How do you think these people are formed? Are you saying that these people have appeared out of the blue? I don't think a society chooses a certain path without a reason. When sociologists explain why our culture is going down the toilet, they are ignored in the media and are often labeled or dissed as educated by Western ideas. Didn't the IR go as far as trying to "cleanse" social sciences and humanities from Western ideas and philosophy? LOL
As for trade with foreign countries, I can ensure you that in none of these companies that I have mentioned, there's any trade with any foreign entity. Not even Afghanistan or Iraq. It's just a sociological phenomenon. Look at giant tech companies in Iran like Snapp, Digikala or Alibaba. Have they succeeded in expanding their business into neighboring countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkey, Armenia, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, Qatar, UAE, etc.? Then look at giant tech companies in the US and see how they have entered literally every hub in the global economy. The amount of trade between Iranian companies and foreign countries is minimal now but requiring English proficiency for "Oghdeh" is at its peak and growing faster than ever.
There's another reason certain types of companies want employees to understand English, and that's the fact that the documentation they consult can be of foreign origin, and is then most often in English. This is especially true in the high tech sector. Most of the scientific literature worldwide happens to be in English.
So my main points remain:
1) Iran's trade with the outside world amounts to around 150 billion USD and directly implicates hundreds if not thousands of companies. Also, technical documents, and articles composed in English need to be studied in certain lines of work. To a wide extent, this explains why companies request English skills from employees, and up to that point, it's unfortunately inevitable.
Companies that have strictly no use of English but will nonetheless condition employment upon mastery of that language, let alone those where internal communication is conducted in English, do not represent a large percentage of economic actors. Most businesses in Iran (every day services, stores, small businesses outside the high-tech sector and more) are staffed by people who practically speak not a word of English.
2) The Islamic Republic's policy of self-sufficiency represents a formidable barrier against proliferation of English in the professional world. Under a "normalized" type of government, which would fully integrate Iran into the western-dominated, globalized economy, use of English by workers and employees would definitely increase several fold compared to current levels.
Europe has received about 4-5 million refugees since the beginning of the Arab spring (civil war in Syria and Libya) and they are bitching about it all the time to the point that their nice "human rights" and "anti-racism" facade is unmasked. We are being flooded with Afghan refugees and already host over 4 million Afghan refugees and you say we don't have an open border policy? Are our borders in the east closed now? Turkey has started creating a wall in our border. That's how a country defends its borders. The IR has globalist policies motivated by religious ideas. It's different from what Anglo-Saxon countries try to enforce on the world in practice, but in theory, it's the same phenomenon. The only difference is that instead of a liberal culture, they want the whole region (and if they can, the whole world) to pursue a culture enforced on them by their religious values.
You can read works and statements by western elites themselves. Whilst large chunks of their populations have an issue with mass immigration, the dominant oligarchy doesn't. On the contrary, they have devised and implemented a deliberate policy of mass immigration, which they try to legitimize with economic, demographic and humanitarian considerations. At the core of this process lies an ideological pursuit of interbreeding and the desire to create a cultural melting pot, as well as their belief that the nation-state must be transcended so as to make way for a universal republic with a nationally undifferentiated citizenry.
This is worlds apart from the policy and ideology of the Islamic Republic, as well as from societal reality in Iran. Why limit ourselves to the millions who have entered Europe since the so-called Arab spring? Many millions more settled here during previous decades. The fact is that in western European countries, the percentage of residents with immigrant roots stands at around 25% on average. In Germany, their number reached 19,3 million people out of some 82,6 million in 2017, today their proportion is even superior.
According to the latest "micro-census," the number of people in Germany with immigrant roots rose to 19.3 million last year. Although society is becoming more diverse, many have argued that it's not become more open.
www.dw.com
More importantly, there's simply a huge difference between immigration from one single neighboring country that shares a lot with the host nation on the one hand, and wild hodgepodge mass immigration from every imaginable corner of the world on the other hand. These two phenomena are simply incomparable. In the latter case, it is followed by instutionalized multi-culturalism and cultural hybridation and dilution. In the former, it is not. Europe is now a multi-cultural society (in the broadest sense possible), Iran is not.
