An example of Anger & Bitterness by Dr. Wouter Henkelman, a professor of Iranian Studies
The e-mail below (March 10, 2009) is from Dr, Wouter Henkelman of the Vrije University in Amsterdam, Holland regarding Kaveh Farrokh to Alan Sasoun, a history enthusiast who often visits Parthia.Com discussion groups. Note the rude and disrespectful tone of Dr. Henkelman towards Farrokh.
NOTE: Farrokh had never written against Wouter Henkelman and his associate Matt Stolper or the Dutch archivist Jona Lendering (of Livius.org), or any other of his colleagues.
Dr. Henkelman has written for major venues such as Encyclopedia Iranica, and is closely associated with Professor Matthew Stolper (University of Chicago) and his Persepolis Fortification Project.
The two faces of Dr. Wouter Henkelman who works with Matt Stolper’s Persepolis Fortificaiton Archive project at the University of Chicago (see also his video in Dutch where he discusses the Tablets). Henkelman supports Spiegel magazine and Jona Lendering’s narratives that Cyrus the Great was not a human rights pioneer and that all history showing him as an illuminated is “propaganda of the Shah”. Henkelman has also supported the viscious 2008 Euro-racist attacks against Kaveh Farrokh in Wikipedia. In fact Henkelman characterizes Farrokh’s perspective (and all like-minded historians) on Cyrus the Great’s Human Rights role in history as “…the fairy-tale world…” (see his e-mail further below). Despite these contradictory actions, Henkelman continually insists that he is concerned for Iran by pointing to his highly distinguished career in Iranian Studies (see for example a number of his excellent papers by clicking here…).
Dr. Henkelman’s e-mail (March 10, 2009) attached below (after the double lines) circulated for a number of months and was finally forwarded to Farrokh on August 4th 2009. The e-mail is of interest as it is characterized by a tone of anger and bitterness, not normally seen in persons of academia. There are three reasons for this.
(1) Dr. Henkelman’s Lie and attempt at Defamation
(2) Farrokh’s defense of Cyrus the Great against Eurocentrist attacks in Spiegel Magazine and the Daily telegraph
(3) Henkelman’s support of Eurocentirst Ad Hominem attacks against Farrokh .
These are discussed below.
(1) Dr. Henkelman’s lie and attempt at Defamation
Dr. Henkelman resorts to lying in his e-mail below by claiming that Farrokh is not Iranian. Henkelman has found himself embarrassed by this simple fact:
FARROKH IS DEFINITELY IRANIAN (please click on this line)
There is also the element of common sense: -کاوه فرخ- Kaveh Farrokh is as Iranian a name can get – surely Henkelman with years of work in Iranian Studies must know that ”/Farr-okh/”- فرخ- and “Kaveh”-کاوه- are Iranian names.
Why would a professor who is an excellent academic resort to lying and contradiction?
This will surprise readers: Dr. Henkelman’s statements are virtually identical to those made by Eurocentrists in their 2008-2009 smear campaign against Farrokh in the Wikipedia and the internet.
Note that DBachman was among 40+ racists who ganged up against Farrokh in Wikipedia.
Given these revelations, the following questions may be posed:
-
What is Henkelman’s connection to Eurocentrists in the internet?
-
Was Henkelman also participating in slander and defamation against Farrokh in the Wikipedia in 2008-2009?
-
His attempt to “de-Iranize” Farrokh strongly suggests that he has ties to Euro-racist activists in the Wikiepia.
The e-mail below is from a Holland-based academic who has known Dr. Henkelman as well as other racist Wikipedia adminstrators and users such as “Dbachman”:
=====================================
—- Original Message —-
From: xxxx xxxx xxxx@gmail.com
To: manuvera
Sent: Sat, Nov 19, 2011 3:02 am
Subject: Re: A Persian
Kave ye gerami
…Henkelman is not Dbachman. Henkelman is a Dutch racist, Dbachman is Swiss …
xxxx
=====================================
Henkelman’s exposure as a racist is ironic given his claims of being an advocate of Iranians.
To further understand Henkelman’s perspective, kindly read (2) and (3) below.
