Reconsidering the Annexation of the Sanjak of the Alexandretta Through Local Narratives
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
RECONSIDERING THE ANNEXATION OF THE SANJAK OF THE ALEXANDRETTA THROUGH LOCAL NARRATIVES A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES OF MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY BY SITKIYE MATKAP IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN MEDIA AND CULTURAL STUDIES DECEMBER 2009 Approval of the Graduate School of Social Sciences Prof. Dr. Sencer Ayata Director I certify that this thesis satisfies all the requirements as a thesis for the degree of Master of Science. Prof. Dr. Raşit Kaya Head of Department That is to certify that we have read this thesis and that in our opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Science Assist. Prof. Dr. Nesim Şeker Supervisor Examining Committee Members Assist. Prof. Dr. Nesim Şeker (METU, HIST) Assist. Prof. Dr. Necmi Erdoğan (METU, ADM) Assist. Prof. Dr. Mustafa Şen (METU, SOC) I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all material and results that are not original to this work. Name, Last name: SITKIYE MATKAP Signature : iii ABSTRACT RECONSIDERING THE ANNEXATION OF THE SANJAK OF THE ALEXANDRETTA THROUGH LOCAL NARRATIVES Matkap, Sıtkıye M.Sc., Department of Media and Cultural Studies Supervisor: Assist. Prof. Dr. Nesim Şeker December 2009, 154 pages The main aim of this thesis is to examine the history of Sanjak of Alexandretta in the Turkish nationalist historiography. In this respect, it is important to comprehend how this region as a territory was tried to present as a homeland with ethnic-nationalist connotations and idioms through the discipline of history by Kemalist nationalists in the late of 1930s. Thus, in order to pay attention to the process of annexation of the region into Turkey requires focusing on how and by whom this nationalist history was written in order to gain different perspective. In general, the history of region has been considered on the basis of Turkish-Arab animosity. According to this approach, the history of region is the narration of encountering of these nationalist movements. On the other hand, the question of how this history was shaped by Turkish Kemalist nationalists and to interrogate the impact of the self-determination principle and mandate system on this nationalist history through which myths was created and the historical events were distorted in the process of integration of the region are also vital. Besides, while considering this local history, giving priority to the local narratives can open the path to investigate this nationalist history critically and understand the period of annexation from the view of ordinary people. Keywords: Nationalist historiography, annexation, ethnic conflict, identity, ethnicity, French Mandate, self-determination, Hatay, Sanjak of Alexandretta. iv ÖZ YEREL ANLATILAR ÜZERİNDEN İSKENDERUN SANCAK’ININ İLHAKINI YENİDEN DÜŞÜNMEK Matkap, Sıtkıye Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Medya ve Kültürel Çalışmalar Programı Tez Yöneticisi. Yar. Doç. Dr. Nesim Şeker Aralık 2009, 154 sayfa Bu tezin temel amacı, Türk milliyetçi tarihyazımı içinde İskenderun Sancak’ının tarihini incelemektir. Bu minvalde, 1930’lu yılların sonunda Kemalist milliyetçiler tarafından tarih disiplini kullanılarak etnik ve milliyetçi bir dil ve yananlamlarla bir toprak parçası olan bölgenin nasıl vatan-toprağı şeklinde sunulmaya çalışıldığını anlamak önemlidir. Dolayısıyla Türkiye’ye ilhak sürecine dikkat çekmek farklı bir bakışaçısı kazanmak için bu milliyetçi tarihin kimler tarafından nasıl yazıldığına odaklanmayı gerektirir. Genel anlamda, bölge tarihi Türk-Arap düşmanlığı temelinde ele alınmıştır. Bu yaklaşıma göre, bölge tarihi bu milliyetçi hareketlerin karşı karşıya gelmesinin anlatısıdır. Diğer taraftan, Türk Kemalist milliyetçiler tarafından bu tarihin nasıl biçimlendirildiği sorusu ve kendi kaderini tayin hakkı ve manda sisteminin mitler yaratılarak ve tasrihsel olarların çarpıtılarak inşa edildiği bu milliyetçi tarih üzerine etkisini sorgulamak da önemlidir. Bunun yanında, bu yerel tarih düşünülürken, yerel anlatılara öncelik vermek milliyetçi bir yaklaşımla yazılan bu yerel tarihi eleştirel değerlendirmenin ve sıradan insanın gözüyle ilhak sürecini anlamanın yolunu açabilir. Anahtar Kelimeler: Milliyetçi tarihyazımı, ilhak, etnik çatışma, kimlik, etnisite, Fransız Mandası, kendi kaderini tayin hakkı (self-determinasyon), Hatay, Iskenderun Sancağı . v TABLE OF CONTENTS PLAGIARISM ............................................................................................... iii ABSTRACT ................................................................................................... iv ÖZ .................................................................................................................. v TABLE OF CONTENTS .............................................................................. vii CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1 2. HISTORY AND NATIONALISM ......................................................... 