi‏ كنيد بسم الله.

اگر نمي‌توانيد مجبوريم كه برگرديم.

از يك زاويه: اين كه خليج را به اعراب مي‌شناسند، نتيجه‌ي مذاكرات اعراب نيست، نشانه‌ي آغاز يك ‏فرايند بزرگ است: فرايند فراموشي و به‌حاشيه راندن يك تمدن.

از زاويه‌اي ديگر: من ايرادي در دوگانگي دروني هويت‌هاي خودمان نمي‌بينيم: ايرادي ندارد كه هر ‏خيابان ما دو نام داشته باشد، دو واحد پول داشته باشيم و هر يك از ما در هر محله به يك نام صدا ‏شويم. اما بايد حواسمان جمع باشد كه اين دوگانگي هويتي را بتوانيم جمع كنيم و از خودمان يك كل ‏واحد ارائه دهيم. اين كه خليج را به اعراب مي‌شناسند نشانه‌اي از آن است كه نتوانسته‌ايم هويت‌هاي ‏متناقض ايراني و اسلامي خودمان را جمع كنيم. جمع اين دو هويت كه در شرايط عادي بايد برابر با ‏يك باشد، تقريباً با صفر برابر مي‌شود و اين خطرناك است. ‏

۵ نظر:

  1. English excerpt:

    As a nation with multiple identities, we have abandoned our old "Persian" identity and have chosen a new "Farsi" one. No news is transmitted to the world form "Persian" civilization and we insist on the phrase "Persian Gulf".
    We need either to reproduce the historical, geographical, literary and cultural connotations of the word "Persian" in "Farsi" or to turn back and revive the wor(l)d of Persia.

    پاسخحذف
  2. این نظر توسط یک سرپرست وبلاگ حذف شد.

    پاسخحذف
  3. این نظر توسط یک سرپرست وبلاگ حذف شد.

    پاسخحذف
  4. I have no significant comment on ‘the Gulf problem’ but I think you are absolutely relevant when speaking of multiple identities; Iranians have multiple identities... there is nothing wrong about it as long as you shift it to something positively multiplying, something that evades sedentarization. Identity problem as it is discussed in the west carries the camouflaged politics of pseudo-fluxional western politics, economical affordance and the State’s monitoring policies. Identity presupposes a mutual affordance, an economical openness which is survivalist to the core: “I can open to you ‘as long as’ I afford you, otherwise I will be cracked open.” This is the ultimate politics of liberalism, ‘openness towards everything’ but an openness which has already been configured and refined through the dynamic boundary of the system, based on capacity of the system to handle it, and at the other pole, this economical openness is heavily interconnected to the most pathetic modes of organic and quotidian political survival. Openness is never discussed as polytics of ‘being opened’ but the economical, self-preserving politics of ‘being open to’, a higher level of system management; here, identity is a thermodynamic pattern modulated / invented based on political affordance. Everything that threatens the economical affordance i.e. the capacity (emerging from openness as ‘being opened’ instead of ‘being open to’), is an imminent danger for identity.

    The entire western culture is not open to us, it can only try to afford us, afford our teeming multiplicity. To afford us efficiently and effectively (let’s say with minimum waste), it has erected many guardians, identity is the strongest of them as it links the individual to the crowd, operating spatially rather then locally ... every (western) Identity must afford our multiplicity or appropriate it to a consumable resource; otherwise, in the case of failure, there is always the danger of eradication, of being alienated (cracked open) which is directly associated to suicide or madness (All the western culture cares about is its deeply meshed Survival Economy; this is why, suicide is the best necrocratic terror to play the role of a scapegoat, a scarecrow for those who are fearless enough to tread at the borderline of this economical openness, of this Survival Economy). Have you noticed, they are unable to digest our ferocious multiplicity which is flowing smoothly in our life; western culture is merely capable of ‘trans-forming’ our multiplicity to reproduced ‘Life-Styles’; the western creativity to domesticate the most rabid and frantic lines of our multiplicity is almost potentially limitless; it is great and fantastic in domesticating whatever it finds (pet industry); we cannot deny its spectacular achievements in organic repression. To this extent, I find ‘speaking of identity’ -- as what western intellectualism maps -- absolutely both dangerous and ridiculous. Our identity is a multiplying multiplicity. Yes, we Middle Eastern people and Iranians in particular are irrelevant to the contemporary world. We are an offbeat / offtime current in the chronology of the whole globe; an autonomous sorcerous machine working out of aeon. I regard this as an ample opportunity to forge our warmachines, polytics and multiplicative identities, instead of ceaselessly importing whatever is attached to western identity-complex and seek to localize it. (Horsemen are afraid of camels, because of their awkwardness)

    If we accept our multiplicity and resolve our problems around it, we can come to this conclusion that for us peace is not opposed to War (war&peace political regime of the new world order is also another symptom of affordance and identity), since we invent peace as its true form, peace as ‘pax’ (pax iranica, pax islamica, etc.): we are a pack and for a pack the war has already been cracked and laid open by peace; this is our peace, we should accept that we are the new world disorder; actually, we have always been but the only solution to trigger it and bring it to the course of positive function is ‘participating’ with it, not an economical participation based on mutual affordance and thermodynamic conservatism (economical openness) but a radical one, free from the identity-complex of the West. Thinking of perfection (ne plus ultra) is ridiculous; we are a diverging process not a telos. Ergo: we should think strategically. Let’s be cunning

    پاسخحذف
  5. Our beloved Persian Gulf is less Persina because wehave been neglecting people around there. Our Islands are not Persian when the people there dont feel like it they prefer to be part of a more prosperous place.. so is the situation in Azarbayejan, Kurds, Arabs and so on... we cannot just sit in tehran and expect other to stay part of us...

    پاسخحذف

  © Blogger template Writer's Blog by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008, Modified by Esmail Yazdanpour

Back to TOP