(2) Dr. Henkelman’s Anger at Farrokh’s defense of Cyrus the Great against Eurocentrists
Farrokh’s response to Spiegel Magazine and the Daily telegraph due to their attacks against Cyrus the Great in July 2008. Dr. Henkelman, apparently in defense of the aforementioned publications, notes of Farrokh’s:
“…rude comments about scholars who have devoted their lives to shedding light on ancient Iran…”
There is no evidence of ”rude comments” in any of Farrokh’s writings, on-line or in journals against any person. Farrokh has simply questioned the assertions of anti-Iranian Assyriologists in the aforementioned Spiegel Magazine. No rude or inappropriate language has been used as the aforementioned links demonstrate. This is regular academic discourse – questioning Academic Orientalism is not the same as rudeness. Note that the author of the Spiegel article, Matthias Schulz, labelled Cyrus the Great as
“…a Persian despot…upstart king…no humanist…no evidence of moral reforms or humane commandments…”.
Dr. Henkelman’s defense of the biased (if not racist) articles of Spiegel and Daily Telegraph appear contradictory, given his employment in the field of Iranian Studies.
First, the Spiegel and Daily Telegraph articles grossly offended the Iranian populace in iran and in the diaspora. Examples of these sentiments are expressed in an article by Cyrus Kar in Payvand News of iran as well as protests in Akhbare Rooz News Service of Iran (in Persian), Iranian.com, IranpressNews (in Persian), Iranshenakht (in Persian) and the Shahrbaraz Blog.
Second, Iranians have also launched a petition against both Spiegel magazine and the Daily Telegraph. Dr. Henkelman’s e-mail below however states that the Spiegel and Daily Telegraph articles are…
“for the benefit of scholarship *and* the people of Iran“.
The logical (and unfortunate) conclusion is that Dr. Henkelman is defending articles that attack the history, identity and dignity of the people of Iran.
Professor Josef Wiesehöfer who has done much work in ancient Iranian history. As noted by Spiegel Magazine, “Explains Josef Wiesehöfer - The notion that Cyrus introduced concepts of human rights is nonsense (page 1)…In truth, he was a violent ruler, like many others. His army ransacked residential neighborhoods and holy sites, and the urban elites were deported (page 2).” Henkelman not only supports Wiesehofer’s position but also notes that such works are “…for the benefit of scholarship *and the people of Iran…” (see his e-mail below). How does re-writing history of Cyrus the Great and insulting the people of Iran “…benefit scholarship and the People of Iran”?
Henkelman even accuses Farrokh of “rudness” simply because he dared question the Eurocentrist views of Wiesehofer. This powerful attitude is tantamount to academic censorship. Interestingly, Henkelman’s stance here is virtually identical to the Eurocentrist writers “punishing” Farrokh in Wikipedia in 2008-2009 due to his response against Spiegel magazine.
What is clear is that Dr. Henkelman bears hostility against historians or laypersons who do not agree with Spiegel Magazine’s attacks against Cyrus the Great, and by implication, the people of Iran. This is confusing given his vigorous activities in Iranian Studies.
Why is Dr. Henkelman so opposed to the notion that Cyrus the Great is a major pioneer of Human Rights in the history of mankind?
(3) Henkelman and support for Eurocentrist attacks against Farrokh
Dr. Henkelman is close supporter of Mr. Jona Lendering, a controversial figure whose anti-Iranian writings over the years has finally landed him in the midst of Human Rights petition with 1400 signatures to date. Tim Cook, who signed the petition against Jona Lendering’s on Sept. 12, 2011 has noted that:
“Jona Lendering is not an Iran expert or historian at all. I have gotten into arguments with him over his propaganda edits in Wikipedia. Mr. Lendering is so misinformed that he was trying to convince us that:
(a) Achaemind dynasty is a “Mesopotamian” dynasty with Mesopotamian kings.
(b) the suffix “the Great” is something that has been added to the names of Persian kings (even after I showed him dozens of 2500 year old Acahaemenid translations with phrases like “Darius the Great King” etc.”
Henkelman’ often portrays himself as an advocate of Iranians however he contradicts himself with his support of Jona Lendering’s controversial views. Perhaps Henkelman truly believes that Lendering’s views are “…for the benefit of scholarship *and the people of Iran…” (see his e-mail below).
