Kurds and Turks [Turkish Editorial]

Milliyet ^ | 4/11/2003 | Taha Akyol

[a_Turk]

Kurds and Turks

Deceased Iranian Kurdish Leader Abdurrahman Qasýmlu wrote in his book "Iranian Kurdistan" that historiacally the Kurds are mountain nomads, that for that reason they were able to protect their personalities and migrant clan systems, but that they for the same reason were unable to evolve socially.

This is the reason that the Kurds have no country.

Claude Cahen the historian writes in his book "Turks in Anatolia" that the Turks have historically been plains nomads, that they had therefore been able to span vast geographical extents in an organized fashion, that they were able to make the transition to urban life with greate ease. This is the reason why the Turks have been able to found state after state.. That one had a mountain character and the other plains, had prevented clashes throughout history and has made it easier for them to cooperate.

Ziya Gökalp had written that the Turks and Kurds had found it easy to turn towards each other, yet lacking the "desert" character had made it difficult for them to mix with the Arabs. Enter today's Irak.

***

The term KURDISTAN had first been used by the Selcuk Turks (1040 - 1408). It referred to a vast mountinous area in the east of Iran (yes, east). That's the original land of the Kurds. Later, in the shared geography of Islam, the clans mixed for centuries. The armies of Salahaddin Eyyubi were predominantly Turkish and Kurdish.

North of the Van lake was predominantly Armenian before the Turks entered Anatolia. Also according to Cahen, while the Turks were conquering Anatolia, the Kurds, along with their Oghuz (that's us, the Turks of Anatolia are Oghuz Turks) brethren spread across the plateaus east of the Euphrates. The plains further west, namely in inner and Aegean Anatolia did not inspire the Kurds as much as they did the Turks.

Graham Fuller, and even anti-Turk authors such as John Bulloc wrote that the Kurds were integrated in Turkey like they were no where else, and that Turks and Kurds were today by and large fully intermixed. The root cause of this is explained in the short recap of history I just provided.

The integration of Turk and Kurd became permanent with the large scale urbanization witnessed in Turkey which started in the 50s and gained serious momentum in the 80s.

***

To draw internal borders in a country such as Turkey where the children of an empire are integrated to such an extent is now impossible. Therefore the subject of Kurdish ethnicity in Turkey can not be seen as that of a seperate nation, but as a subject of democracy. Needles to say, to be a nation does not require ethnic singularity. Mutual historic and social integration, as well as concepts such as country and citizenship are far more important.

I don't feel foreign at all in Diyarbakir, but how about when I visit Tashkent (ancient Turkic)? Just like Turkish Kurds don't feel like strangers in Izmir, but how about when they visit Dohuk?

Therefore there are things more important than ethnicity. Why can Barzani (KDP) and Talabani (PUK) not integrate? When threatened by Talabani's occupation of Kirkuk, did Barzani not ask Turkey for help?!

In his book "The Kurds", David McDowal explains that Barzani is "Kirmanch" and that Talabani is "Sorani," and that these two dialects can never get along, and that the problem there is not a "party" problem, but that it is an enmity between two different ethnic clans..

Thus: Naturally ethnic identity is important, but concepts like country, citizenship, historic togetherness, social integration and shared fate are more important.

Irak is Irak, and Turkey is Turkey!

Certainly, as a realist, what is in Turkeys interest is in the interest of her 70 million. I look at everything in Irak fromthat perspective.

[Shermy]

Greek/Balkan troll lobby

LOL!

[aristotleman]

In the case of the mediterranean basin, the plains people have access to the resources and the natural wealth necessary to build states. Mountain people are for the most part isolated and poor.

The author doesn't need to substantiate his argument in this particular article because his audience is made up of people who regard the above fact as common knowledge.

[aristotleman]

Humor is a good thing

;-)

[stripes1776]

Mountain people are for the most part isolated and poor

I apologize for going back to a European example because I don't think you like talking about Europe, but if you look at Switzerland, it has no natural resoures except water. There are no major deposits of valuable ores in its mountains. And yet, this remote, poor region was able to create a state.

