Authors: Mehdi Mortezilu and Alparslan Sarrafi - 10 September 2012
 |
| Iran's ethnic map |
In recent years, the term “internal colonialism” has appeared frequently in the political literature of national-rights activists, including activists of the Azerbaijani National Movement. One of the works published in Persian in Iran many years ago was a book by Albert Memmi. More recently, Mohammad Azadgar, in an article entitled “On Albert Memmi’s The Colonizer and the Colonized” [1], reintroduced this work, applied it to the case of Azerbaijan, and concluded that “Azerbaijan is, in every sense of the word, a colony.” In what ways are Azerbaijan, Kurdistan, Khuzestan, and so forth similar to India or Algeria, among the most well-known examples of colonized countries? Why do activists of national movements repeatedly use the term “colony” in reference to Azerbaijan, Kurdistan, and Khuzestan?
On the other hand, activists associated with centralist movements consider the use of such a term to be devoid of logic and reason [2], and sometimes accuse activists of national movements of being unfamiliar with the concept of colonialism. The fundamental question that arises here is this: Are the actors involved in national movements simply a group of uninformed people? Or are centralist currents engaged in censoring and suppressing certain concepts belonging to the humanities and social sciences? Indeed, more recently—following the 2009 elections—the Islamic regime itself raised the issue of shutting down humanities faculties at Iranian universities.
The principal aim of the authors in this article is to examine the historical emergence and use of the term “internal colonialism,” its role in contemporary anti-racist and anti-colonial struggles at the global level, and to present examples of internal colonialism within Iranian society. Another objective is to challenge intellectuals associated with centralist movements to answer the following questions: What difference is there between activists of centralist movements who seek to suppress concepts in the humanities related to the “rights of ethnic groups” and those who issue decrees calling for the suppression of concepts in the humanities related to “citizenship rights”? Aside from differences in the particular subjects being suppressed, is there any fundamental difference between these two groups? Or are these two groups simply two sides of the same coin?
Internal Colonialism
An internal colony is a colony that exists within the borders of a country. The term “internal colonialism” rejects the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century assumption that colonies could exist only outside the borders of a country. In reality, the concepts of colonialism and colony, like many other concepts in the humanities and social sciences, have changed and evolved throughout history through political and social processes.
With the dissolution of the European system of direct colonialism—colonialism in its traditional sense—some, perhaps excited by the supposed death of colonialism, have proclaimed the arrival of a postcolonial era. According to such a perspective, colonialism, like slavery, is a phenomenon belonging to history. In contrast to this view, Charles Pinderhughes, a professor of sociology at the University of Massachusetts, argues that colonialism continues to exist in the contemporary era. He defines internal colonialism as follows:
“Internal colonialism is a pattern of subjugation corresponding to geographic areas whose inhabitants are distinct from the dominant population within a country. The clear and specific consequence of this pattern of subjugation is systematic collective inequality imposed upon the subordinated group, manifested in social institutions including the educational system, public security, the police, courts, prisons, health care, cultural production, investment, and so forth.” [3]
The common feature shared by colonialism in its traditional sense and internal colonialism is the restriction of political decision-making power, together with asymmetrical economic relations between the dominant and subordinated nations, whereby wealth flows from the regions inhabited by the subordinated nation toward the regions of the dominant nation.
The authors assume that the reader of the present article will agree that, in Iran, wealth flows from regions inhabited by non-Persian ethnic groups toward regions inhabited by Persians. The oil of Arabistan, or the underground mineral resources of Azerbaijan and Kurdistan, which are largely used for investment in Tehran, Isfahan, and Shiraz, constitute, in the authors’ view, an obvious example of this flow of wealth within Iran.
The conceptual and political purpose of employing the term “internal colonialism” is quite clear. Political activists belonging to ethnic, racial, or religious groups—the subordinated groups—define their group’s relationship with another ethnic, racial, or religious group—the dominant group—within the same country and, at the same time, employ the term “internal colonialism” in an effort to mobilize greater public support for movements struggling for greater autonomy or even independence. The emergence of this term is rooted in the racist atmosphere prevailing in multiethnic and multiracial societies and in the systematic discriminatory policies imposed by the state against particular groups of citizens, such as African Americans in the United States or Bengalis in Pakistan.
