Page 114 [114]
OCR
112 Ilkim Buke-Okyar mandate regime. The image of the Arab came to epitomize the distinction from the uncivilized past that was an essential element of Ottoman heritage. Turkish cartoon space projected the Arab Other in two time frames. One is from 1923 to 1927, where the cartoonists as observers and contributors to the nation-building process drew Arabs who were engaged in a similar project: seeking national recognition against their mandate rulers. This period covers the Mosul question (1923-1926); the struggle between King Hussein and ibn Saud over Hejaz (1924); the Yazidi rebellion of 1926 near the Turkish border; the Syrian revolt against the mandatory French government (1925-1926); and the Moroccan revolt in North Africa. Concerning all of these events, the Arab figures were covered in Turkish cartoons (Fig. 7). ‘The second time frame is from 1936 to 1939, when the Turkish nation-building project reached its peak, an exclusively Turkish nation was imagined, and identity building through othering became even more apparent. The depiction of Arabs had been used in between these years with regard to the invasion of Habes (Ethiopia, 1936) and the reappearance of blacks (previously understood to be a type of Arab), this time as colonized Africans; the Arab Revolt in Palestine (1936); and finally the Hatay (Alexandretta) dispute between France and Turkey (1936-1939). Out of the multiple stereotypes of Arab behaviour throughout the Ottoman experience, four emerged to dominate the representation of Arabs in the first period of the Turkish republican cartoon sphere under the influences of these events: the fiercely violent and cruel behaviour of Arabs, especially the puppet leaders of the post-Ottoman Arab provinces; the physical and mental sloth and indolence of the Arab; the uncivilized nature of Arabs and their struggle with progress over the forces of barbarism; and the greed, or heightened aspiration for financial gain. In the 1930s, a new form of Arab representation was evident in most republican cartoons whenever the subject of Arabs came up in Turkish political life as accompanying to the previous ones. The four magnified features of “white” (ak) Arabs were attached to the physiognomy of “black” (kara) Arabs, who had been attributed and identified with uncivilized savages that resembled monstrous ape-like creatures, menacing law, order, and civilized values. The cartoonist adopting the racial theories of colonial discourse projected a hybrid image of the Arab in relation to the Turks; that is, the Turks played the role of the pure race standing at the top of the pyramid, in opposition to white Arabs, who held the role of the Semitic races, and black Arabs, of “African type”, who held the lowest rank (Fig. 8). The depiction of the unappreciated Other as an animal-like, or beastly, figure had already been used for ridicule as early as the nineteenth century in Ottoman satire mostly to discredit the European and later mandate powers. On the other hand, until the 1930s, the Arabs of the Middle East and north Africa were depicted in cartoons in stereotypical outfits (with keffiyes and garb), ethnically indistinguishable. One would be unable to differentiate between the Middle East’s various cultural or ethnic groups just by looking at the illustrations without reading the titles
