Iran’s negative symbolism stays anchored to its real geography and people, unlike Siberia’s deterritorialization

Evidence

Apart from any unscientific Family Feud survey, today 80 percent of Americans hold a “mostly” or “very” unfavorable opinion of Iran. Every presidential administration’s paradigmatic stance toward Iran since Jimmy Carter means that Iran does not operate in a symbolic sphere apart from its empirical, geographic location as what policy makers call the Middle East’s universal joint. Unlike Siberia, Iran is not a euphemism for something else; it is not shorthand that will stand in for any undesirably remote place. In fact, Iran is a “place where no one wants to go” precisely because of where it is and because of who lives there. — Neda Maghbouleh, The Limits of Whiteness, 789

Categorization

• XREF: The empirical fact that ‘Iran’ cannot be deterritorialized into mere symbolic shorthand grounds why Iranian essentialist labels stay externally imposed and residually anchored, unlike purely strategic ones. — connects to: Iran remains a geographically anchored stigma while Siberia is a detachable metaphor — Neda Maghbouleh, The Limits of Whiteness: Iranian…, 353; Where Iranians live determines whether Persian identity is stigmatized or neutral — Neda Maghbouleh, The Limits of Whiteness: Iranian…, 690

Broader Connections

• Iran remains a geographically anchored stigma while Siberia is a detachable metaphor #corroborates (0.98) — Neda Maghbouleh, The Limits of Whiteness, 353
• Where Iranians live determines whether Persian identity is stigmatized or neutral #expands (0.70) — Neda Maghbouleh, The Limits of Whiteness, 690