West Versus East discussion

[KabirKuhi]

We'll continue the discussion here then:

Languages : Persian and Most of European languages are in the same group : Indo Aryan ; Finnish and Hungarian are cousins of Turkish ; Arabic is Semitic, but also Aramaic which is the primitive language of Christianity, while Hebrew is one of the language of Bible, and Ladino (Judeo-Hispano) the language of many Jews of Spain.

Persian is an indo-iranian language, as is kurdish, as is hundreds in the indian sub-continent, as is pashto and dozens in central asia. It doesn't make us closer to europeans. We share alot more with turkic and semitic languages, vocabulary wise. Ladino is a bastardized language specific to jews. Hebrew is never used outside of Jewish communities, europeans don't accept hebrew as a european language. Indo-iranian languages are not indigenous to the middle-east though. There are only vague connections here.

Ancestors(I'm not talking about race or DNA, i'm talking about bloodlines) : With the migration from Africa to Middle East and Europe in Prehistoric times, and later the successive waves of migration fro Asia to Europe, we have a bunch of common ancestors. Just look at physical aspects.

20000-15000 years ago, sure. But that is a long-time. We're more related to caucasians, and south-central-asians, than we are to europeans. We share ancestry with them there. Wherest europeans were never present in large enough number to make any impact, unless we talk about prehistoric times.

but as I wrote above, values and conceptions are the same, because they have the same religious and philosophical roots.

Maybe in the past, but today. Europeans basically follow enlightment models, which are hugely different and more relativist than their predecessors. Also i disagree. European theolgians deconstructed islamic conceptions, first as heresies and then as a satanic cult. So there is a big difference. You must have read about this if you read about medieval history.

Concerning the 'behavior' : too vague, but I guess that Southern European have the same social values than In Maghreb (Mediterranean roots).

Different emotions/sentimentality Different behavior in daily/characteristics. Europeans are introverted, individualist, social hierarchical, cynical, class-focused, fickle, cold, reserved.

West-asians: Community-orientated, extroverted, religious, warm-blooded, spiritual, conservative, supertitious.

That's how i would describe ther characteristics.

There is a big difference between europeans and west-asians. Even in daily life and the way you sense their presence, and how they come off to you(the vibe). Europeans are mostly distant and reserved, while west-asians are more extroverted. There is also a huge difference between spanish(who're more similar to other europeans, and north-africans.

You might think this vague, but you have be really aloof, not to observe such differences. Not to feel the different presence of people.

Social culture(Social behavior, social values, social conceptions, social norms, family etc.) : Just need precise examples, too vague again. The only evident difference is polygamy (though it is not so common than Westerners imagine); beside that, we are all heirs of the Greek conceptions of 'City' and 'juridical Empires' (Roman).

Look at how west-asians socialize. look at the goal of socialization. F.ex in west-Asia, unmarried men and women do not mix. Elderly are respected. People invite each other to eat very frequently, even someone they briefly have meet(unlike Europe). There is a strong family orientated community culture(Everyone knows everyone in their neighborhood, and everyone looks out for each other). Social gatherings are much larger. People socialize with their family much more often than Europe. Religious values are upheld. Concepts of honor and behavior are upheld(while in europe only concepts of being "friendly" or "nice", are important for social adjustment). Religious spirituality and rituals are important(salat, wudhu) All this is absent in europe.

Europeans are more individualist,

Appearance(Kurds or west-asians in general look nothing like europeans) : Lool, I know many Kurds with fair skin, blue eyes (especially in some area like Barzan) or green and grey eyes (Bohtan, Sinjar), blond hairs, etc. Beside, just look at Mediterranean populations and see how they are so 'different' with Syrian or Palestinians. There are Southern people and Northern People, but be sure that for a Chinese or an Indonesian, a Persian is the same than a European (they called them all 'big nose' when they saw merchants and sailors).

Inbred villages with recessive phenotypes do not count, they're less than 1% of the entire 30 million of kurds . The overwhemingly majority of kurds are brunet and dark-haired, dark eyed, dark to olive skinned, they have thick hair texture. And different overall facial features(Bigger noses, lower foreheads, bigger ears, more convex nosed, different facial dimensions) With only a very small minority of light-colored people. This becomes more obvious in west-iran, where kurds originate. While even the majority of mediterranean europeans would be considered too light and out of place in west-asia. We do overlap to a small extent, but the overall differences are larger than the similarities. I honestly don't care what chinese and indonesians have to say(As if they were relevant in anyway). Only what west-asians and europeans have to say. And europeans and west-asians indeed see themselves as different.

Political philosophy : All from schools of Platon (Al Farabi) and Aristotle from one hand, and a trouble to adapt them with Bible or Coran, which give not any indications concerning politics.

Europeans adopted different political philosphies(marxism, third positionist fascism, liberalism) in their post-spiritual, post-christian, post-feudal and post-enlightenment societies. West-asia never had such systems, it was either local dynasties, banana-states with connections to the west, or theocracies. When western-inspired movements tried to implement those systems, they quicky failed. We never shared ideologies with westerners.

The difference with a so called Political Islam' while Christianity would stay far from Politics : Just read Saint Augustin, God's City. The same tension between theocracy and philosophy.

There is big difference in regency. In islam, atleast early islam, there existed no state, only religious state. While in christendom, the state institutionalized the the religion as a cultural and political mediator, rather as a primary ruler and political foundation.

History : Islam, Christianity and Judaism are so interlaced that they share many territories (and spent their time to invade each others) : there is a Christianity in Middle East, a European Islam (Eastern Europe) and of course, the great ancestor, Judaism which is a bridge.

We have more ub common with turkics and south-central asians, than with europeans. While for levantines, it's arabs. Only jews are the exception and are mixed between europeans and middle-easterners, culturally. And they have never had a significant impact, as jews.

Italia, Spain were muslim, Northern Africa was Christian, Bosnia, Albania were shared, and of course, 3 religions were in Middle East for the beginning.

Only briefly, sure but it had no impact. I don't think people care at all about that. Europeans have done everything to remove anything middle-eastern about christianity in europe. They even depict jesus as a blonde man, and talk about jerusalem and biblical names as if they were happening and were located in berlin or prague. Not in west-asia.

Economic-structure : too vague, precise what are the economical structure of Islam vs European.

Islamic taxes were different, so was the role of the clergy in the economy. European churches f.ex were land-owners, had estates and controlled large parts of european kingdoms economies. To the point where they sometimes came into conflict with european royality and acted as a real political and economical force. Sometimes they acted as supervisors and had economic ministries. Islamic clergy, both sunni and shiah, did not have such privileges or roles. They depended on support from rulers to maintain their clerical establishment. Only sometimes did they act as political leaders. F.ex movements such is that of Hassan sabah.

Modern day economies are very different aswell. Europeans follow a free-market capitalist model. While west-Asians have a developing world economy, and business(save for turkey) is largely dependent on selling raw materials and 1st industry produce.