10 2.1. The characteristics or the Paradoxes of Nationalist Historiography ................................................................ 14 2.2. Turkish Historiography in the 1930s: Myths of Unification ........... 22 2.2.1. The Turkish History Thesis ................................................... 25 2.2.2. The Turkish History Thesis and The Dicipline of Antropology ................................................... 28 2.3. Conclusion ........................................................................................ 33 3. HATAY IN THE TURKISH NATIONALIST HISTORIOGRAPHY.... 31 3.1. The Repercussions of the Wilsonian Principles in the Sanjak: Self-Determination and Historiography ............................................ 36 3.1.1. The Role of Self-Determination and The King-Crane Commission in the Sanjak ............................. 39 3.2. The History-Writers: The Kemalist Nationalists or Progressives ...................................................................................... 52 3.3. The Memories of Hatay “Issue” in the Nationalist Historiography . 54 3.3.1. Irregular Bands in the Construction of National Identity ...... 60 3.3.2. Arab Revolt, Ibrahim Hananu and Turkish Nationalist Historiography.………………………….................................. 63 3.3.3. Hatay Issue, “Renaissance of Science” and The Sanjak Alawis ……………………………………………66 3.4. Concluding Remarks ........................................................................ 69 vi 4. BEFORE AND AFTER THE ANNEXATION: NARRATIVES OF “ORDINARY PEOPLE” ......................................... 72 4.1. Landowners and Peasants ................................................................. 73 4.1.1. Types of Sharecropping Agreements and Being Maraba …...78 4.1.2. Perception of Ağa: Who is Ağa? ………………………….. 84 4.2. The Question of Popular Nationalism in Antioch: Zaki Al-Arsuzi “The Professor” ....................................................... 94 4.3. Remembering and Talking about him: The Cult of Atatürk in Hatay ........................................................... 115 4.4. The Migrated and the Remaning People: Remembering or Forgetting ............................................................. 125 5. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................... 134 REFERENCES ............................................................................................. 139 APPENDIX A: An Example of Interviews ................................................... 148 APPENDIX B: Information about Interviewees...........................................154 vii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION “Beautiful Antioch: You are not only through the common ideal, language, and history with us but also through your future.”1 Remzi Siliöz Antioch is one of the central towns of Hatay. It is the conjunction point of trade routes and passageways between the East and West, which merged the routes connecting Mesopotamia and Egypt to Europe. This region had been controlled by at least fourteen administrations throughout the history; including Assyrian, Armenian, and Hittite Kingdoms, Kurdish tribes, Greek (Seleucid) monarchs, Roman and Persian Empires, Arab, Byzantine and Mamluk controls and Ottoman, French and now under the Turkish rule (Özgen, 2002: 47). Therefore, this region has been denominated under different rules by their authorities. It mostly referred to as the Sanjak of Alexandretta in the Western literature. Whereas the name of Liwa Iskenderun is valid for Syrian and Arab nationalists, Hatay, named by Mustafa Kemal, was used by Turkish nationalists during and after the annexation process in order to conjure up the Turkish origin of this region. Each of these names reflects certain ideological stances towards the region. The purpose of this study is to examine the history of “Hatay” in the Turkish nationalist historiography. The process of territorialisation of the region with highly nationalist connotations can be re-viewed through the critical reading of the region’s history. In other words, focusing on the annexation process of Hatay is crucial 1 “Güzel Antakya: Sen yalnız ülkün, dilin ve tarihin ile değil, istikbalin ile de bizimlesin.” 1 because there is a relationship between the rewriting of Hatay history and the phases of Turkish nationalist historiography until the