The Mokarzels' contributions to the Arabic-speaking community in the United States.

• Author: Suleiman, Michael W.
• Position: Naoum and Salloum Mokarzel, publishers of Arabic-language newspapers in the United States

This is a study of two brothers, Naoum and Salloum Mokarzel, both of whom were leaders and pioneers, especially in the field of journalism, whose influence and contributions to the Arabic-speaking community spanned a period of some sixty years. Naoum came to the United States in 1890 and Salloum followed him in 1898, the year Naoum founded, published and edited Al-Hoda, one of the major Arabic-language newspapers in the United States. In 1926, Salloum published and edited The Syrian World, one of the best English-language journals produced by the community.(1) I will now discuss the work of the two Mokarzel brothers separately, beginning with the older, namely Naoum. After that, I will compare and contrast their contributions.(2)

NAOUM A. MOKARZEL (2 AUGUST 1864 - 5 APRIL 1932)

To some extent, what we say about N.A. Mokarzel applies to other great Arabic-speaking journalists/publishers of his generation who immigrated to the United States. However, Naoum also distinguished himself in other ways. In particular, his ideological commitment, his fierce unwavering loyalty to "Lebanon,"(3) his iron will, and his enthusiastic involvement in all the major issues facing the Arabic-speaking community in the United States (and in North America generally) assured him a place in the history books.

Naoum was a man of vision. His vision, however, was not always shared by others, even among fellow Maronite Lebanese in America. When that happened, it never occurred to Naoum that his vision needed modification. He was sure deep down in his heart that he was right. That meant, of course, that the others were wrong and that they had to be fought until they saw the error of their ways, were converted to his point of view - or defeated. One illustration of this was the fight over the establishment of Al-Sakhra (The Rock) which was intended by its promoters to be the Maronite newspaper in America. In the course of a rather long and bitter conflict over this issue, Naoum appeared to give different, if not contradictory, assessments of what his own paper, Al-Hoda, was or was not.(4) When Al-Hoda was first established, Naoum very definitely presented it as staunchly independent. While he accused other Arabic newspapers in the United States (and their editors/publishers) of being loyal to Britain or France or Russia or the Ottomans, Al-Hoda, he emphasized, "followed a policy of independence."(5) What was implied, but not openly stated, was the contention that Al-Hoda did not represent a specific sect, i.e. the Maronites - an accusation that was readily assumed and articulated by the other (also sectarian) newspapers and their readers.(6) In any case, that "policy of independence," for various reasons, did not last long.(7) When some Maronites, including two clergymen, Estephan Qurqumaz and Yusuf Yazbek, began to raise funds and prepare for what they stated would be a truly Maronite newspaper, the threat to Al-Hoda became obvious. Naoum Mokarzel and his supporters now clearly and vociferously declared their Maronite affiliation. Naoum claimed that Al-Hoda "was and remains the honest servant of the [Maronite] sect and nation."(8) He added that those wanting to replace Al-Hoda with another newspaper for Maronites were doing so for "personal and dishonorable purposes."(9)

In the struggle that ensued, the two sides tried to marshal support for their point of view. While it appeared to be an intra-Maronite conflict, some sectarianism was nevertheless interjected into the debate. Al-Hoda accused some supporters of Al-Sakhra of being Orthodox or Protestant, and warned them that Al-Sakhra was not tolerant and friendly to them, as they assumed, but that, in reality, it looked down upon them, and was using them for its own unsavory purposes.(10)

Naoum and Al-Hoda eventually won out. Their most telling arguments were as follows: the people behind Al-Sakhra were not true representatives of the Maronite community or the Maronite church; Al-Sakhra would split the Maronite community; and, most importantly, the Maronite community already had an excellent and well-established Maronite newspaper, namely Al-Hoda.(11)

Naoum has generally been viewed as 110% Maronite and as being an unswerving Lebanese nationalist. This assessment is quite correct. However, these commitments were manifested in a variety of ways, especially as Naoum tried to accommodate the powerful rulers of his native lands, and as he tried to be faithful to other principles he held and professed openly, namely religious tolerance and freedom of expression.