These attitudes help explain why Henkelman and his close colleague, Matt Stolper of the Persepolis Fortification Archive, have supported Jona Lendering’s 2008-2009 massive internet/Wikipedia smear campaign (in English and Dutch language websites) against Kaveh Farrokh.
Dr. Henkelman therefore, was not pleased to witness the discrediting of Jona Lendering’s reivew in Bryn Maur against Kaveh Farrokh’s second text on February 2nd 2009. It must be noted that Lendering’s writings in Bryn Maur against Farrokh’s text had not been peer-reviewed by a panel of experts of Iranian Studies.
The e-mail below certainly makes clear that Dr. Henkelman has been sympathetic to Lendering’s Ad Hominem (and racist) attacks. Such attitudes are out of character among professors in prestigious academic venues.
Jona Lendering, who has been accused of racism against Iranians, is (again) defended by Dr. Henkelman. Dr. Henkelman then contradicts himself by stating “…Lendering’s review itself should not have been printed…”. Then why did Henkelman and Stolper promote Lendering’s defamaotry attacks against Kaveh Farrokh? had they not seen Lendering’s anti-Iranian behaviour against the CAIS website?
What kind of person is Jona Lendering?
a) Before attacking Farrokh, Jona Lendering first sold his pictures for Farrokh’s book (see b)
b) Osprey Publishing paid Lendering for his pictures and published these in Farrokh’s text Shadows in the Desert (2007) on pages 23, 53, 54, 89, 116, 128, 179, 180, 181, 183, 189, 195, 225, 288.
c) Right after he received his cheque from Osprey Publishing Lendering began to launch rude and racist attacks with the support of Dr. Wouter Henkelman, Dr. Matt Stolper and racist acitivists in the internet and Wikipedia.
NOTE: Farrokh had never written against Lendering (or Livius.org).. It is clear that the attacks against Farrokh have been poltically and racially motivated. Farrokh was being “punished” for having dared defend the historical legacy of Cyrus the Great.
c] Lendering even launched a smear campiagn against Osprey Publishing despite having been paid by them!
Jona Lendering (left) and one of his defamatory-attack victims, Iranian historian Shapour Suren-Pahlav (right) who is also host of the Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies (CAIS) in London which provides resources for learning about ancient Iran. Lendering used his Wikipedia supporters and administrators to forcefully eject CAIS postings regarding Cyrus the Great out of the Wikipedia in 2007-2009. The reason: Lendering insists that the Human Rights legacy of Cyrus the Great is simply “Shah propaganda”. Even more bizarre are Lendering’s attacks against Shapour-Suren Pahlav for raising alarm bells regarding the destruction of historical sites (including UNESCO sites) in Iran. Lendering has even attempted to whitewash reports that the Sivand Dam is harmful to Cyrus’ tomb at Pasargard by labelling this as ”anti-Iranian propaganda“! Wouter Henkelman and Matt Stolper support Jona lendering’s narratives.
It is worth noting that Jona Lendering has been furnished with an office in Tehran where his views against Cyrus the Great are supported by the religious right. The link in the previous sentence highlights Lendering’s growing controversy in the Iranian lay and academic community.
Note that Jona Lendering’s anti-Iranian activities have resulted in a major Human Rights petition bearing over 1400 signatures to date.
The Jona Lendering case against Cyrus the Great highlights the close co-operation between Persephones in Iran’s religious right and Western Persophobes (Eurocentrists) in media outlets, academia and Wikipedia.
For more on Jona Lendering’s relationship with Persophobe ideologues in Tehran consult:
When Iranian Professors attack their own History: The case of Dr. Parviz Rajabi.
By Kourosh Ahmadi & Shahyar Mahabadi
In an attempt to dismiss the Bryn Maur review questioning Jona Lendering, Dr. Henkelman boldly asserts “…the so-called joined protest of the academic main stream is really a hoax…”. This unfortunate attitude signals Dr. Henkelman’s rudeness to any academics who dare question his views – this is interesting as he often seeks to portray a different temperament of himself when in the company of Iranians (especially prominent persons).
