Iranian Revolution Blog Post

In my opinion, Shah Reza Khan's, and Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's attempts to modernize Iran were legitimate, potentially-effective attempts at modernization. They were some of the few attempts to modernize in the revolutions that we have studied this year that were not harmful or destructive to the people of the country. In China, for example, during The Great Leap Forward, modernization attempts led to the starvation of millions of people, as well as the decline of the economy throughout China. Modernization, however, was effective but not worth the means of getting modernized.

The two Shah's reforms were not radical like the ones of The Great Leap Forward, but rather moderate so as to usher in modernization without causing harsh implications on the Iranian people. These reforms included changing the ancient name Persia to Iran, modeling the government like the modern European state, centralizing the government, collecting taxes, writing down laws and apointing judges. These reforms did not cause any deaths, and they increased modernization in Iran, although not on as large a scale as the modernization that took place during The Great Leap Forward.

^Starving woman during the Great Leap Forward

Why do you think violence allows for more modernization like such? I believe it does because it is easier to enforce rules with violence, though it is never the best way.