Goals : precise

Europeans want this westernized globalist world "humanist" world(you're good example of this), and other lame empty stuff(their elite of course want to rule the whole world, economically and politically) . west-Asians want self-determination, security(Not saudis), countrys stability and economical prosperity. Our goals are fundmentally different.

Geography : lol.

Why lol? West-asia belongs to asia. Even scientifically, our region has more in common with central-asia, south-central asia and caucasus, both in vegtation, soil, mountains and forest(The only exception being border region in west-turkey) and general topography. Not even the levant is similar to greece. Especially west-iran where kurds are from, resemble the terrain in Hindu-kush. European such things, differs very much. Europeans have no semi-desert, desertified region. Europeans have more fertile soil and vegitation. Green-leaf woodland areas in the middle-east(in turkey and north-iran) resembles caucasus. not europe. While the mountainous terrains in zagros and mountain regions resembles hindu kush(only parts of turkey and northern-iran are different).

Geopolitical and cultural interaction, both historical and present : continuous wars, occupations, and conquests : Italia, Spain were muslim.
Contact(both globally, regionally and locally) : they were always in contact (trade, wars, politics, conversions)

This might be true for Anatolia, and during the Persian empire, what about the rest of the time? Crusades is a very bad example. Trade is global, but it wasn't leading to globalization, only influences.

Don't tell me Hellenism. Hellenism was a colonialist enterprise by Greeks, and didn't have a long enough impact on anything. People exaggerate it's effects and it's celebrated as a European cultural achievement, and because the time period coincides with the emergence of important Greeks scholars and polymaths. Whatever effect it had in west-Asia or Greece, fell with the successor states. As can be seen how quickly the Persians threw off the Seleucid administration. Or how not a single influence remained in Afghanistan or Pakistan, not even the language, after the bactrians destroyed by the sakas.

The byzantine empire only had a profound effect on Armenians and Georgians. The rest of west-Asia did not view themselves as Greeks or Romans. Byzantine identity was metropolitan, and only a small number of west-Asians were a part of it. Evidence of this is how Syrian authors complained about being viewed as inferior locals by Romans and Greeks, even after having been occupied for hundreds of years by romans-greeks, their identity remained distinct and their language and traditions were preserved. It's like most European occupations of foreign lands, where an exploitative elite of European descendent colonialists and rulers emerge. To have this form of resource production in their benefit. It's a sort of more of politically and integrity-wise unstable resource/economic colonialism created to benefit Europeans. They had no interest in local cultures or local demographys. This is why Europeans never had a long-lasting influence outside of Europe, and the states that grew out of European colonialism(Seleucid, Byzantines, Ptolemy), their legacy quickly disappeared after their fall and never had any resurgence. I wouldn't be surprised if the same social and political structure as apartheid south-Africa existed, during the Greeks and roman empires in west-Asia. After all France, had a apartheid system in algeria, only a few decades ago.

The only case where Europeans had a long-lasting impact, was when the entire or majority of the indigenous population was decimated and replaced by European descendent colonialists(Americas, Australia). There is no synergy, like the turko-Iranian dynasties in Iran, or the circassians, or the kurdish dynasties of Egypt,or the Turkics in Anatolia, or Arabs in north-africa. They quickly acclimatized and fused cultures, creating successful states.

Now modernization is an entirely different thing. It's the acquisition of technology rather than culture.

Spain might have had the longest interaction with north-African Muslims and Arab dynasties, but whatever cultural, linguistic or intellectual heritage, was quickly lost in them aswell. Meaning that their model of interaction was similar to Levantines regions and Greco-romans.

Even DNA(although i know you won't like that though) : well DNA is a joke if you want to definite people and cultures with it.

Well according to you. According to science, there is enough differences in allele frequencies, that the two groups are distinct. Even different west-Asian ethnicities are distinct from one another in different genetic studies and algorithms. But you don't care I guess.

At the end I would say that nowadays, it was another challenge with mondialisation : what you like to call 'western' is no more than an international culture and way of life that spreads and in which Western is influenced by Far East as the contrary also. This is a general melting pot (creating as a reaction 'identical revolts'). But the dichotomy Western/Eastern is no relevant anymore : Where is Russia ? China and India ? Not in 'Islam side' and the problem of Middle East is its position of buffer area between USA/Europe/Russia/China sharing of Eurasia.

It's something very recent, due to the lack of power balance. If it weren't for Europeans circumventing ottoman empire and the Safavid empire, it would have never happened(at least it would be delayed by hundreds of years). The lack of efficient resistance against european enroachment on strategically important areas, by Turkish ottomans and safavid iranics due declining goverments, technological advancement, opened up the rest of the world to colonization. Because those empires were removed as balancing powers to euopean powers and their encroachment on eastern trade, the world became globalized. Stating that western culture is global culture is offensive. It's only been around, because Europeans violently imposed themselves and were intrusive for economical reasons. And it's mostly technological influence more than anything else.

[Piling]

So (for people who did not read the precedent post) I assert that what we call 'Western Culture/Civilization' includes Northern Christianity (Europe + America), Judaism (from Europe as Middle East) and Middle East/Iranian area. So the actuel a borders of 'Western would be Los Angeles/Kabul.

For more clarity, when I quote you i used bold polices.:

Concerning the languages : Arabic has penetrated all islamic countries, as Latin did for Christian states. But Greek is a common basket of scientific and philosophic languages for Europe as Islam, for example. And most important as I told concerning anthropology, religion and philosophy, they have the same concepts ( viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15222&start=15#p108364 )

(Concerning Turkish, thanks to Atatürk, it has now 50% of European word in its vocabulary and many Turks do to understand Ottoman language because of Arabic Persian words, but that is another problem ).


Concerning DNA : the 'Caucasian' is confusing because it is the one used in USA to design 'White People'. What I know about European DNA is that according to recent research, all Europeans have more or less the same one, indicating that they have predominant ancestors arrived from Middle East 10 000 BC. (Of course there were more recent 'invasions' also). Before some studies, we did not know if Neolithic culture was only a 'cultural movement' from Mesopotamia to Europe or also a migration movement :
A Predominantly Neolithic Origin for European Paternal Lineages :
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info ... io.1000285

Funny/sexy survey of the same topic :

Most Britons descended from male farmers who left Iraq and Syria 10,000 years ago (and were seduced by the local hunter-gatherer women)

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z32v1I7vkD
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Concerning values : As you say, there was more difference between post-christianity moral values and post-islamic values (I say post- because I consider that after 18th century, Islam did not rule the Middle-East, and it becomes more and more secular but not jun the same secularism that the Christian one).

What we call 'modernity' was emerged in Europe/American (19th century ?) and is based on the individual's rights vs society, while traditional societies strengthen the group vs the individual. So we were where you are still (to schematize) but the important question is : Where is going Middle East ? For the moment it seems to be agitated between influence of 'modernism' and 'islam in crisis'. So it might take the same way than Europe or find another way especially because all the world is living another crisis, a changing of civilization (mondialisation, Internet, etc.)

