
Cultural Context of “Death to America” Chants - _ttg
https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=31116
======
homami
I went to school and grew up in Iran. Chanting death to America and Israel and
even to poor (already) dead Shah was part of an official ritual every morning
in the school.

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didn't know about the historical reference mentioned in the post.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.

~~~
csense
Thanks for this comment. This has changed my view somewhat on the Iran
situation.

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?

~~~
homami
Even after years of being brained washed by the media and the educational
system, a typical middle class millennial in Iran does not hate Western
culture or America.

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.

~~~
leereeves
The Iranian government recently murdered at least 200 (according to the UN and
Amnesty International) and perhaps over 1000 (according to US officials)
unarmed Iranian civilians. Many were shot in the back as they ran away. [1,2]

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...](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-s-says-iran-may-have-
killed-1-000-protesters-n1096666)

2: [https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/12/iran-death-
to...](https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2019/12/iran-death-toll-from-
bloody-crackdown-on-protests-rises-to-208/)

------
arjie
This is brilliant. It reminds me of the way "We will bury you"[0] was used to
imply that Krushchev wanted to destroy America rather than say "history is on
our side, and when your philosophy dies we will be there at its funeral" as it
is possible he meant. I love this.

0:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_will_bury_you](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_will_bury_you)

~~~
kace91
That one's funny for a Spanish speaker.

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.

------
moomin
Someone was pointing out on Twitter yesterday that his taxi driver said “death
to traffic”. Context is everything.

~~~
commandlinefan
Well, that does mean that he wishes traffic didn't exist (and, in this case,
I'm actually with him). I'm not sure that makes "death to America" any more
peaceful.

~~~
jhanschoo
The idea is the contexts in which such a statement is chosen to be uttered is
important, and not just the possible interpretations of the statement given
content: just as how the Iranian taxi driver says "death to traffic"
offhandedly, so the US driver says "fuck this traffic" offhandedly, and just
as the Iranian says "death to the US" offhandedly but not "death to traffic",
so the US citizen says "fuck the government" offhandedly. In any case, neither
mean to literally destroy or bugger the nation.

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.

~~~
jhanschoo
edit: ', and just as the Iranian says "death to the US" offhandedly but not
"death to traffic",'

should read ', and just as the Iranian says "death to the US" offhandedly,'

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
This seems like a dogwhistle. Basically, all the various groups that really do
hate America feel happy with "Death to America", while still being able to
say, that that phrase only really means "Down with America."

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.

~~~
Udik
> 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.

------
ctdonath
The nuanced verbiage of the article is overshadowed by the lead graphic,
showing the US leader being punched. This, along with current context of
Iranian-organized mob assaults on the US embassy in Iraq (including burning
the lobby), plus plenty of other incidents, makes it hard to accept the
"they're just saying they don't like meanies" explanation.

~~~
Udik
Trump is choking Iran after reneging an agreement the whole world had taken,
and that Iran was respecting to the letter. What would you say if Iran
prevented your country from having commercial exchanges with any other country
in the world? Just imagine that.

~~~
ctdonath
...he writes, conveniently overlooking the human rights abuses and threats
against neighbors which induce the sanctions. Hanging gays for being gay,
beating/jailing women for not wearing scarves, frequently declaring intent to
bomb Israel for merely existing, obviously building nukes for that purpose,
funding & operating terrorism worldwide (hence Soleimani hit), normalizing
"Death to America" chants nationwide, etc. Stop bullying others and others
will stop sanctions.

------
mc32
So we know what it means as a literal translation. What does it mean in the
minds of people when they say it while they burn flags and effigies?

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.

~~~
PaulHoule
Back in 1980 (during the hostage crisis) somebody put up a bullseye target
with a picture of Ayatollah Khomeini in the gym at the Y.M.C.A.

Death threats are common in political speech of that kind.

~~~
paulddraper
And I suspect that the person who put that up would like to see the Ayatollah
dead.

------
Bostonian
This article provides context for the "Death to America" chants in Iran:
[https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/death-to-america-
iran...](https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/01/death-to-america-iran-
philosophy-for-40-years/) .

"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.”"

------
refurb
Ok, even if “Death to America” is more benign than the translation sounds,
shouldn’t we look towards Iran actions more than words?

