Why is there no Kurdistan?

[VorZakone]

The Kurdish people number somewhere between 30 and 45 million. They're one of the largest ethnic groups without their own state.

How strong is the desire for a Kurdish state among Kurds themselves?

 

[Scandi Red]

I think a global superpower should give them a piece of land. Just draw some lines on a map here and there.

 

[The Corinthian]

It’s strong amongst Kurds.

The British promised them one after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire than reneged on that promise (you noticing a theme here?).

 

[Utd heap]

I think a global superpower should give them a piece of land. Just draw some lines on a map here and there.

Yep what could possibly go wrong.

 

[RedTiger]

Kurds are just mountain Persians, Iran has a duty to take them in, a new nation in the zagros mountains backed by a superpower.

 

[Plastic Evra]

Because you'd have to take land from existing countries (Possibly Turkey, Iran, Syria and Irak) that certainly do not want to give it. There never was an opportune crisis or strong enough backing by world powers to force that issue though they certainly gained some autonomy or defacto existence as regions due to the recent successive wars.

 

[Skills]

Because it would involve taking land from 2 regional powerhouses - Turkey and Iran.

 

[Sassy Colin]

I always thought Kurdistan was a thing. It comes up on predictive text.

I think a global superpower should give them a piece of land. Just draw some lines on a map here and there.

Is that really how you think it came about?

 

[2cents]

The Kurdish homelands have traditionally been largely mountainous, landlocked areas, less open to outside influences and connections than surrounding areas. This meant they were late in developing a modern, cohesive, nationalist program, in contrast to their neighbors. Even after the consolidation of modern Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria, Kurdish activism and resistance remained localized and heavily shaped by the Sufi orders and tribal confederations to which they traditionally belonged. And Kurds have been divided among themselves - not just politically as minorities into four different states, but linguistically, tribally, socially, and to a small degree confessionally. So pan-Kurdish sentiment is a very modern, recent phenomenon that has developed too late to overcome the established order in the region.

 

[JPRouve]

Most ethnicities don't have their own country, so I don't really understand the point that it would serve.

 

[Plastic Evra]

Most ethnicities don't have their own country, so I don't really understand the point that it would serve.

Well I think the argument is that a non-negligeable number of Kurds would like to like in their own country.

 

[2cents]

Most ethnicities don't have their own country, so I don't really understand the point that it would serve.

What if they consider themselves a nation, and aspire to national self-determination?

 

[JPRouve]

What if they consider themselves a nation, and aspire to national self-determination?

If a large amount see themselves as a nation then it's a slightly different context but to me this goes beyond ethnicity. The idea of a nation is generally larger than just ethnicity, there is a cultural togethereness that isn't a given within ethnicities who routinely have cultural differences that historically sometimes led to conflicts.

Basically the idea that I have in mind is that for the most part nationalism isn't determined by your ethnicity.

 

[2cents]

If a large amount see themselves as a nation then it's a slightly different context but to me this goes beyond ethnicity. The idea of a nation is generally larger than just ethnicity, there is a cultural togethereness that isn't a given within ethnicities who routinely have cultural differences that historically sometimes led to conflicts.

Basically the idea that I have in mind is that for the most part nationalism isn't determined by your ethnicity.

I think that may be the Frenchman in you. Ethnic nationalism is a very real thing, particularly in those regions where various ethnic movements found themselves struggling to survive amidst the ruins of the Russian, Austrian, and Ottoman empires. What point would a Kurdish state serve? What point does an Albanian, Ukrainian, or Armenian state serve? In the region where you find most Kurds today they are divided between one Turkish ethnostate, two traditionally heavily Arab nationalist states, and one multi-ethnic, Persian-dominated theocracy.

I’d also argue that the nation is defined by those who feel they belong to it, as they see fit, not outsiders.

 

[Withnail]

Is that really how you think it came about?

It's how a lot of countries came about

 

[JPRouve]

I think that may be the Frenchman in you. Ethnic nationalism is a very real thing, particularly in those regions where various ethnic movements found themselves struggling to survive amidst the ruins of the Russian, Austrian, and Ottoman empires. What point would a Kurdish state serve? What point does an Albanian, Ukrainian, or Armenian state serve? In the region where you find most Kurds today they are divided between one Turkish ethnostate, two traditionally heavily Arab nationalist states, and one multi-ethnic, Persian-dominated theocracy.

I’d also argue that the nation is defined by those who feel they belong to it, as they see fit, not outsiders.