(Medieval Christianity had ambivalent feelings toward Islam : it loved its philosophers, condemned its Prophet ; modern Islamic power has the same ambiguity in 16th=18th century : loved European technology, condemned its philosophers, but you can not deny the influence of the same French Philosophers on Arabian Nahda under Ottoman Empire, among Kurdish movements, etc. At first, Middle Easterners revolted against their own history and power, based on 'Westerners' ideology ; so in Middle Ages, Islamic philosophy was the master, at modern time, we send Voltaire and Hegel in exchange…)


'Europeans are introverted, individualist, social hierarchical, cynical, class-focused, fickle, cold, reserved'

Not sure that we see Italians, Greeks like that or even Eastern European and Southern French Sounds a portrait of an ordinary Sweden/German/Northern French…


'Community-orientated, extroverted, religious, warm-blooded, spiritual, conservative, superstitious.'

That is a Sicilian caricature

Concerning familial norms : before 1968 (in short) European society was officially traditional (aka hypocrite). The only point that makes the difference is the huge presence in public places of power (royal courts, literary 'salons', bal, etc.) of women, because of the non segregation. It has opened the way to what Talsor calls 'feminism or female power'. But Women in Middle East take the same way now, and youth in Egypt, Iran, and even Kurdistan ask the same rights than in Europe (I correct : boys ask the same rights for themselves and wish that their sisters continue to live in a traditional way )

Europe is more and more out of religions, that is right. But USA has only 5% of unbelievers, so I am not sure which is the future. Probably a spirituality out of institutions, the fall of Priests/Mollahs' power, in Middle East as in Europe (Christianity increases in South-America and Africa and Far Asia).

In fact, all that you say about 'westerners individualism' can be observed now in many other areas, like China, Japan : It might be a generalization of a way of life which is not especially from West but comes from what we call economical 'developped/under-developped' countries. (I don't say a side is better than the other, that is just an observation).

Concerning the physical aspect of Middle-Easterners (including Turkey) they are mixed, with a predominance of dark people (Iranians hate being call 'dark' btw ! ) But you find the same thing in South-South-Easterner Europeans, and Mediterranean area is, for example, a common cradle for many populations.

Politically :

'Europeans adopted different political philosphies(marxism, third positionist fascism, liberalism) in their post-spiritual, post-christian, post-feudal and post-enlightenment societies.West-asia never had such systems, it was either local dynasties, banana-states with connections to the west, or theocracies'

They followed more or less the same path :

At first, Europe was an Empire (Roman) as Asia. Then the Empire collapsed in local dynasties of kings/emperors. Then monarchies became constitutional or were replaced by republics, sometimes became totalitarian states ruled by one party (Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italia etc.). Now our national states are slowly dying to form (slowly) a sort of European confederation.

At first Middle East was an Empire (Roman/Iranian) then collapsed became a Caliphate, soon replaced by local dynasties, then by an Empire again (Ottoman), which collapsed and was replaced by marxist/fascist systems like Baath (power of a Party) in many countries or monarchies (inspiring by UK).

Now these regimes are slowly dying, and no one knows what will happen : theocracy like EIIL (I doubt of that), half-authoritarian states like Turkey, Kurdistan (may be). Concerning democracy, it will be hard because of the Saudi/Iran conflict which shake all the Middle East and the instability of the area with its millions of refugees.

About theocracy and politics, as Christ said : Caesar's business is not mine' a secular state was not unreligious, but it took, all the same, quite 2000 years to separate State and Church.

Shiism can be more easily free from theocraty with its conception of Mahdi who has to return. But in general way, the crisis of Al Qaeda, Salafist and ISIS is a struggle against secularization. And what happens nowadays in Islam is also a civil war between supporters of a religious regime and those who want secularism.

'Europeans have done everything to remove anything middle-eastern about christianity in europe. They even depict jesus as a blonde man.'

Don't worry, not all the time :

http://rembrandt.louvre.fr/en/html/heads_of_christ.html

Jerusalem was the starting place of christianity, normal they dispute the place with Jews. But remember that at first, islamic prayer was done toward Al-Quds and it is still a holy place for muslims (or if not, no need to make war with Israel).


'Islamic taxes were different, so was the role of the clergy in the economy. Modern day economies are very different. Europeans follow a free-market capitalist model. While west-asians have a developing world economy, and buisness(save for turkey) is largely dependent on selling raw materials and 1st industry produce'.

Medieval European economy was how you describe the West-Asians 'dependent on selling raw materials and 1st industry produce'. Islamic medieval economy was an international 'free-market capitalist model'. Then colonial expansion of Europe and decline of Islamic empire which missed the industrial revolution changed the situation, one just replaced the other and vice versa.

'Europeans want this westernized globalist world "humanist" world(you're good example of this), and other lame empty stuff(their elite of course want to rule the whole world, economically and politically) . west-Asians want self-determination, security(Not saudis), countrys stability and economical prosperity. Our goals are fundamentally different.'

Europe does not want to rule the world anymore, we ruled it until 1914, then we lost our power, with 2 WW, and now the world is ruled by America, Russia, China. We are the most richest economical entity but far from any political ambition. The next conqueror of Middle East could be China or Russia, not Brussels…

Geography : We have no deserts, that's right (but many deserts in Middle East, except Arabia and Iran, were produced by men, and were described before as fertile plains and forests). Moderate climate, because less continental. But I am not sure that it is enough to characterized a civilization (it can make a culture, I agree).

'Contact(both globally, regionally and locally) : they were always in contact (trade, wars, politics, conversions)[/quote]
This might be true for anatolia, and during the persian empire, what about the rest of the time? Crusades is a very bad example. Trade is global. Don't tell me hellenism. Hellenism was a colonialist enterprise by greeks, and didn't have a long enough impact on anything. People exaggerate it's effects. Whatever effect it had, it fell with the successor states. The byzantine empire only had a profound effect on armenians and georgians. The rest of west-asia did not view themselves as greeks or romans. Byzantine identity was metropolitan, and only a small number of west-asians were a oart of it. Syrian writers complained about being viewed as inferior locals by romans and greeks. The rest of the population in those areas lived in the country-side, while greek and roman elites ruled the cities. Same thing can be said about spain, italy, and albania, there was never any long-lasting interaction(outside of trade)'

Hellenism has a huge cultural impact on all Mediterranean countries, and then on judaism, christianity and islam. If not, no muslim thinker like Ghazali would have debate about al Falsafiya of Al Farabi vs Islamic religion. Hellenism has shaped European and Islamic intellectual life.

'The rest of west-asia did not view themselves as greeks or romans'.