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-
sponsored_ter...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-
sponsored_terrorism)

~~~
jessant
Is this a counter argument?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_state-
sponso...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_state-
sponsored_terrorism)

~~~
jdoliner
Not really, it would be an argument that when Americans say "Death to Iran,"
it would be reasonable to take it at face-value. I don't really hear many
people saying that, so maybe more accurately when politicians say (on Twitter,
or otherwise) that they're going to attack a retaliate against a country, it's
not some turn of phrase, they mean it literally.

------
eindiran
Wikipedia has a pretty good article article on the phrase (and its sister
phrase "Death to Israel"):

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America)

As a side note, its fun to see something from Language Log on HN.

~~~
Udik
The article is mediocre, as it keeps saying "death to America" when the phrase
means something else.

Just open Google translate and paste in it: مرگ بر آمریکا

------
michaelbuckbee
I'm trying to think of US English idioms with a similar down/dead potential
for mistranslation:

\- They're dead to me

\- They're killing it

\- They're dead wrong

\- They're dead in the water

------
azinman2
Is the same expression true in Arabic as well? There’s no shortage of
translated crowds yelling “death to X” in many countries beyond Iran.

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).

~~~
andolanra
The text does indeed say _marg bar America_ , the phrase being discussed in
the article. The bombs aren't supposed to indicate "let's drop them on
America", but rather are intended to represent the bombs dropped by Americans:
the intent of the mural is to criticize America's military interventions.

~~~
azinman2
Thanks!

------
anigbrowl
A valuable article; american media so reflexively reports the 'death to
America' line with regard to Iran that it has become a staple of American
nationalist mythology at this point.

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](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.

------
starpilot
"When words fail, wars begin. When wars finally end, we settle our disputes
with words."

------
awinter-py
'marg bar' also sounds like a reasonably good brunch place

~~~
homami
That's funny, but 'marg' is pronounced with an /a/ sound like 'cab'.

------
infinity0
It's pretty simple, like how "fuck the system" doesn't mean you literally want
to copulate with the system.

Not sure why people ITT still trying to nitpick and stick with the supposition
that the chant is violent and primitive.

------
acjohnson55
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends
on his not understanding it." \--Upton Sinclair

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.

~~~
jrs95
It would also be very inconvenient for a lot of people’s agendas for it to be
socially acceptable to take what they say at face value instead of trying to
cover it up with some kind of absurd psychobabble

~~~
nkrisc
But you're not taking it at face value, you're evaluating the English
translation, not what people are chanting (unless you do in fact speak Farsi).

Translation is not a 1:1 affair much of the time.

~~~
jrs95
Yes obviously “death” can be used in more than one way, when it’s chanted in
combination with violence I think it’s safe to assume it’s probably the more
literal interpretation

------
SJk7TAy
My wife can testify that me saying "marg bar balesh" (death to pillow) every
night does not mean that I want to stab my pillow to death, rather that it
hurts my neck(+) when I use a soft pillow in bed.

\+ Fortunately, with a new hard medical pillow I feel much better nowadays.

------
Bostonian
The chants protest the U.S. killing of Soleimani, who was indeed responsible
for the deaths of many Americans. Given this context, I think many of the
demonstrators chanting "Death to America" should be taken literally.

------
crawfordcomeaux
My context:

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.

~~~
throwGuardian
If the US is a bad political experiment, which one is good? Iran would gladly
send you to the gallows if you deemed it's religious leader - Ayatollah, also
the political leader by design, as Iran is a religious state with no minority
rights, a 'bad' political experiment.

And China/Russia would know your probability of saying so a-priori, given
their blanket surveillance generating social credibility scores.

~~~
lukifer
> If the US is a bad political experiment, which one is good?

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](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](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_the_Rational_Voter)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Democracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Democracy)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting)

~~~
chrisco255
Getting 2/3 of a large group to agree on anything is damn near impossible. I
think the American system does a pretty good job of balancing popular and
regional concerns and has some democratic elements that require 50% + 1 and
many things that require larger majorities.

~~~
lukifer
My thinking is that there _should_ be a high bar to spend public funds or
leverage the state's monopoly on violence (and believe me, I'm not reflexively
anti-statist: I'm all for infrastructure and social safety nets, etc).

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%.