The similarity between “colonialism” in its traditional meaning and “internal colonialism” lies in the existence of a group of people with particular racial, ethnic, religious, or other characteristics who are legally and systematically subjected to discrimination and whose material wealth is exploited. Thus, if discriminatory laws and policies of economic plunder are imposed by a foreign country upon the people of another country, this is called colonialism in its traditional sense, as in the British colonization of India. If, however, these policies are imposed by a dominant state or nation within a country against another nation, this is called internal colonialism.
According to the authors, a clear example of internal colonialism can be found in the policies imposed against the Arabs of Iran, who, despite possessing oil resources, are among the most deprived peoples of the country. In addition to economic exploitation, overt racial discrimination against Arabs is also described as one of the systematic features of the dominant political and cultural order in the country.
Perhaps the best-known use of this term can be traced to the struggles of civil and political rights activists in the United States. Malcolm X, an African American civil-rights activist, declared in one of his speeches in 1964, which became known as “The Black Revolution”:
“America is a colonial power. The United States has colonized 22 million African American citizens by depriving them of the rights of first-class citizenship, by depriving them of civil rights, and by depriving them of human rights.” [4]
During the uprisings of 1967 in the United States, Martin Luther King Jr., a Black civil-rights activist and Nobel Peace Prize laureate, referred to the Black Jewish community in America as “internal colonies.” In the months preceding his assassination, Martin Luther King frequently employed terms such as “colonialism,” “internal colonialism,” and “internal colony.” These terms were later used by other activists, including Stokely Carmichael, Huey Percy Newton, and, indeed, members of the Black Panther Party [5]. Martin Luther King stated:
“The areas inhabited by Black people constitute an internal colony. The inhabitants of these internal colonies are subjected to political domination, economic exploitation, and racial discrimination by their colonizers.”
Camille Laurin, a politician associated with the Parti Québécois, repeatedly stated:
“Quebec is a colony of Canada because Quebec cannot free itself from political subordination to the central government and move toward an independent state.” [6]
René Lévesque similarly stated:
“The people of Quebec are little more than an internal colony under the domination of a government belonging to another people.” [7]
Robert Blauner identifies four main elements shared by internal and external colonialism:
The coercive power of the dominant society.
The visible influence of the dominant society on the social and cultural institutions of the colonized people: such influence is the result of systematic policies pursued by the dominant society to restrict, transform, and destroy the values and ways of life of the colonized society. A basic example of such a policy is “assimilation policy and restrictions on language use.”
Colonialism involves relations in which the administrative and executive affairs of the colonized people are often carried out by individuals belonging to the ethnic group associated with the colonizer.
Racism, as a fundamental principle of the dominant society’s social domination, operates through the creation of a sense of inferiority among colonized people. [8]
A clear manifestation of the production of such feelings of inferiority among non-Persian-speaking people in Iranian society can be seen in ethnic jokes and the ridicule of accents. When being a “donkey” is attributed to Turks, being tāzi to Arabs, and lack of intelligence to Kurds, while wisdom, refinement, and civilization are attributed to Persians, what purpose could this serve other than the colonization of the minds and spirits of Turks, Kurds, and Arabs for the benefit of Persians?
Another characteristic of colonialism is the difference in “national consciousness” between the dominant and subordinated nations or, in other words, the existence of “identity classification” between the two. In fact, identity classification is something people employ in everyday life in the form of an in-group “us” and an out-group “them.” Through such classification, positive and desirable characteristics are attributed to “us,” whereas negative or even evil characteristics are attributed to “them.”
For example, the word “Turk,” in addition to designating a human community with a particular language, also evokes many assumptions—regardless of whether they are true or false—about that community. For many people, the word “Turk” may evoke the image of a donkey, an unintelligent person, a street cleaner, a savage, and so forth. For many others, however, “Turk” may evoke chivalry, courage, honor, fearlessness, rebellion against oppression, kindness, and so on.
While emphasizing that classifications based on “us” and “them,” together with assumptions and prejudices, are unavoidable in a society, one important aspect of such in-group/out-group classification is the hierarchical way in which groups perceive one another. In this sense, members of the in-group are often regarded as superior and more worthy than members of the out-group. Thus, the hierarchical worldview of the dominant nation—which also possesses wealth, power, and the means of propaganda—creates the necessary conditions for presenting the inherent and unquestionable superiority of the dominant nation as self-evident. The dominant nation consequently becomes the nation that possesses culture, the nation that possesses history, the nation that possesses virtue, the nation that possesses intelligence—in short, the superior nation.