Don't you now that Kurds were calling Turks 'Rums' (Romans) until a very recent period, for example in Memê Alan's tale, Zîn told to Mem : 'You are impudent like a Rum !'

Or you are Greek/Armenian/Süryani if you are a Christian in Anatolia, but not a 'Turk' (It is even written in the Turkish constitution).

Eastern Europe was ottoman from 16th until 19th century, it has let some marks. Until 1960s, half of Istanbul population was non muslim. The loss of Greek/Armenian influence in Anatolia is because of 1915 genocide.

DNA :

European and Middle Easterners have common DNA and of course some differences because of long different localization. But I do not trust these DNA theories, they serve often political thoughts : for example, Israel likes to publish studies probing that Jews from all the word have DNA like old populations like Kurds (means "We were the owners of that Land").

What I mean is that you can have a DNA very different of your culture. If an American couple adopt a Korean baby and breed him like an American, he will be culturally an American, languages, cultures, educations, are not brought in DNA. So DNA can not define a cultural cap between 2 populations, just a geographical origin.

At the end I think that polarization Western vs Eastern belongs to the past with the new global world, in which Europe has a weak influence. That is a dissolution of former cultural and political boundaries. We have initiated that era with colonization, but we have lost the first place for a long time.

By the war, yesterday, when I walked out the Institute, an idea came to me : that this debate about difference between Western/Eastern is, in its own ground… a Westerners' story.

Europe as Middle East have, in their 'imaginal symbolic geography' a strong polarity between West/East. West is Death, End of the Earth, East is Birth, land of Light, God etc. We can find the same references in Sohrawardi as in Ancient Celtic mythology etc.

At the contrary, in China, for example, their world in in the middle of the Earth and the poles are North-South : North land of Nomads and Barbarians = Land of War, South, land of cities and civilization, land of Peace (I Ching).

I am not aware so much of Indian symbolic geography but I would not be surprised in India would have the same 'North-South" opposition.

[KabirKuhi]

Concerning values : As you say, there was more difference between post-christianity moral values and post-islamic values (I say post- because I consider that after 18th century, Islam did not rule the Middle-East, and it becomes more and more secular but not jun the same secularism that the Christian one).

I don't see what you mean. Secularism is a recent 20th century thing. Even in europe, there was a removal of the church as a absolute moral and political authority, but not as a predominant influence. Christianity was important in europe until the 20th century. Secularism hasn't existed in west-asia until the late 20th century, only the ata-turk(the turk with the inferiority complex toward europeans)empathized secularism as important,early on and made it a provision of the turkish constitution. Other political movements in west-asia also did so later, (like croonyist, minority elite-dominated al-assad syria) because it was a good ideology to spread to create unity based on "Race and language" rather than religion. Same story in Iraq. This is why such states received so much support from Christians and western racists who have hard-on for dictatorial secularism because they hate anything that has to do with Islam and Muslims.

Not exactly : It should have been a christian program, when Jesus told : m, "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." Mark, 12:17, but when the Romann empire became Christian, the figure of the Emperor became also the first religious leader, what we call 'caesaro-papism' ; later, in Europe, they tried to find a religious origin to kings vs emperors : so they quoted David's reference, the Lord's choice.

That was the same problem in Islam the Caliph remained the religious leaders, but there were soon 'malik' (and milk means terrestrial power, also) and sultan (a bit more religious for intronized by caliphs). But Islam has always been torn between an ideal golden age when they were led by one prophet and the age of fitna which means also a weaken religious leadership among 'milk rulers'.

the last thing we need is friends like US and EU who support terrorist states like saudi-arabia and pakistan. It's better to sleep in a pit with snakes, then let them have a hand in the political process.

Charles de Gaulle : States have no friends, they have only their own interests.

Yes it's true that globalization is happening. But on what dimensions? Materially, yes. Culturally it has an influence on younger generations, but they're still very orientated towards their peers.

Of course there is a cultural influence. Just look at the claims of Middle-Easterners and Iranians youth : rap music, free relationships, drinking alcohol, Western clothes, etc.

Concerning hostility between islam and christianity, well that is simple : for Jews, Christ is an impostor, for Christians, Muhammad is an impostor, for muslims, Jews and Christians falsified the Coran and Abraham/Ibrahim was the first true Muslim. Religions live in a very simple world : ' All are wrong except myself'.

Beside that, there had been always a political conquest of Mediterranean Sea and its shores from Spain to Levant, from Anatolia to Central Europe. Sometimes, Europeans invaded Levant, sometimes Arabs or Turks conquered Africa or Balkans. No more no less than the internal wars between European and Anatolian?Mesopotamian/Iranian Emirates.

Also I don't see how hegel and voltaire, or other european thinkers have some sort of have intellectual property rights on the idea of nations and states.

There were the first to invent the concept of Nation = State, with a citizenship based on a juridic agreement between a citizen and a State : 'I respect the Law, I am protected as a citizen (jus soli) ." ; or the 2nd one : I am a citizen of that country based on my ethnic origins (jus sanguinis). Ottoman intellectuals, at first Arabs, used it to claim an Arab nation (from Nahda to Baath), Ottomans invented the 'Turkish nation' and even Pehlevi shahs praised the 'Aryan nation' in the aim to remove the power of 'millet' based on religions. The theoretician of Baath, Michel Aflak was a Christian, as many 'Young Turks' were Armenians ; they hoped to change their secondary status of religious dhimmis to a citizenship based on their own Arabity or a so-called 'Turkish citizenship'. But undoubtedly, they took these ideas from all the movement which started in Europe, especially in France in 1790 and later in German and Italian independence revolts, and later Greek, Eastern Europe independence, etc.

Is it so difficult to implant secularism in muslim countries ? No, but religious powers has an interest to claim that it's impossible

Maybe, but who wants that in their country? It demolishes the community and turns the individual into a cynical misanthrope who despises other people. Like majority of Europeans, who despise each other and as they do foreigners.

According to all Kurds I know, when they leave Kurdistan to Europe or America, etc., they want freedom as they imagine it from their traditional societies. But they have to experiment that freedom means loneliness. So there has sometimes a hard reaction, some are depressed or as in exile.

Concerning misanthropy and despising, sure, Kurds are not misanthropes, but let's wait that thousands of migrants come to Kurdistan from China, Thailand, Ethiopia, etc. to conclude that they could escape to racism, xenophobia, etc. Let' wait the reaction of the first Kurdish family from which a Black African will ask to marry their daughter

Religion became a political force in todays middle-east, because of western cold-war politics.

I agree. USA was fearing Marxism and then supported Islamism, especially in Afghanistan. But I think that even without USA, Islamism would have replaced Marxist Revolutions, just because Soviet Union failed. All these movements of liberation, revolution, etc, need a faith, ideological or religious. And between Marxism and Shiism/Christianity, it is hard sometimes to see the difference

Concerning the support to Saudi, it is an American ally, they preferred to support old school dictators, like Ghadhafi, Asad, Bin Ali, Saddam, etc. Now UE does not know who they have to support. But they have no foreign policy, so it does not matter. They just want to make trade (weapons or other stuff).