I failed to make my point but that was a central idea. The question in the OP felt like a point made from the POV of an outsider. People from the same ethnicity will often have a different take on their nationality, one doesn't determine the other.

Also I'm mixed and actually have family members on each side of that topic.

 

[JPRouve]

It's how a lot of countries came about

I could have an absolute brainfart but only Europe borders weren't largely created like that?

 

[RedTiger]

I failed to make my point but that was a central idea. The question in the OP felt like a point made from the POV of an outsider. People from the same ethnicity will often have a different take on their nationality, one doesn't determine the other.

Also I'm mixed and actually have family members on each side of that topic.

I might be mistaken but isn't one side of your family Amazigh?

 

[JPRouve]

I might be mistaken but isn't one side of your family Amazigh?

Yes. Which opens a can of worm when it comes to the range of identities you can find within a single family and ethnicity.

 

[RedTiger]

Yes. Which opens a can of worm when it comes to the range of identities you can find within a single family and ethnicity.

Yeah, I understand your position now

 

[2cents]

I failed to make my point but that was a central idea. The question in the OP felt like a point made from the POV of an outsider. People from the same ethnicity will often have a different take on their nationality, one doesn't determine the other.

Also I'm mixed and actually have family members on each side of that topic.

Yes. Which opens a can of worm when it comes to the range of identities you can find within a single family and ethnicity.

Yes makes sense.

 

[moses]

I always thought Kurdistan was a thing. It comes up on predictive text.



Is that really how you think it came about?

Soneone drew all those straight lines Col.

 

[Hound Dog]

What if they consider themselves a nation, and aspire to national self-determination?

They can aspire to whatever they wish, you cannot just declare secession from a sovereign country.

Unless USA wants you to. Then you can do whatever you like, as long as you follow their orders.

 

[2cents]

They can aspire to whatever they wish, you cannot just declare secession from a sovereign country

Yes, that’s where ideals and aspirations meet reality, unfortunately for the Kurds. I don’t have data but I think it’s probably accurate to say that most Kurds these days are resigned to obtaining/maintaining regional autonomy with cultural rights within the states they find themselves in.

 

[Sassy Colin]

Soneone drew all those straight lines Col.

Felt like he was having a dig at something, maybe I was wrong.

 

[moses]

Felt like he was having a dig at something, maybe I was wrong.

He might have been. I might be too.

 

[Raoul]

The Kurdish people number somewhere between 30 and 45 million. They're one of the largest ethnic groups without their own state.

How strong is the desire for a Kurdish state among Kurds themselves?

Because it stretches across four countries. They do have a sizeable autonomous area in northern Iraq with its own parliament, as well as members in the Iraqi parliament, which gives them access to national oil revenue.

 

[4bars]

Because no sovereign country will give up territory without a fight. Is too socially advanced to let go

 

[tomaldinho1]

They were going to get one until the Turks won their independence war. I guess it's their bad luck the region they originally hail from became Iran/Turkey but I thought they had autonomy in the same way you get Catalonia in Spain or Faroe Islands and Denmark?

 

[DickDastardly]

Oh yeah, we're totally missing another war.

I'd also love a medieval Europe, Duchy of Feckminster vs Kingdom of Bohemia.

#makeeuropegreatagain

 

[MadMike]

Because you'd have to take land from existing countries (Possibly Turkey, Iran, Syria and Irak) that certainly do not want to give it. There never was an opportune crisis or strong enough backing by world powers to force that issue though they certainly gained some autonomy or defacto existence as regions due to the recent successive wars.

Errrm, there certainly was. It’s called the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in WW1. The time when the Balkans and Arabia/Hejaz gained their independence. There were a couple of Kurdish rebellions during that time that even had the backing of Russia.

Unfortunately for the Kurds they were divided at the time and the rebellion didn’t really catch on. A lot of them even backed the Kemalists. Who ultimately won the Turkish war of Independence, effectively dictated their borders (whole of Anatolia) and created a Turkish nationalist state.

The event was there. Sadly for the Kurds, they missed the boat.

 

[Plastic Evra]

Errrm, there certainly was. It’s called the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in WW1. The time when the Balkans and Arabia/Hejaz gained their independence. There were a couple of Kurdish rebellions during that time that even had the backing of Russia.

Unfortunately for the Kurds they were divided at the time and the rebellion didn’t really catch on. A lot of them even backed the Kemalists. Who ultimately won the Turkish war of Independence, effectively dictated their borders (whole of Anatolia) and created a Turkish nationalist state.

