While reading an article entitled “In a town that had been devoted to the moon goddess”, which was written about the immigrants from Kobane, I couldn’t help but think about our alienation to the region and the people of the region and the popularity of producing romanticism. Thousands of praiseful words, which don’t even contribute to the “Then, what will happen now?” question…
We are facing a situation that separates us from reality, while we are listening to the expressions that start with “Mothers from Kobane”. Also having the Kobane issue being perceived as a single case, by means of separating the region from its geography and history, is presenting a success related to the “perception management”. However, no road map is being formed about the solution of this issue. Being indifferent to the Syrian and Iraqi mothers in the region while lamenting for the mothers in Kobane, is actually producing separate emotional partisanships for each side. In other words, unfortunately, in this geography our sorrows are not the same.
In order to provide this partnership, we have to face a century-long history. I think that this face-off is especially harder for the laic Turks.
….
Our generation’s memory regarding the Kurdish issue is only limited with the incidents caused by PKK. We will presume that the Kurdish issue is composed of PKK or the parties or people related to them, and we cannot even recognize that the knowledge of the people, who we identified as the experts of the matter, is limited with this period. Of course, we don’t expect everyone to possess the knowledge of a historian. One of the reasons for this is the oppression of this incident by means of heavy military methods during the first years of the Republic, the prominent Kurds to be exiled and the official history that presents this issue as the biggest threat against the Republic. On the other hand, the regional history is quite complicated. Tribes are an important part of the Kurdish history, and all of their alliances are frequently changing. Being familiar to the region requires knowing the tribe history and relations in the region.
…
I guess that some of you had seen the Cemilzadeler Mansion at Diyarbakır. It’s a mansion that stands in front of the house, where Cahit Sıtkı Tarancı was born, like a government building. I had met with one of the grandchildren of that family during the years I was shooting a TV program. While I was looking at the family pictures, when I saw that they were a family that owned a car in those years, the mother being pictured while painting in the village, I deemed it important in regards to the modernization of the period. Afterwards, the family had been cast out, their mansion had been seized, and the family members had only managed to return to their hometown after years. As for the chain of events that lead to this banishing, it is very complicated. However, I’d like to share two points that had drawn my attention.
That period had become the years where the Kurds had organized, both politically and culturally, against the Turkish state in order to establish an independent state.
The Society for the Rise of Kurdistan, Kurdish National Association and the Khoyboun Society, which had been established in Lebanon in 1927 with the participation of the others mentioned…
The Kurdish intellectuals were also involved in this society, which existed for two years…
Many families and tribes like Cemilpaşazade and Barzani had been represented here.
The society had handled their studies through the centers they established in Cairo, Beirut, Detroit and Philadelphia. However, in time, following their joint acts with the Armenians and the abuses related with the collected moneys had caused diversity of views.
Of course, the British had supported this Society greatly.
There are three aspects in their general programs that draw attention. The first one is “Living in peace with the Arabic community and their protectors in Iran, Iraq and Syria, and securing the peace and tranquility of the great Kurdish community in those regions.” The second one is “Cooperating with the Armenian nation against Turkey. Providing the acceptance of the land integrity of Armenia and Kurdistan as a principal.” As for the third one, it is “Not struggling with any other country aside from Turkey.” During that period, a proposal for establishing a local Kurdish autonomy within Iraq had been transmitted to this association by the Nations League; however, they had turned down this proposal by saying that without including the Kurdish regions within Turkey, they cannot accept it…
We cannot present a solution to the issue by looking at the happenings in the region from the present time. The Kurdish issue is not only composed of PKK. We cannot disregard the history of a century-long fight, in which the imperialist states had interfered, because of the importance of the region… Since its foundation, the Kurdish movement had come to its present position by fighting with the Republic of Turkey. As for Turkey, it had existed by trying to limit this movement with oppression. The Republic had carried every kind of reflex to protect its lands, while experiencing the trauma of being clamped to Anatolia after living in an emperorship. We cannot reach anywhere by regarding the Kurdish movement as PKK-HDP-YDP-Turkey or saying Kobane. A peace formula in a multi-factorial equation requires a slender language. Now, while desiring changes in these two, we need to see that this cannot happen in an instant or quickly. Transforming the accumulation of years into a resolution process is something that takes patience. The fight is quite severe and it is a tiny part of a great plan that comes from history. As for the emotions, they have neither importance nor a place in this fight.
WHY TURKEY
I used to wonder why a name like Turkey, which is a Westerner usage, has been given to a Turkish nation-state, which had been re-established in 1920, instead of a Turkish name like Turkistan. Recently, I had run across this information in one of Hakan Erdem’s articles. The article is long, however, as a summary; Erdem summarizes the reason for the preference of the “Turkia/Türkiye” word, which is a Westerner usage, as “The Ottoman-Turkish administrator-intellectual-elitist has no other reason than showing their cultural tendency while choosing a European name for their county”.