Hopefully the distinguished Dr. Henkelman is not contemplating on also calling the Iranshenasi journal’s review of Farrokh as also being “…a hoax…set up and written (or dictated) by Mr. Farrokh himself“ . If Dr. Henkelman is making such a claim then he is challenging distinguished Iranologists such as Dr. Jalal Matini (chief editor), Dr. William L. Hanaway (University of Pennsylvania) (Associate editor) and Professor Emeritus Roger M. Savory of the University of Toronto (member of Iranshenasi’s Advisory board). All of these members have close ties to the Encyclopedia Iranica.
It is clear that Henkelman and his associates were distressed to see Farrokh’s book strongly supported two years after their support of the Spiegel magazine, Daily Telegraph and Jona Lendering. The peer-reviewed Iranshenasi journal which has ties to Encyclopedia Iranica, strongly praised Farrokh’s text in 2010:
The Iranshenais review seriously questions the validity of Dr. Henkelman’s assertions against the Farrokh text (see e-mail below).
In fact Jona Lendering’s key supporter in Wikipedia, an administrator known as “Doug Weller”, has tried to smear Iranshenasi simply becuase it supported Farrokh’s second text. Henkelman has, to say the least, insteresting anti-Iranian (if not racist) Eurocentrist associates via Jona Lendering.
Dr. Henkelman also ignores a whole sleuth of world-class scholars including Professor Richard Nelson Frye of Harvard University, who have endorsed Farrokh’s work. Professor Frye is the world’s top authority of Iranian Studies with over 40 years of publications and research to his credit; he was honored for his achievements by the Persian-American Society in March 2008. Professor Frye and Harvard University read over Farrokh’s text and endorsed it by writing its foreword section. The silence with respect to Professor Frye is understandable as the latter’s views of Cyrus the Great contradict those of Dr. Henkelman and like-minded Assyriologists and Spiegel magazine.
Other scholars who endorse Farrokh’s text include Dr. Geoffrey Greatrex of the University of Ottawa, and Dr. Llewellyn-Jones of the University of Edinburgh. Farrokh’s book is used as a standard textbook at Stanford Unviersity (see the Iranshenasi pdf file). It is also being cited by major history textbooks including:
- Dr. Hamma Mirwaisi’s “Return of the Medes: An Analysis of Iranian History” (Wheatmark Publishers, page 142) also published in 2010.
- Dr. Michael Burgen’s “Empires of Ancient Persia“ (Shoreline Publishing Group, 2009, pp. 33, 30, 66).
- Farrokh’s book is now cited in Webster’s “”Persia: Webster’s Quotations, Facts and Phrases“” (ICON Group International, 2008, pp.61).
- Primceton University Press text “Makers of Ancient Strategy: From the Persian Wars to the Fall of Rome” by the Eurocentrist Victor Davis Hanson who has cited (on page 29) Farrokh’s text as one of the major recent references for ancient Iran’s military history. This was published in 2010. Note that Hanson dislikes Iran and and is a hard-core Eurocentrist.
- Farrokh’s book has also been translated into Russian and Persian.
The information provided here again questions Dr. Henkelman’s assertions who is not an expert on ancient Iranian military history (he has not published papers in ancient military history venues). His animosity appears to be derived from Farrokh’s citation of Cyrus the Great as a Human Rights pioneer.
NIAC (March 25, 2009 ) rightly provided a prize to Dr. Henkelman’s close colleague, Professor Matthew Stolper (Professor of Assyriology at the University of Chicago) for his excellent works with the Persepolis Fortification Archives at the University of Chicago. Stolper is also known for speaking against politically motivated efforts to confiscate the tablets.
An e-mail sent to Kavehfarrokh.com (Sep 18, 2009) noted that a close Iranian associate of Matt Stolper who has helped oganize his fund-raising efforts in the Iranian community in support of Stolper has claimed the following:
Matt Stolper’s associate (Sep 18, 2009): “…told that…Cyrus was not Iranian and his cylinder was a propaganda by the Shah…“
Is this what Dr. Matt Stolper is teaching his students and associates?