Secular dictatorship failed and collapsed facing a social protest. But in fact, religious states will follow the same path : they have the same social troubles.

So please stop talking about middle-eastern politics, as if they were free from the influence of international politics. My hope is that we one day can limit western and foreign political influence on the region. So far their involvement has a lot regress and destabilize the region.

There is no policy (American, European, Russian, Middle-Easterner, etc.) independent from others. And if course they acted for their own interests, as Iran, Syria, Iraq, Turkey did against Kurds for their own interests. That's real politic.

There have always been a fight between Saudi and other powers to control the Middle East, against 'Secularists' or 'heretics' (Thanks to Brittons who created Saudi). During 50s, they were opposed to Nasser in Egypt ; When Khomeiny took the power in Iran, they fight this new revolutionary influence in Middle East. Then in Afghanistan, they created a 'Sunni Jihad' (helped by CIA) while Iran supported the Azara (shiites). In Iraq and Syria now, it is the same fight.

Saudi wants to incarnate the 'Sunni Revolution/Reaction' against Western.Secularism/Shiism (one after one or int he same tim). But it is a territorial war, behind 'religious dress'.

Still doesn't deviate form the fact that Europeans think Jerusalem and ancient west-asia was inhabited by some white-european like people. It's a european sensibility to depict anything remotely related to Europeans, but with foreign origins, as European or a creation by "european-like" people. Which is the biggest self-aggrandizement. Some crazy European racists, think that middle-eastern civilization was created by europeans, and whose downfall and decline, was created due to the demography being replaced and mixed with invading inferior races.

Lol, of course not, all Europeans know that Jesus was Jewish, like all the first Christians. Christians claim just to be the 'true Israel' (as Muslim claim that Ibrahim was a 'true muslim'). In Arts, Christ is more often painted with red hairs btw, but it has changed many times during 2000 years. Generally, especially during Medieval times, darkness (hairs, skin) was seen as 'evil' symbol, like Devil. Blond was seen as 'fair, clean soul', etc. But notice that this phobia of dark skin is common in all Iran and India. May be a remain of Indo-Aryan casts.

But an artistic convention mean nothing. In Ancient Egypt, statues of men had red skin, women white skin. It does not mean that Egyptians had a racist/sexist phantasm.

Antisemitism in Europe is a secular idea, based on so-called race and not religion. Now it has reached Islamic countries, by the way, and also for non religious motives.

Mercantilism was a European idea.

No, an Islamic one, (Muhammad was a merchant, so it was considered as a 'noble job'), while medieval christianity praised clerics and warriors. But Islam was a mobile society, a bridge between 3 continents, and they organized a large traffic of gold, slaves, spices, etc. until they were impoverished by 'American-Europe maritime roads'. What you describe is colonialism, a modern era in Europe (19th-20th century). Now it has been replaced by multi-international companies which impose their own agenda to all states (UE as USA). Wheel is turning…

Is that why European/US capitalists dominate all economies of resource-rich countries(including Kurdistan) but have a closed market for non-European producers? You have to be kidding me. Europeans might not have any military control and direct control via colonial adminstration, they might have become dependent on US for leadership in larger contexts. But they still are major players in influencing the world, along-side US. Ukraine, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and several other countries are modern examples of that. How you can pretend EU has no power and is isolated from international politics? Is it because of inconvenience?

Seriously you are the first I read who believes in a strong UE. No Europeans thinks it. So well, perhaps we are wrong to be so pessimist…

Do you ever wonder how your country can have all these plentiful materials and goods, that Europeans do not produce or do not have the materials to produce? It doesn't appear out of a vacuum, or because Europe has all the resources it needs. What have Europeans and their American cousins done with their yearly billions of exports of weapons and their domination of international trade. Have they hidden under rocks? And gotten uninvolved. You think there is any other reason, for the foreign abusiness and capital subsidization?

European resources were agriculture, and coal. Now, agriculture is disappearing and coal is finished. Middle East has oil, gas, uranium, etc. What are they doing with their resources ? Do you ever wonder why rich states like Gulf states, Saudi, Iraq, which have a sea of oil, are still backward ? Economy is not enough, there are other factors. Oil was a cursed gift for Middle East.

Sometimes it ids easy to complain bout 'bad foreigners' who prevent all prosperity, who are guilty of everything. It is a way to never change oneself. African can complain to be looted by USA/Europe, not Middle East. Middle East is at 80% the creator of its own unfortune.

Intellectual life, not culture or identity. Hellenism (Speaking greek, indentifying as greek) as a culture died out pretty quickly. What scholars write, is different from what majority live. Unless you believe all Muslims went around reading Avicenna and his treatisies on platon and aristotle. Muslim intellectuals do not equal the entire society. Your definition of east-west is almost purely philosphical and religious. I do not see islamic scholars as determining the character of Islamic societies.

At the contrary I think it is essential, because it shapes the vision of the world, life and death among all a population (even if people did not read Ibn Sina).

They were calling Greek-Roman speaking Anatolian, "romans".

At first, yeah but later, as Turks mostly set in Western Anatolia they called them Rums (they replace the Greeks).

Concerning the genocide of Assyrians and Armenians, I am not a negationist, and not interested in pan-Turkish rhetoric and falsification. I just remind you, if you want to be a Kurd, that the 1st congress of Xoybûn was held in 1927 in Beyruth, financially supported by Dashnak, and Bedir Xan brothers and the foundation of Xoybûn beg pardon to Armenian people for that (then started the good relationship between Dashnak and Xoybûn).

Concerning the history of Christians in Ottoman empire, especially in 1895, 1915, just read Kurds themselves.

And the fact that Russians slaughtered Muslims is not a motive for Kurds to slaughter Assyrians in Diyarbakir. Or you consider that nowadays all muslims should be guilty of Boko Haram massacres

Concerning the history of Rawanduz, Barzan, Amadiyya revolts, its Jews, Nestorians and Kurds,, thanks, but it is one of my topic field now

To have us believe that our only enemies solely are turkish nationalists and arab nationalists is stupid. European states have also been our enemies by being friends with our enemies(Saddam and frace, or saddam and the british, or saddam and the soviet union) or by attacking us directly like the Russians, British and their friends. So I don't know why you choose to bring up Armenian and Greek "genocide", as if it's some one sided occurrence. Armenians have demanded apologies from kurds(even though majority of kurds, like soranis, goranis and western kurds were not involved) and received them from kurdish leaders(Even though neither the barzanis or jalala talabanis ancestors were involved in it), (I'm sorry, but as someone from Iran, how were my ancestors who lived in Iraq and Zagros mountains, involved in something that happened in Anatolia?) but have not apologized for their massacres early in the conflict.