It should be noted that if two nations possess equal power, prejudices concerning “us” and “them” do not lead to colonialism. However, when one nation comes to dominate another, assumptions and prejudices concerning “us” and “them” lead to “economic–cultural–linguistic” colonialism, and the dominant nation seeks to eliminate the culture of “them” and replace it with the culture of “us,” regardless of whether “they” are citizens of “our” country or not.
Colonialism, therefore, is not simply a phenomenon of economic exploitation and the political domination of one dominant group or country over another. Colonialism also means separating colonized people from themselves and from their culture. Colonialism is the systematic negation of the colonized human being. Colonialism is the colonizer’s determined effort to deny all the human qualities of the colonized person.
Colonialism forces all colonized people to ask themselves: Who am I, really?!
The colonizer’s objective is nothing other than to instill among colonized people the belief that they are nothing more than worthless beings. Their glorious past, as well as the organizations and institutions belonging to the colony, are physically and symbolically destroyed. The colonizer turns the colonized land into a place whose inhabitants are presented as deserving only of subordination and rule by others. [9]
The colonizer inculcates among the dominated people the idea that they are no more than unintelligent and foolish human beings, thereby making the continuation of colonial institutions, laws, and exploitation within the colonies appear justifiable. The result of this colonial rule is the production of people who, in order to free themselves from an inferiority complex, see no path other than killing and burying their own existence and cultural roots. [10]
Is it not the case that the century-long project of producing ethnic jokes against non-Persian peoples in Iran has been carried out in order to humiliate them and instill in them a sense of worthlessness? Are all these ethnic humiliations and insults directed at “them” not intended to lead non-Persian nations themselves to “kill and bury their existence and cultural roots”?
Centralist intellectuals who aspire to the realization of a free and discrimination-free society must explain why, until now, they have not spoken of the existence of internal colonialism in Iran and have even denied it. Is it not because they prioritize their own ethnic interests over the general interests of the people of Iran and wish for any change or transformation in Iran to take place only while preserving the authority and superiority of Persians over the other ethnic groups and nations inhabiting Iran?
The failure of some—if not most—of these intellectuals to align themselves with activists struggling against internal colonialism, together with their theoretical denial and rejection of the very formulation of the issue of ethnic groups and nations in Iran, amounts to nothing other than an insistence on the continuation of internal colonialism.
Conclusion
Despite the disappearance of direct colonialism, colonialism in another form, known as internal colonialism, remains a political and social reality of the contemporary era.
Contemporary liberation struggles, including the struggles of African Americans in the United States, Bengalis in Pakistan, and others, have proceeded with an explicit emphasis on the phenomenon of internal colonialism.
The political, cultural, economic, and social relations between Iran’s non-Persian-speaking communities and the Persian-speaking community constitute a clear example of a colonial relationship.
Denying the existence of internal colonialism in Iran amounts to insisting on the continuation of the existing internal colonial order.
The realization of a free society in a country affected by internal colonialism would amount to a contradiction in terms and would in no way be possible.
The theoretical and practical struggle against internal colonialism is not only the responsibility of political activists belonging to the colonized section of society; it is equally the human and intellectual responsibility of those intellectuals associated with the colonizing section of society who are concerned with democracy and human rights.
Notes and References
Mohammad Azadgar, “On Albert Memmi’s The Colonizer and the Colonized”:
http://www.akhbar-rooz.com/article.jsp?essayId=31275
Meysam Badamchi, “Is Iran a Multiethnic or Multinational Country?”:
http://www.radiozamaneh.com/reflections/2012/06/21/15593
Charles Pinderhughes, “Toward a New Theory of Internal Colonialism,” 2011.
Link to Malcolm X’s speech, “The Black Revolution”:
The Black Panther Party was a revolutionary Black organization in the United States that struggled in defense of the rights of Black people.
Camille Laurin, “No Lesson Learned from Language Ruling,” The Globe and Mail, December 20, 1979.
René Lévesque, “The End of All Illusions,” The Globe and Mail, December 7, 1982.
Robert Blauner, “Internal Colonialism and Ghetto Revolt,” Social Problems, 16 (1969), p. 396.
Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth, Grove Press, New York, 1968, p. 250.
Frantz Fanon, Black Skin, White Masks, Grove Press, New York, p. 18.