Ruzbeh Saadati – March 4, 2019
In recent days, an audio file has circulated that sparked protests from many, including representatives of the Turkmen community and Sardar Azmoun, the well-known Iranian footballer of Turkmen origin. In a conversation attributed to Masoud Khalili, the head of the Equestrian Federation, he referred to Turkmens as a “tribe of poor, rebellious, pajama-wearing addicts.” He also openly humiliated Turkmens by comparing the behavior of the president of the international federation to that of princesses. Fortunately, Khalili’s remarks are explicit enough that there is no room for euphemism. Yet every word he uses to address Turkmens reveals aspects of the existing ideas and social relations embedded in the speaker’s mind and in society.
“Tribe of pajama-wearers”
At first glance, “tribe” seems to imply the primitiveness of a human group—a pre-modern, backward, and reactionary collective. The addition of “pajama-wearers” exaggerates this image. It conveys a false impression to the audience of Turkmens as alien to suits, ties, luxury brands, suspenders, and accessories, like those of the federation’s president. This is an attack on the traditional clothing of these people with the most trivial word: pajamas—a garment that is probably the speaker’s own evening wear. But this image is fundamentally false; Turkmens are not primitive, and Masoud Khalili is not genuinely concerned with backwardness. The “pajama-wearing tribe” is not merely an insult; it is naked hatred toward people who refuse assimilation. People whose language has been suppressed in the face of central cultural dominance, whose only ethnic manifestation is their clothing, and whose cohesion and continuity are ensured by their local traditions. The racist attack on the symbols and expressions of Turkmens reflects a fear that they will not be assimilated, a dread of the distinct identity of the “other,” and a thirst to erase difference.
“Poor”
Poverty is deprivation: the lack of access to resources necessary for life. Its extent can be measured through statistics, facilities, and available opportunities, and it is largely the product of economic structures. Khalili, however, does not speak of poverty itself or its causes. His concern is not the misfortune of poverty but the vilification of the poor—human beings driven to hardship by economic and structural policies. He calls Turkmens “poor” not to empathize, but to insult them. Such brazen humiliation is characteristic of the nouveau riche. Those for whom the suffering of others guarantees their own enrichment look down on the poor while admiring foreign royalty, particularly if that princess is the wife of the ruler of Dubai or the daughter of Jordan’s former king. They prefer to humiliate their fellow citizens while praising foreign elites.
“Rebellious and addicted”
Masoud Khalili despises the rebelliousness of Turkmens. He wants them docile, so that he can impose his will. This is a clear sign of totalitarianism that tolerates no form of resistance. People who are both rebellious and, according to Khalili, addicted—a paradox he presents. Addiction, in itself, is not shameful, yet Khalili uses it as a derogatory label. The important point is that many who struggle with addiction are exceptionally talented. When they are deprived of inheritance, wealth, and access to quality education, when the channels for their potential are blocked, they may turn to addiction as a form of self-destruction. Addiction becomes a protest against the theft of their life possibilities—a physical embodiment of a life stifled before death. Khalili’s claim that Turkmens are addicted is absurd; even if all were addicted, the root lies in their surrounding social structures, not in their ethnicity. Those whose astronomical paychecks and claims to genetic privilege suffocate everyone else, who chant phrases like “do it yourself” and “it is what it is,” are responsible.
“Tribe of poor, rebellious, pajama-wearing addicts”
Judging an entire ethnic group under a single concept and portraying them with broadly humiliating terms is explicitly racist. In the eyes of a racist, the “other” is a homogeneous construct of individuals sharing similar traits. This is the image Khalili presents of Turkmens: primitive, pajama-wearing, addicted, and so on—a racialized view of a diverse group. Today, this perspective seeks to distinguish “truly Iranian people” from “apparently Iranian people,” positioning the racist as a first-class arbiter of ethnicity.