No one here ask you anything, and I have never been pro-general apologizes for all my ancestors. There is an Armenian lobby in Europe and a strong anti Turkish feeling, that's all. It does not mean that Turkey has a strong problem with its own minorities and Kurds know it very well.

What I can say is that, for the moment, the strongest enemy of Middle-Easterners is… themselves. Their model of society is obsolete since note than 100 years, and they do not know how to evaluate. Then, there is a tentation to look back and dream to a Golden Age.

[KabirKuhi]

You removed parts of my post for some reason, that's fine, just strange that you would jump off a topic, because you didn't like it. I guess not everyone can stand up to others opinions.

Charles de Gaulle : States have no friends, they have only their own interests.

I don't know whether you agree with that or not. But that's word for word, sociopath ethics and morality. I hope that's not what most europeans think is a acceptable take on the subject.

Of course there is a cultural influence. Just look at the claims of Middle-Easterners and Iranians youth : rap music, free relationships, drinking alcohol, Western clothes, etc.

There has always been a group in society who engages in foreign customs and cultural practices, the "exotic". But how that translates into real political force, is another matter, as is how large this group. Even Saudi Arabia has these things in their society's underground. Some westernized groups support western style democracy, most do not.

Concerning hostility between islam and christianity, well that is simple : for Jews, Christ is an impostor, for Christians, Muhammad is an impostor, for muslims, Jews and Christians falsified the Coran and Abraham/Ibrahim was the first true Muslim. Religions live in a very simple world : ' All are wrong except myself'.

It's more than that. There is a racialization of these conflicts. But you refuse to see that dimension.

Beside that, there had been always a political conquest of Mediterranean Sea and its shores from Spain to Levant, from Anatolia to Central Europe. Sometimes, Europeans invaded Levant, sometimes Arabs or Turks conquered Africa or Balkans. No more no less than the internal wars between European and Anatolian?Mesopotamian/Iranian Emirates.

Not always, and continental invasions weren't always the same. There was still a distinction between west-Asia and Europeans. European greek and roman authors wrote about it.

You should read this book, not just by going traditional literature. Which usually follows cliches.
http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i7737.html

There were the first to invent the concept of Nation = State, with a citizenship based on a juridic agreement between a citizen and a State : 'I respect the Law, I am protected as a citizen (jus soli) ." ; or the 2nd one : I am a citizen of that country based on my ethnic origins (jus sanguinis). Ottoman intellectuals, at first Arabs, used it to claim an Arab nation (from Nahda to Baath), Ottomans invented the 'Turkish nation' and even Pehlevi shahs praised the 'Aryan nation' in the aim to remove the power of 'millet' based on religions. The theoretician of Baath, Michel Aflak was a Christian, as many 'Young Turks' were Armenians ; they hoped to change their secondary status of religious dhimmis to a citizenship based on their own Arabity or a so-called 'Turkish citizenship'. But undoubtedly, they took these ideas from all the movement which started in Europe, especially in France in 1790 and later in German and Italian independence revolts, and later Greek, Eastern Europe independence, etc.

We're talking about two different things in that case. I think you're referring to the french enlightenment definition of state or "nation-state". Perhaps they conceptualized the civic nation, or the republic but not the "nation" in it's organic form, nor the state(anything with an organized authority and what is considered a society, and with several other anthropological structures, are considered states, it's nothing more than another term )

Here read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation

it's apparent that nations existed before the conceptualization. It's two different things. Just because prehistoric farmers didn't have conceptual and intellectual definition of grains, doesn't mean they didn't exist.

Is it so difficult to implant secularism in muslim countries ? No, but religious powers has an interest to claim that it's impossible

It's difficult to implement a functioning secular state, because they're suspectable to lose their self-determination(if they have a strategic and economic prospects), because of global politics and powers at be, and because of general unequal distribution, tribal affiliations, poorly unified states, competing ethnicities and groups. But at the same time a theocratic state does not allow civic freedom and suffers from internal political problems. Those are the problems.

According to all Kurds I know, when they leave Kurdistan to Europe or America, etc., they want freedom as they imagine it from their traditional societies. But they have to experiment that freedom means loneliness. So there has sometimes a hard reaction, some are depressed or as in exile.

Some kurds, not all kurds. Those you meet perhaps. Most kurds I know, did not leave voluntarily, but only because of war, poverty or politics. I don't think I've ever meet a Kurd who left, because they felt they couldn't practice their freedom(whatever that means) or because they were suppressed by their traditional society. That sounds more like a American/Western movie cliche, rather than reality.

Concerning misanthropy and despising, sure, Kurds are not misanthropes, but let's wait that thousands of migrants come to Kurdistan from China, Thailand, Ethiopia, etc. to conclude that they could escape to racism, xenophobia, etc. Let' wait the reaction of the first Kurdish family from which a Black African will ask to marry their daughter

Perhaps some kurds are racist, i'm sure some are, i've seen it myself. You'll however never find movements in Kurdistan that are equal to those in the west. No one has had more preoccupation with the concept of race and hatred of foreigners as Europeans in history. You know where ww2 happened, apartheid and manifest-destiny. It certainly wasn't in Kurdistan or west-asia. It's a social and ideological problem that Europeans and their cousins, even today struggle to solve. The only race/ethnicity based state in west-Asia was created by ethnic nationalist European Jews.

I agree. USA was fearing Marxism and then supported Islamism, especially in Afghanistan. But I think that even without USA, Islamism would have replaced Marxist Revolutions, just because Soviet Union failed. All these movements of liberation, revolution, etc, need a faith, ideological or religious. And between Marxism and Shiism/Christianity, it is hard sometimes to see the difference

Concerning the support to Saudi, it is an American ally, they preferred to support old school dictators, like Ghadhafi, Asad, Bin Ali, Saddam, etc. Now UE does not know who they have to support. But they have no foreign policy, so it does not matter. They just want to make trade (weapons or other stuff).

Secular dictatorship failed and collapsed facing a social protest. But in fact, religious states will follow the same path : they have the same social troubles.

We don't know what would have happened without the cold war. Perhaps Saddam might have never come to power. Perhaps Kurds might have negotiated a state in Iraq without getting ignored and then massacred. Perhaps Afghanistan might have remained a nationalist republic, that was atleast moderately functional. Perhaps the Iranic-islamic republic would never have happened. Or it could have been the complete opposite. We can only imagine.

There is no policy (American, European, Russian, Middle-Easterner, etc.) independent from others. And if course they acted for their own interests, as Iran, Syria, Iraq, Turkey did against Kurds for their own interests. That's real politic.

There have always been a fight between Saudi and other powers to control the Middle East, against 'Secularists' or 'heretics' (Thanks to Brittons who created Saudi). During 50s, they were opposed to Nasser in Egypt ; When Khomeiny took the power in Iran, they fight this new revolutionary influence in Middle East. Then in Afghanistan, they created a 'Sunni Jihad' (helped by CIA) while Iran supported the Azara (shiites). In Iraq and Syria now, it is the same fight.

