I see there is some tension here between my good ol' friend, the genuine brainiac named Ideas, and Borat's cousin!
Since it was originally me who started it all, allow me to have the privilege to jump right back into the discussion and speak my most humble opinions.
Azamat wrote:Not at all. All I'm saying is that we shoudn't be investing so much time in the Turks. I know they are occupiers, but nevertheless, from a historical aspect they are no initial threat to the Kurdish cause at all. They cannot claim eastern anatolia; it's out of the question. They migrated here by the sword and even passed us by. So why are we focussing so much on why their occupation is unjust? The Turks are an easy case.
I think this is where the problem lies, Borat looks at things mostly from a historical point of view, whereas Ideas does it from a political one.
Indeed Azamat is right when the issue is perceived that way! Turks are an easy case when considering whether the North belonged to them historically or not. But I believe this is of utmost insignificance! History might be used by some to strengthen their claim over something, whether it be a property or a land, but doesn't yield any results if used alone! Everybody knows that both Americas were taken by force and the near total-extinction of all the indigenous people, but even suggesting the idea that the European Americans have to leave only ends in laughter! Istanbul was a Byzantine city inhabited mostly be Greeks up until 500 years ago, but if any Greek lays his claim over it will be mocked on by everyone. Palestine belonged to the Arabs some sixty years ago and now you can only see 'Israel' on the map!
The point is, there is no point in discussing what was and what was not even 2000 years ago, let alone going back as much as who inhabited the land at the age of the Neanderthals, for it hardly serves any political purpose at present, which is where the problems lie!
Seeing Armenians and Assyrians as threats in the political context is hardly justifiable compared to those of the Turks, Arabs and Persians.
Simply, neither Armenians nor Assyrians have the necessary effective propaganda machines that the Arabs and Turks possess nor are they that numerous to have such a strong impact on the region, not to mention they don't have any economical powerhouse in the region, unlike the Turks who are tightening their grip over the region by their economy to pull the strings when they want and puppeteer the political developments of the region.
This of course does not mean that the Armenians and Assyrians are the cutest people on the planet! They have damaged-and are still damaging- Kurdish history, reputation, political ambitions...etc.
Armenians can be credited for destroying the older Kurdish community in the Caucasus in 1993 during the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict. They have also resorted to all sorts of treacherous methods in dividing the Kurds into (Kurds) and (Yezidis). Let me tell you that even during their people's genocide back in the day, they started to come back and give what they had taken! In 1920, Kurds started fleeing from regions around Kars and Ardahan to the south to Amed and the surrounding regions bringing with themselves stories of death and destruction at the hands of the Armenians.
More so, as you put it, the damage that the Assyrians are causing should not be overlooked, They blame the Kurds for everything that happens to them. A bunch of usual good-hearted Arabs storm into a church and butcher the people, Kurdistan gives shelter to the fleeing Assyrians, yet instead of appreciating it, they claim they are re-occupying their own historical homeland!
That's why the only "neutral" sources given on wikipedia are Assyrian-orientated and good Kurdish historians like Mehrdad Izady are ridiculed by the academic community all the time.
Absolutely true! The Assyrians have put up a daring campaign against Kurdish history and identity refuting the existence of Kurds during antiquity and sometimes going as far as saying Kurds appeared in the 18th century!
This is most apparent in Wikipedia, in which the Kurdish-related articles are changed constantly in a way Kurds/Kurdistan are presented as having being originally Assyrians/Assyria..!
At one point of time, I personally saw in the article about Kurdistan, it was written that the whole Kurdish region was known as
Assyria up until 12th century and that Kurds appeared at that time also!
Even right now, no mention is made about the Hurrian-ness of the Kurds and are even presented as a new ethnic group made up of the combination of other people, even Turkic! :
"The Kurds as an ethnic group appear in the medieval period. The medieval group is of heterogenous origins,[31] combining a number of earlier tribal or ethnic groups[23] including Median[23][31][32] Semitic,[23][33][34][35][36] Turkic[37][38][39][40] and Armenian[23][41][42][43][44][45] elements."That is why Kurds should not take the
'Assyrian threat' lightly and must get over their lackluster-ness in dealing with this issue.
So, to put things in proper context, let me clarify it; Kurds rightfully want their Kurdistan and demand its liberation. Assyrians want the whole region included in their
"Assyrian Triangle", sometimes their map is so huge that even chunks of Mexico and Peru are included! Armenians want their
"Western Armenia", Turkmen have drawn a map including a good portion of South Kurdistan. The irony is, the only ones that are controlling the region are not them but are the Turks, Arabs and Persians!
Its ironic how the region by itself is hardly of any major significance, yet everybody's fighting over it simply because it is rich! Much like how people are fighting over Paris Hilton.
Still, after all that has been said, I don't think that such troubles cause by the Armenians-Assyrians can even be compared to the damages caused by the Turks, Arabs and Persians.