Equally unimpressive is Matt Stolper’s support of Jona Lendering’s notion that the human rights history of Cyrus the Great is just “Shah Propaganda”. Proof of this can be found in Stolper being acknowledged in Jona Lendering’s website
Like Henkelman, Stolper presents himself as an advocate of Iranian Studies (where he has done much good work with Elamite tablets) but then contradicts himself by supporting the anti-Cyrus narratives of Spiegel Magazine and Jona Lendering. Also, like his close colleague Henkelman, Matt Stolper supported Lendering’s attacks against Kaveh Farrokh in the Persepolis Fortification Archive website. Henkelman’s e-mail below expresses his frustration (and presumably that of Matt Stolper) against the fact that Lendering’s attacks were discredited 8 months after Matt Stolper first promoted them. Note that Lendering’s attacks against Farrokh specifically characterized all history of Cyrus the Great’s benevolence as”the government of Mohammad Reza Shah…propaganda“. NIAC was most certainly unaware of these events when they awarded the prize to Matt Stolper on March 25, 2009.
A new generation of Eurocentrists: Harry De Quetteville (left), Tom Holland (center) and Klaus Gallas. Quoting Holland, Gallas and Josef Wisehofer, De Quetteville wrote in July 16, 2008: “Cyrus…every bit as despotic as any other land-grabbing leader…Klaus Gallas…told Spiegel magazine…that the UN had given the Cyrus scroll false authority…professor Josef Wiesehöfer…derided it [the Cyrus Cylinder] …as “a propaganda inscription…It’s [Cyrus’ legacy in Human Rights] absolute nonsense”…[Cyrus inflicted] a list of atrocities…several salutatory atrocities…For all the criticisms of the Cyrus cylinder, it is unlikely to change perceptions of it in Iran, where Cyrus and the cylinder are regarded with intense national pride”…”. Dr. Henkelman makes clear that he is upset at Farrokh for having dared to question the narratives of De Quetteville, Holland and Gallas and Wiesehofer. Dr. Henkelman however is an Iranian studies professor, which makes his claims of being an advocate of Iranians somewhat puzzling.
It’s interesting that Henekleman (an Iranian Studies professor) accuses Farrokh of “rudeness” simply because he questioned De Quetteville, yet he and Matt Stolper remained silent against De Quetteville’s very blatant racism in July 2008. Interestingly, Dr.s Henkelman and Stolper were supporting Jona Lendering’s anti-Cyrus crusade in 2007-2008 – coinciding with the time when De Quetteville and Schulz (of Spiegel Magazine) were attacking Cyrus the Great and Iranians in general. Both Henkelman and Stolper profess their advocacy for Persia when among prominent Iranians and in fund-raising situations (see the NIAC fund-raising event on behalf of Dr. Matt Stolper’s Persepolis Fortification Project).
Below are the major highlights of the e-mail message of Dr. Henkelman to Mr. Sasoun.
==================================================================
From: Henkelman, W.F.M. <wfm.henkelman@let.vu.nl>
Subject: RE: Lendering’s review on Farrokh Re-examined in Bryn Maur
To: “Alan Sasoun” <alansasoun@yahoo.com>
Date: Tuesday, March 10, 2009, 1:33 PM
Dear Mr. Sasoun,
As an insider in Mr. Farrokh’s fairy-tale world you most be well aware that the so-called joined protest of the academic main stream is really a hoax, and not the first one for that matter, set up and written (or dictated) by Mr. Farrokh himself…Farrokh an Ossetian…Your characterisation of the ‘analysis’ (i.e. not more than a couple of loose, angry comments coming from Farrokh himself) as “careful” is a big joke and I find it therefore unbelievable that you have nerve to send me this message as if it were just a polite reminder. … are you just following orders?
…There are more important things than discussing Farrokh, such as the further publication …for the benefit of scholarschip *and* the people of Iran, by the very scholars condemned by Farrokh.
Though Lendering’s review itself should not have been printed, it does not measure up to the inconsistencies and inaccuracies of Farrokh’s work and his rude comments about scholars who have devoted their lives to shedding light on ancient Iran and who are described by him as an “eccentric” and anti-Iranian group (!), the best proof of his complete inability to understand anything about scholarship on Iran in the past three decades and his narcisist attitude of cursing and blaming everybody besides himself for not having read scholarly literature, for sole reason the Great Farrokh should always be right…
regards,
Dr. W. Henkelman