Saudi wants to incarnate the 'Sunni Revolution/Reaction' against Western.Secularism/Shiism (one after one or int he same tim). But it is a territorial war, behind 'religious dress'.

I like how you talk about it so casually, so aloof, like we're talking about buying stocks or drinking tea. It says something about how this has affected someone like me(a Kurd) and someone like you( a European). But I really can't expect much more than someone whose country has all the luxuries of peace and and whose elites and economic industries live by exploiting others misfortunes. It doesn't really move you, if it doesn't happen to you, or people like you. You're speaking from a position of privilege. You have nothing to lose if all west-Asians and west-Asia disappeared tomorrow, you might complain however about how more expensive things are, because of high gas-price, and you'll probably just find another job. That's the reason why we probably won't find much to agree on. I hope you won't take offense to this. I'm only giving you reality.

Lol, of course not, all Europeans know that Jesus was Jewish, like all the first Christians. Christians claim just to be the 'true Israel' (as Muslim claim that Ibrahim was a 'true muslim'). In Arts, Christ is more often painted with red hairs btw, but it has changed many times during 2000 years. Generally, especially during Medieval times, darkness (hairs, skin) was seen as 'evil' symbol, like Devil. Blond was seen as 'fair, clean soul', etc. But notice that this phobia of dark skin is common in all Iran and India. May be a remain of Indo-Aryan casts.

It probably has something to do with what the crusaders experience(the Idea that dark-skin and dark hair is bad). But I'm also talking modern day issues that occur today. Not just medieval depictions. There is this weird tendency for european people to try to make everything impressive related to them. Including ancient Egypt. I also doubt that Europeans viewed Jesus, the founder of their religion, as a Jew. Rather they acclimatized him to their own society, and turned him into a white European.

The real Jesus looked similar to this:




Not a brunette or blonde european, as he's depicted in Europe.

But an artistic convention mean nothing. In Ancient Egypt, statues of men had red skin, women white skin. It does not mean that Egyptians had a racist/sexist phantasm.

Not comparable. And besides I don't know how Egyptian society viewed lower and upper Egyptians. Artistic conventions are influenced by society and it's perceptions. It's not free of that. No one is. Not even ancient egyptians.

Antisemitism in Europe is a secular idea, based on so-called race and not religion. Now it has reached Islamic countries, by the way, and also for non religious motives.

Organized religion have always been racialized(it's nothing new), Europeans f.ex called everyone in west-Asia, Saracens. I've never seen people, or Arabs in the middle-east, hate Jews because they're racially/ethnically Semitic. Only European fascists and Europeans nationalists hate Jews for ethnic/racial reasons. Also remember, that It's a two-way street. Jews hate Palestinians as much as Palestinians hate them.

No, an Islamic one, (Muhammad was a merchant, so it was considered as a 'noble job'), while medieval christianity praised clerics and warriors. But Islam was a mobile society, a bridge between 3 continents, and they organized a large traffic of gold, slaves, spices, etc. until they were impoverished by 'American-Europe maritime roads'. What you describe is colonialism, a modern era in Europe (19th-20th century). Now it has been replaced by multi-international companies which impose their own agenda to all states (UE as USA). Wheel is turning…

By mercantilism, I don't mean commerce or commercial trade. And it didn't begin in 19th or 20th century. More like 17-18th century in west-Asia by European powers.

read below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism

Seriously you are the first I read who believes in a strong UE. No Europeans thinks it. So well, perhaps we are wrong to be so pessimist…

You don't need to read me. Just read about news reports involving EU policy towards middle-east or Africa. Or how EU takes US directives when it came to the last few conflicts. You can find Austrian fire arms in Syria f.ex. EU is the biggest contender with Russia about Ukraine. Because of the energy issue. Just because EU states disagree with each other and US, and sometimes do the opposite, doesn't mean they don't cooperate a lot in policies. I know that EU is not unified, but on some policies, they are almost indistinguishable.

European resources were agriculture, and coal. Now, agriculture is disappearing and coal is finished. Middle East has oil, gas, uranium, etc. What are they doing with their resources ? Do you ever wonder why rich states like Gulf states, Saudi, Iraq, which have a sea of oil, are still backward ? Economy is not enough, there are other factors. Oil was a cursed gift for Middle East. /quote]


Sometimes it ids easy to complain bout 'bad foreigners' who prevent all prosperity, who are guilty of everything. It is a way to never change oneself. African can complain to be looted by USA/Europe, not Middle East. Middle East is at 80% the creator of its own unfortune.

This is not a good attitude, but you have to stay real too. Would all these retrograde forces(Taliban, Saudi-Arabia,Pakistan, Saddam, Hosni Mubarak) be half as successful without western support and relations? Not very likely. Islamic republic of Iran would not exist if Americans hadn't killed mossadegh. US had a similar policy in south-America. US and Britain attacked anyone who threatened their economic interests and assets. Soviet union had similar policies, but lost to West backed contenders(Taliban in in the third world. The people who had third positions were killed by US. Why deny this?

This is all related to the present political situation. And what do you expect people over there to do? Make diplomatic missions to Saudi-Arabia and tell them "Please king abdullah, stop sending weapons to terrorists and stop allowing your country to become a funding zone for salafist militants ", or send a diplomatic mission to Ankara and say "Please Mr.Erdogan, let kurds seperate and create their own state, and stop sending weapons to syria".

It's an all out conflict between all parties in the middle-east, it has been, since the collapse of the ottoman and Safavid empires. The people there are forming their states and rulership, and so far the region has been moving to get into some form of equilibrium of stability(whether good or bad, right now it looks very bad with the Iran-Saudi war). But hasn't succeeded, because of too many competing interests, ethnically and religious heterogeneous states(created by colonial powers), regional powers fighting each other. West-Asian states are not homogenous like European states, If they were.. we would be much more stable. We kurds don't even have a state. That's how screwed up the situation is. Former Yugoslavia was screwed because of their diversity, competing religions. While other more homogenous European did not have this problem.


Now it's a fact, that it doesn't help that Europeans created the lausanne treaty favoring one group or another, in their benefit. Their drawing of geopolitical borders did not help either(The creation of Iraq, the creation of Syria, Turks exclusively ruling all of Anatolia, Iran ruled only by Persians). Only the countries where a majority was formed(Jordan) was successful. And your war with the soviet union did not help either. Neither did western involvement in Iran-Iraq war. It's all interlinked . I don't know why you want to deflect this criticism, and pretend that governments in the west have nothing to do with this. The last 100 years of events are interlinked.

Europeans and westerners have had ww1 and ww2, before they changed their domestic polices and politics. we Kurds and most of our neighbors, weren't involved in that. We have these smaller-scaled inter-ethnic, inter-sectarian, inter-ideological conflicts between each other. We only ask western states not make them worse. You're supposed to be very well versed in west-Asian history, but almost completely ignore the period between 1914-1980s, for some reason.