The event was there. Sadly for the Kurds, they missed the boat.

To be fair I was thinking more recently, as I'm not fluent in the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire. I stand educated on some of the circumstances then, thanks to you.

 

[Kaos]

The Kurdish people number somewhere between 30 and 45 million. They're one of the largest ethnic groups without their own state.

How strong is the desire for a Kurdish state among Kurds themselves?

I've yet to speak to a fellow Kurd that doesn't want it. Put it that way.

The issue however is the infighting (particularly within Iraqi Kurdistan), and the slight cultural and political differences across the many different groups. Its one thing getting everyone to agree to a state, its another deciding how you want that state to manifest politically, culturally and economically. We can't even agree on a dialect for starters.

But all that is moot considering NATO power Turkey will never let it happen.

 

[4bars]

I've yet to speak to a fellow Kurd that doesn't want it. Put it that way.

The issue however is the infighting (particularly within Iraqi Kurdistan), and the slight cultural and political differences across the many different groups. Its one thing getting everyone to agree to a state, its another deciding how you want that state to manifest politically, culturally and economically. We can't even agree on a dialect for starters.

But all that is moot considering NATO power Turkey will never let it happen.

But seeing the weakness of Iraq and Syria maybe a partial territory could happen, maybe?

But surely it would be bloody

What is sad is that they were among the ones that suffered and flighted the most against Islamic state being a valuable ally of US in the region and then they abandoned them when Turkey almost attacked them. At least US bought them 2-3 days

 

[The Corinthian]

Why isn’t there a Khalistan?

 

[owlo]

The Kurdish homelands have traditionally been largely mountainous, landlocked areas, less open to outside influences and connections than surrounding areas. This meant they were late in developing a modern, cohesive, nationalist program, in contrast to their neighbors. Even after the consolidation of modern Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria, Kurdish activism and resistance remained localized and heavily shaped by the Sufi orders and tribal confederations to which they traditionally belonged. And Kurds have been divided among themselves - not just politically as minorities into four different states, but linguistically, tribally, socially, and to a small degree confessionally. So pan-Kurdish sentiment is a very modern, recent phenomenon that has developed too late to overcome the established order in the region.

Almost reads like an account of the Pashtun I once read.

 

[Kaos]

But seeing the weakness of Iraq and Syria maybe a partial territory could happen, maybe?

But surely it would be bloody

What is sad is that they were among the ones that suffered and flighted the most against Islamic state being a valuable ally of US in the region and then they abandoned them when Turkey almost attacked them. At least US bought them 2-3 days

Because they had served their purpose, and ultimately not upsetting NATO Turkey was more imperative to the US and her allies than helping the Kurds reach their dream of statehood, thats the sad reality of it.

 

[Zlatattack]

Why isn’t there a Khalistan?

And an independent Kashmir please.

Maybe a cornish and Gaelic state?

A large part of our community is Kurdish and they're lovely people. IDK the full details of their politics back home, but I doubt creating another country in the middle east is going to help. People should look at the model of the EU, working across borders, rather than putting up more borders.

 

[Stookie]

It’s strong amongst Kurds.

The British promised them one after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire than reneged on that promise (you noticing a theme here?).

Those pesky Brits at it again *angrily shakes fist

 

[MadMike]

And an independent Kashmir please.

Maybe a cornish and Gaelic state?

A large part of our community is Kurdish and they're lovely people. IDK the full details of their politics back home, but I doubt creating another country in the middle east is going to help. People should look at the model of the EU, working across borders, rather than putting up more borders.

Borders are very important to EU as well. Not just external borders but internal ones too. They delineate areas of national control which mean control of taxation, policing, defence, education etc. EU is build on top of strictly defined national states. You cannot ignore that fact, because it's arguably what enables its democracy to work.

Multi-ethnic states are often marred by ethnic friction which undermines democracy. Not talking explicitly about violence, but also people voting along ethnic lines first and foremost and policy secondarily which makes democracy dysfunctional. The fallout from the collapse of former Yugoslavia was the creation of more borders. But ultimately it allowed for better democratic process in those new states with many of them being in the EU already and others having candidate status.

First you create clear lines of national control. Borders where ethnicities have independence and security. That helps create more stable democracies. Then you build supranational organisations on top of them, based on mutual respect. I would argue that if you're looking at the EU and its Schengen free-travel zone and concluding that "the less of smaller national states, the better" that is the wrong lesson learnt. You're jumping to an end result disregarding the national state foundational basis of the EU.