In fact, I would argue that this lack of natural resouces was to its advantage. More powerful states surrounding it never waged a war of conquest for a bunch of remote "high rocks" that had no material wealth to yield to them. (Yes, there are exceptions to what I just said. But Switzerland was only used as a transit route, and the invaders quickly left because the region was poor and had no natrual wealth to expoit.)

Switzerland became prosperous by becoming a service economy. It developed an extensive banking system. At one time it was a major manufacturer of watches with moving parts before the digital revolution. Swiss chocolate is world famous, and yet there is not one cocoa tree growing in Switzerland. (And if we focus only on countries without natural resources, Japan has very few. It must import all of its oil, iron ore, etc., and yet it has one of the largest economies in the world).

So I would offer that this argument that the Kurds were poor (that is they had no natural resouces) is not sufficient to explain their lack of state, since there are many examples of successful, prosperous states that are poor in natural resources.

So this brings us back to the question, what was the real reason that this mountain people (Kurds) did not form a state.

[Redcloak]

Does that mean that they'd all be prone to over-acting?

Or should I say...

Does

that

mean

that

they'd

all

be

prone

to

over

acting?

[aristotleman]

I am only talking about mountain people of the mediterranean basin, specifically the east.

Your argument about the Swiss and the Japanese is absolutely correct. The concept doesn't apply to the N. East, however. The Japanese (and other poorer in resources groups) benefited from trade, extensive fishing, spoils of war, etc. They also had a specific life-view that pushed their societies towards progress, nation building, and ,to some degree, aggression.

No such mentality or capability can be found in the mountain people of Anatolia, or similar areas. It has a lot to do with a people's particular vision and outlook, as well as resources.

Take for example the craft of cheese making in the area (I'm a food trivia hobbyist). There are 3-4 kinds of cheese that have seen absolutely no evolution in the past 500 years. "Why change it? It tastes fine!" -that's the mentality.

In contrast, swiss cheesemakers have strived to perfect their process, experimented with new milk blends, textures, markets, variety.

That is the difference in a nutshell!

Mountain people in the area never aspired to have a state. They were happy being left alone to herd sheep and grow their tubers. The "state" idea for them is a new one, conceived after the Greek struggle of liberation from the Ottoman Empire in 1821. After the Balkan Wars, even.

Some schmuck extremists who visualized power for themselves stirred trouble in the plains, convinced their mountain brethren they need to be independant (yeah! that's the ticket!) and provoked the authorities.

When retaliation came, they shouted "genocide, genocide!"

The rest is history.

[stripes1776]

Your argument about the Swiss and the Japanese is absolutely correct. The concept doesn't apply to the N. East, however. The Japanese (and other poorer in resources groups) benefited from trade, extensive fishing, spoils of war, etc. They also had a specific life-view that pushed their societies towards progress, nation building, and ,to some degree, aggression.

No such mentality or capability can be found in the mountain people of Anatolia, or similar areas. It has a lot to do with a people's particular vision and outlook, as well as resources.

It took us a while to get there, but I think we are arriving at an explanation that makes a lot of sense. It is a complex of many factors, but the "vision and outlook" seems to me to play a crucial role.

Thank you for an interesting and stimulating discussion, but now I must attend to other things.

[Arioch7]

My apoligies.

I made a mistake in posting that as your response did not warrant it. To much beer on my part. I think I posted to the wrong thread.

Thats why I thought it funny that you said Liquid instead of Likud.

Israeli Extremist? That is also funny as ten years ago I was called an anti-semite and now I am an extremist. My views are still the same but the worlds propoganda machine is out of whack.

I will take your post as a compliment. I do apoligize for my misdirected post.

[Arioch7]

Perhaps the Swiss are isolated examples?

I think you need to add more cultures that evolved on the mountains and then formed a worthy government if you want to make that a valid argument.

Personally, I can not think of to many that make the grade but like I said, perhaps the Swiss are the exception rather than the rule.

[Nogbad]

Ping