Ruzbeh Saadati - February 1, 2018
A racist has a profound tendency toward generalization and homogenization. Their perception of "the Other" is always marked by overgeneralization and broad assumptions, whether this racism manifests as the descriptions of an Orientalist or the actions of a colonizer. It may appear in the form of linguistic arrogance or surface in a racial joke. According to Edward Said, the generalizations of Orientalists stem from the fact that the label "Oriental" overshadows any individual reality or contradictory characteristic. An Eastern man is, first and foremost, an Easterner, and only secondarily a man. Generalizations about Arabs reflect a view of their historical and collective stagnation and immutability. In this narrative, no individual Arab whose life merits storytelling exists. Arabs, in this perspective, remain as they have always been, "from one end of the documented history of the heart of the deserts to the other." Similarly, a French colonizer’s description of Algerians is monolithic: Algerians are like this, and this "like this" always aligns with primitiveness.
To an Iranian racist, the term "Afghan" represents an indivisible whole: they are homogenous, sharing similar characteristics and temperaments. This collective identity is never broken into independent parts worthy of attention or individuality. An Iranian racist would similarly homogenize Turks, even if they are compatriots. No joke about the supposed stupidity of its subject is attributed to Tabrizis or specifically targets Urmiya residents. Instead, they are degraded collectively as Turks. Meanwhile, the same racist might target Isfahanis and Shirazis individually in their jokes, but would never generalize about all Persians—unless it is to praise them. Nevertheless, this same racist audaciously equates these two types of humor. For instance, the translator of Asshole No More once remarked in a televised debate, If there are jokes about Turks, it’s fine; there are jokes about Isfahanis too.
To the ancient Romans, the Gauls were wild and repulsive; civilized Rome’s preference was to display Gauls in the circus because their culture was seen as both intriguing and contemptible. The Romans considered the Gauls unworthy even of military campaigns unless their threat became certain. Yet, the same Romans engaged in the century-long Punic Wars against the Carthaginians, whose unrestrained violence became legendary in history books, leaving the Mediterranean’s "bride cities" in ruins. The Carthaginians, descendants of the Phoenicians, were deemed by the Romans to be a worthy rival deserving of envy and ferocity.
An Iranian racist exhibits different behavior depending on the nature of "the Other." They feel hatred mixed with pity toward Afghans, considering them impoverished and wretched. They occasionally express an exoticized view of Afghan culture, which they perceive as primitive, using words like strange, fascinating, disgusting, and contemptible. However, the same racist takes a different stance toward Turks. They possess at least some awareness of the modern history of Turks, recognize the existence of two Turkish-majority countries neighboring Iran, and understand their population density and influence on Iran's socio-political arenas—even the impact of their silence is acknowledged.
For this racist, pity is insufficient, and exoticism alone is inadequate because this "Other" is actualized and present. The racist becomes belligerent, seizing every opportunity to express overt anger, forming a vile determination to demean, destroy, and denounce. This foul intent reeks through every outlet: denying the identity of Turks, chanting Death to Turks in a stadium, likening them to cockroaches, labeling them as rebellious and ignorant in publications, aligning with the PKK and its unrestrained terrorism in their conflict with Turks, and, most recently, celebrating votes to eliminate a beloved Turkish football team in a peculiar survey.
Link to the original article written in Farsi: Instagram Reel by Ruzbeh Saadati