At the contrary I think it is essential, because it shapes the vision of the world, life and death among all a population (even if people did not read Ibn Sina).

I've never honestly in my life, seen Ibn Sina discussed by modern day Muslim theologian.(Not by Muhammad Baqr Al Sadr, not by kurdish, turkish or iranian theologians either) He's a part of Islamic history, but only westerners seem popularize his philosophical views.

At first, yeah but later, as Turks mostly set in Western Anatolia they called them Rums (they replace the Greeks).

Anatolian weren't Greek, they were hellenized native-tribes. You can see that in their DNA(Pontic greeks). As are modern day "Turks" in Anatolia, who are descendent from the same tribes.

Concerning the genocide of Assyrians and Armenians, I am not a negationist, and not interested in pan-Turkish rhetoric and falsification.

What's negotionistic about what I've stated? It's recorded that Armenian militias were supported by encroaching Russian armies in the Caucasus. The(as bad and mentally disturbed Turkish nationalists are) didn't spontaneously decide to start deporting and ethnically cleansing Armenians.

Also how is massacre and the expulsion of Balkans Muslims and Caucasians a revisionism? It's well recorded. In fact Russian occupation in Caucasus began even earlier than the Ottoman-Turkish war. Only a Russian apologetic would exclaim it as false. Even western historians admit it. These people who fled to the ottoman empire and whose families and neighbors were killed, as a consequence resented and despised Christians, whether they were involved the massacres committed by Russians and Europeans in Balkans and Caucasus, or not. That and Armenian fedayee militias were amongst the reasons why the Turkish state and descendents of those Muslims refugees went into all out warfare against Armenians. Proxy war was the nature of the Russo-Turkish wars, and the attacks on Armenians were a result of the Russo-Turkish war, there is nothing revistionistic about that. You just need to pick up a history book, that is written by a balanced perspective. Ottomans and young-Turks might have hated Armenians and seen them as their enemies, and supported killing them and expelling. But they weren't holocaust-obsessed Nazis. The young turks weren't that much different from their Russian and European contemporaries really, who destroyed any Muslims who were siding with their enemies or stood in their way.

I just remind you, if you want to be a Kurd, that the 1st congress of Xoybûn was held in 1927 in Beyruth, financially supported by Dashnak, and Bedir Xan brothers and the foundation of Xoybûn beg pardon to Armenian people for that (then started the good relationship between Dashnak and Xoybûn).

I'm pro-Kurdish as, and anti-Turkish state. But I don't buy that Turkish nationalists spontaneously started massacring and deporting Armenians, just because they're christian. That's not the way the world works. Just like Turks did not kill Kurds in 1970s-1980s-1990s solely because they were Kurds, but because Kurds wanted Kurdistan to become an independent country and state, and have cultural rights. It's also quite obvious that Armenian nationalists were interested in supporting anyone who would fight Turkish state, including bedir khan. Not out of any love. It's called proxy war policy. Like US is doing, supporting Syrian rebels against Bashar Al Assads who is allied with Iran.

Also if dashnak have been involved in supporting kurds, it's not because they love kurds. But because they support our conflict with our common enemy(turkish state), it's their main interest, dashnaks also supported arab nationalists and other groups who are in conflict with turkey. Dashnaks aren't exactly some sort of pro-kurdish organization. Some dashnak intellectuals f.ex want yezidis to disassociate from kurdistan, and contest kurds claim to large chunks of land inhabited by kurds. As a kurd, I wouldn't trust dashnaks for a minute.

Concerning the history of Christians in Ottoman empire, especially in 1895, 1915, just read Kurds themselves.

I will. But you should try to be more balanced, by looking at the other side of the conflict. Not just by accepting whatever one side says.

[b]And the fact that Russians slaughtered Muslims is not a motive for Kurds to slaughter Assyrians in Diyarbakir. Or you consider that nowadays all muslims should be guilty of Boko Haram massacres

Concerning the history of Rawanduz, Barzan, Amadiyya revolts, its Jews, Nestorians and Kurds,, thanks, but it is one of my topic field now

It's not related to me. I'm not from either rawanduz or diyarbakir. I'm saying it's one-sided history that only take into account only european, assyrian and armenian accounts of atrocities. Assyrians and Armenians were viewed by turkish nationalists as proxy allies of their Russian enemies, just as in the same vein, Russians and Europeans viewed Pomaks, Kurds, Circassians as allies of their ottoman/muslim enemies, and hence their enemies. It was a war between Muslim ethnicities and christian ethnicities I guess in the larger geopolitical . I do not excuse, massacres committed against Christians, but at the same time, I do not see europeans, assyrians or armenians talking about massacres committed against Muslims in that time-period either. Russian historians pretend that Caucasus has always been Russian and that the atrocities they committed against the populations of Caucasus did not take place. They also use paternalistic racism to justify their excursions into the region.

They do not talk about atrocities committed against Kurds, neither do Assyrians. While all Kurdish leadership(even the though majority of kurds were not involved, nor were kurds unified at that point in time) recognize the Armenian and Assyrian genocide. Kurdish leadership protects Assyrians and Armenians in western-Kurdistan and in KRG(They have alot of provisions for minorities in kurdish areas). While the a good proportion of the Assyrian public still hates Kurds. Kurds have done their amends, how about Russians, Armenians and Assyrians do theirs? You should ask them why they do not. Instead of calling what I say "Turkish revisionism". My sources aren't even Turkish or from the middle-east, they're western ones.

No one here ask you anything, and I have never been pro-general apologizes for all my ancestors. There is an Armenian lobby in Europe and a strong anti Turkish feeling, that's all. It does not mean that Turkey has a strong problem with its own minorities and Kurds know it very well.

No, I know that turkey has a problem with it's minorities. The Turkish state is anti-Kurdish identity and anti-Kurdish in its policy, it wants all Kurds to disappear and assimilate into the turkish population. It has killed tens of thousands of northern Kurds in trying to suppress Kurdish movements. But that's not the story behind the Turkish-Armenian conflict.

What I can say is that, for the moment, the strongest enemy of Middle-Easterners is… themselves. Their model of society is obsolete since note than 100 years, and they do not know how to evaluate. Then, there is a tentation to look back and dream to a Golden Age.

Sure that's a big issue, but please don't act like western cold-war policy and oil-policy hasn't been a part of this. West-Europeans and their American cousins have never faced such complex problems. Because they were always shielded by distance. It would be ridicules to compare the Kurdish, or Iraqi Shiah or Iranian influence on French, American and British affairs than vice versa. It's dishonest to ignore it. But I really can't help your apathy on the issue. You don't acknowledge it, because you feel attacked, and because the people on the other side mean little to you. Thats to be expected.

[KabirKuhi]

BUMP.

[Piling]

Coming soon.