 |
The newspaper Tarh-e No, published in Tabriz, in its issue number 868 dated July 20, 2016, featured an article titled “The Seven Labors of Rostam” in which a story from the Shahnameh was narrated, containing what were described as “offensive and racist remarks” against Turks. In this piece, the Iranian hero (Giv) refers to the Turanian commander (Afrasiab) as a "wretched, obscure Turk", and later, another Iranian hero (Rostam) says:
“We do not consider the Turanians to be men, for they are all women through and through. And you, vile-born Turk, are not made for battle with men — go take up spinning and weaving like women.” |
On the Occasion of the Recent Insults by the Publication “Tarh-e No”
The repetition of certain narratives has long served as a tool of authoritarian regimes, shaping public consciousness in line with dominant interests. In recent weeks, offensive content published by the Iranian magazine Tarh-e No—laden with ethnic and gender-based slurs—has reignited discussions around linguistic discrimination, racial stereotyping, and the role of systemic desensitization in maintaining sociopolitical hierarchies. This article critically examines the ideological roots of such insults, their function in Iranian society, and the potential openings they may inadvertently create for deeper, more inclusive forms of resistance—particularly within Turkish national movement of Azerbaijan.
Repetition as a Tool of Totalitarianism
Repetition is central to totalitarian strategies, acting as a psychological mechanism to shape and manipulate the collective mind. Historical examples abound—Adolf Hitler’s relentless promotion of German racial supremacy and national grandeur eventually led millions to voluntarily serve a brutal war machine. Disturbingly, remnants of that ideological seduction still linger in some corners of German society.
In the Iranian context, a similar pattern of ideological repetition plays out in how power centers treat non-Persian, non-centralized populations. For decades, those born into the geographic and linguistic margins—particularly speakers of non-Persian languages such as Azerbaijani Turkish—have been subjected to cultural distortion and identity erasure. This process is neither random nor accidental; it is a calculated exercise in ethnic humiliation and linguistic hegemony.
The rationale behind this pattern of behavior can be understood through two interrelated mechanisms. First is the manufacturing of false realities. By persistently promoting grandiose myths—such as the alleged purity of the Aryan race, the exalted legacy of Iran’s ancient civilization, or the so-called human rights charter of Cyrus the Great—central power structures construct a seemingly unassailable nationalist narrative. These fabricated ideals serve a dual purpose: they elevate the dominant group by cloaking it in historical legitimacy, while simultaneously marginalizing those who do not fit within this constructed framework. The intent is not merely to glorify a selective past, but to render alternative narratives invisible, illegitimate, or subversive.
Closely tied to this is the second mechanism: desensitization. The repeated portrayal of marginalized groups as inferior, backward, or inherently incapable functions to erode both societal and individual sensitivity to injustice. With time, these degrading portrayals risk being accepted as truth—not only by those in power, but even by the communities being targeted. This normalization of humiliation leads to apathy, resignation, and eventually, internalized oppression. In this way, desensitization becomes a powerful tool in the broader project of cultural homogenization, where difference is not merely suppressed, but rendered invisible through repetition and ridicule.
Seen in this light, the recent slurs by Tarh-e No are not isolated missteps. They are consistent with a systemic effort to erase difference through ridicule, thereby reinforcing the centralist status quo.
The Myth of Moderation and the Reality of Mediocrity
In the Iranian political imagination, "moderation" has often been distorted into a form of opportunistic neutrality—a false equivalence that blurs the lines between oppressor and oppressed. To judge both a murderer and their victim with equal scrutiny is not moderation; it is moral failure.
For years, amid the insults and humiliations generously doled out to Turks by institutions of power, a group of "onlookers"—mostly members of non-Turkish ethnicities—step forward and, after some mild scolding of the offenders, assume a self-appointed role as guardians over the oppressed group. Sometimes, they even go further, scolding the oppressed more harshly, under the pretext of “moderation” and with accusations that the marginalized are pursuing sinister goals like separatism or sowing division.
Toward an Inclusive National Movement
The recent issue of Tarh-e No may inadvertently serve as a blessing in disguise for us.
Setting aside the moral depravity of the publication, the simultaneous ethnic and gender-based insults in its content could serve as a springboard for a discursive leap in Turkish nationalism.
Turkish nationalism claims to be responsible for all layers of a Turkish individual’s identity—ethnic, gender-based, economic, and beyond. Yet it seems the gender component has long been neglected or at best marginalized within this discourse.
Even though the central signifier of our discourse is the ethnic component, in today’s world, where layered identities are the norm and single-layer identities are obsolete, and where we are the product of all our attachments—ethnic, gender, economic, etc.—we can use the opportunity presented by an anti-woman publication to make space for the gender element within the nationalist discourse.
Moreover, the offensive content of Tarh-e No in fact constitutes a double-layered insult—a denigration of Turkish women.
Postscript: The above piece is written from the perspective of national struggle and should not be misconstrued as suggesting that the author views the women’s movement through the lens of Turkish nationalism. The text merely refers to the gender element within the nationalist discourse, and the author explicitly considers the two movements to be independent, even if they may overlap at times.