Until WWI, Mount Lebanon and all of Greater Syria were under Ottoman control. Furthermore, the Arabic-speaking immigrants in North America were, and remained for many years, Ottoman citizens. All Arabic newspapers in the United States had to operate from that starting point. While some, like Al-Ayam, took a very hostile attitude toward the Sultan and the Ottoman authorities generally, Al-Hoda was a lot more cautious, reminding its American readers that "You remain settlers in a foreign land. Remember that you are Ottoman."(12) Love of homeland, if not outright loyalty to the Sultan, was strongly advocated by Naoum Mokarzel, especially after the establishment of a new government in Istanbul, one that was perceived to be more open and liberal toward non-Turks in the empire. Whereas the old Ottoman authorities were unhappy with and condemned the founder of Al-Hoda (among others), the Young Turks government reversed that decision. Naoum then professed himself "one of the most sacrificing people in the service of national [Ottoman] public welfare."(13) He further lectured those fellow Syrians who became naturalized Americans as follows: "The naturalized Syrians who do not respect the rights of the old homeland do not respect the rights of a new homeland . . . and the old homeland takes precedence."(14)

While Naoum, Al-Hoda and all immigrant Syrians in the United States had to always be careful not to alienate or even offend the Ottoman authorities, there was no question that Naoum's loyalty was to Mount Lebanon and the Lebanese, especially the Maronite among them. He also looked upon France as the friend and protector of Eastern Christians, especially Catholics. Therefore, when conditions made possible the open, public expression of such sentiments, Naoum and Al-Hoda did so. This happened most decisively with the start of WWI, although some tentative attempts preceded that event.

The pre-WWI period was a difficult time for the Arabic-speaking community and its leaders since, at the same time as they sought to break away from their Ottoman designation in order to declare a new loyalty, they faced the challenge of being rejected as "acceptable" citizens in the United States. Naoum also joined and became an active member in the Free Immigration Society and fought to defend all immigrants, including Syrians.(15) Furthermore, Al-Hoda supported the various efforts designed to prove that Syrians are white. Such efforts culminated in the 1914 publication by Al-Hoda Publishing House of the study entitled The Origin of the Modern Syrian.(16) In searching for their roots, the Syrians found that they were really Arabs, "the purest type of the Semitic race," and that, therefore, they were free white persons within the meaning of the naturalization statute.(17) Despite the above, however, Naoum's much more specific loyalty and attachment was to the Lebanese and Maronites. During the war, he urged his fellow Syrians to fight on the side of France, in a special battalion, to help liberate the homeland.(18) When the war ended in victory for the allies, Naoum went to Paris to join the Lebanese delegation and argue for independence for Lebanon. "Independence" was really under French tutelage, but that was not only acceptable but desirable since this way Lebanon would have the protection of France. The new "Grand Liban" expanded the borders beyond Mount Lebanon and appeared to have satisfied the ambitions of Naoum, the Maronites and the Christians generally.(19)

Naoum's next battle on behalf of Lebanon was a major campaign in the United States and among all emigrant Lebanese communities, especially in the Americas, to change the name of the community, its clubs and organizations from "Syrian" to "Lebanese." In this effort, Naoum was only partially successful, especially since large numbers viewed the attempt as divisive and unnecessary. In the end, only some clubs changed their names, mostly by adding the word "Lebanese" to their name to make it the Syrian/Lebanese club, etc. In the process, many conflicts resulted. Much of the time, the main split was between Maronites and Orthodox. After the establishment of Lebanon as a separate political entity, the division was between a solely "Lebanese" identity as opposed to a larger "Syrian" affiliation, an affiliation which included many immigrants from the newly-established political entity of "Syria," as well as from the other Arabic-speaking groups.(20)

While Naoum was a practicing Catholic of the Maronite rite, he also was committed to religious tolerance and freedom of expression. These positions sometimes caused him problems. The best example of this is undoubtedly the publication by Al-Hoda Publishing House of Ameen Rihani's book, The Tripartite Alliance in the Animal Kingdom.(21) As soon as the book came out, Rihani was accused of being an atheist and a defamer of religions, especially Christianity. Furthermore, Naoum Mokarzel, whose publishing house put out the book, was also severely attacked. These attacks came from the clergy, especially Catholics, and also from the editors/publishers of many Arabic newspapers in the United States.

It is to Naoum Mokarzel's credit that he did not cave in. Instead, he (1) offered space in the pages of his newspaper for rebuttals of Rihani's arguments,(22) and (2) critiqued Rihani's book in an intelligent and rational manner. The attacks by rival newspapers...