The respective impact of these contrasting models on society is clearly visible in every day life. In Iranian cities, there's no equivalent to the nation-specific / "ethno"-specific immigrant neighborhoods characteristic of European agglomerations. When riding a metro train in Tehran, one will not get the impression that locals have been superseded by people of foreign origins, nor that the national character of the population has been lost to the benefit of a multi-cultural global mix. Iran and Europe in this regard are really like apples and oranges.
Next difference is Iran's much stricter legislation in terms of granting residence permits and citizenship to immigrants (less than 25% of immigrants have managed to obtain a residence permit in Iran, versus some 80% in Germany).
Nor is the Islamic Republic seeking to dissolve the national specificities of Muslim countries into the Islamic Umma. In the thinking of Iranian Islamic revolutionaries, there's no contempt for national specificity. Sure, nation is not placed above Islam, but loss of national authenticity is not the goal either. In this sense, the ideology of the IR differs a lot from salafism, as any competent scholar will confirm.
Otherwise authorities of the Islamic Republic could easily have implemented programs to attract masses of migrants from a varied spectrum of Muslim nations, and then encouraged mixed marriages like globalists in the west are doing on a more universal scale. But the IR never did such a thing, since it does not correspond to its intent.
In short, the policies of the Islamic Republic are fundamentally different from globalism.
How many times Iran has been betrayed by these friendly countries? How many times do you want me to mention right now on the top of my head? Starting from Yaser Arafat to this very day.
Iran's Axis of Resistance and Iran's alliances with extra-regional partners like Venezuela have proven to be solid.
When it comes to Palestine, Iran's support for the Resistance is not merely a religious and anti-imperialist imperative, it's also a matter of pure national security and deterrence in the strictest "non-ideological" sense, given that the zionist entity and international zionism pose an existential threat to the Iranian nation.
I understand that using Arabic words when it comes to Sharia is justified and in some cases inevitable, but it is not completely so. Look at «نیایش» and «نماز». Both words are used extensively in religious texts. Nobody uses «صلاة» in Iran. Even the clerics use نماز. Or even better, «خدا» is used to refer to Allah. Even religious words can be replaced by their Persian equivalents. It's not entirely impossible or forbidden in Islam.
These Persian equivalents are also used in state-controlled media, and they form part of inscriptions on public buildings and amenities. So the Islamic Republic is not hostile to the Persian language.
_____
have you seen the words they spew out , have you seen any program , plan , ....... anything from them ?
they just sit and make nonsense world for example چشمه به جای چاه توالت
آخه نباید طرف را گرفت یک بلایی سرش آورد یا مثلا جای فانتزی آورده غیر معمول غیر ضرور یا دورسخنی به جای ویدیو کنفرانس . بعدش میاد با کمال پر رویی میگه هدف ما حل مشکل مردم بود نا جایگزینی کلمه ای که دیگه رواج ندارد.
من اگر بفهمم بابت هر افتضاح چقدر به اینها میدهند
To me there's nothing wrong with these word creations.
Dursokhani instead of 'video conference' is just beautiful. And it's made of Persian words. Likewise,
rāyāne instead of computer etc.
I'm not entirely sure about cases such as 'toilet' because we already had words like
mostarā and
dastshuyi. But, we definitely need Persian substitutes for newly appeared concepts, rather than just importing the English term. This too is part of preserving the national language against globalist cultural onslaught, and in fact the Islamic Republic is one of very few countries to do so.
all these irrelevant to discussion and by the way spewing word and say use them won't solve anything . it need long term planning and programs which academy of Iran language failed to provide any and we see no result from its work
We would have seen the results more immediately if it they hadn't been there. As for long term planning and programs, yes they're needed but much of it is beyond the Academy's area of competence and involves the Ministries of Education and of Culture & Islamic Guidance.
www.yahoo.com
