/his/ Tell me the reason why the Kurds were so oppressed and failed to have a country by the end of the ottoman empire or by the end of British dominance in the middle east ? why is it that arabs didnt like them ?
>Tell me the reason why the Kurds were so oppressed and failed to have a country by the end of the ottoman empire or by the end of British dominance in the middle east ?
Kurds were late to the party. Due to their relative backwardness when compared to Turks/Arabs/Persians, they didn't have nationalists ideologues or any literature that would encourage nationlism. That's it.
Everyone, arabs, turks, all had such ideas and literature and all of them struggled to create a naton state when it was still allowed (ie after ww1 and ww2).
Well for one I think you mean the French too, and Turkey owns the majority of what would be considered Kurdistan. Long story short Kurds forming Kurdistan is a thorn in everyone around thems side so they keep them down.
Also the precursors to the regimes installed by the British and French weren't Kurds or Kurd friendly to begin with so they just continued with that.
You could say the Kurds are one of the most fucked over peoples in history. But then again does being your own ethnic group just automatically warrant you a country?
They didn't work with the British, and it was the British who carved up the Middle East.
So when it came time to draw lines on maps in London, no one gave a fuck about the Kurds.
Also for the early part of the 20th C they had a very negative press in the West due to their enthusiastic joining with the Arabs in persecuting (poss genocide) of Assyrian Christians.
thye were generally low class in the countries they belonged to and didn't have their own ruling citizens with an interest in starting their own country. it's similar to the gypsies, the Jews, and lots of other ethnic groups in Europe.
They generally run themselves, Iraqi Kurdistan is a state in everything but name.
Not all Kurds want it though. Being Kurd doesn't override that many of them like being Turk, Iranian or Syrian, apart from having their own religion like Kurdish Sunnis and Christians.
I remember them having autonomous states in the first half of the XIXth century, only to be annexed by the ottomans for killing christians needlessly. So the conquest was recent and the repression hard for them.
Actually Sadam was favorable to kurds which is a remarkable exception to his other Ba'athi counterparts. He let Iraqi Kurdistan pretty much govern itself as long as they never challenged him. On the other hand in Syria Kurds and other non-Arab minorities are not recognized by the government as citizens but rather as misplaced persons. This is quite noticeable in the names of the two countries with الجمهورية العربية السورية (The Arab Syrian Republic) and جمهورية العراق (Iraq Republic)
Compared to his Ba'athi counterparts. You can't deny that even though he did treat them badly he did give them more than other Ba'athi members would've.
You do know the town was held by rebels who supported Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam handled the mess in Saddam's fashion and genocided the members of the town. In part as bad as Saddam was (which was terrible) the attack most likely wouldn't have happened if the Kurds didn't ally themselves with his enemy Iran.
Historically, they were actually one of the minorities that went along fine with the Ottomans (in general terms). Compared to greeks, armenians or assyrians, there was no real struggle by the kurds against the turk dominance and they actually helped to persecute other minorities. So you reap what you sow, I guess.
Also >>67507 they were historically very rural and traditional people, even by middle eastern standards, a lot of them being pastoralists. There was never a kurdish state or any important kurdish polity that could serve as the base for a nationalistic movement.
Iran had the same problems with kurds supporting saddam but they didnt gas whole villages to fight them and killed several innocent civilians by doing so. Mass murder was never a justificable option and the use of chemical weapons isnt justified in any scenario.
brits and french partitioned them between syria and iraq
turkey was able to get as much as land as possible and in that land, also were kurds
>M-MUH KURD OPRESSION NO LAND MEME
kurds are nothing special, there are also many other ethnics that dont have a nation/didnt get shit after the partition, a shitton of people were pressed and divided into 2 countries by the brits/french.
>On the other hand in Syria Kurds and other non-Arab minorities are not recognized by the government as citizens but rather as misplaced persons
wut? any proofs apart from the name of the country?
baatism basically means arabization
meaning kurdishness was denied, kurds had to take arab names, and efforts were made to relocate/displace them to control them
this also happened in turkey, but it was mainly only kurds and not non turk/kurds, altough you can attribute that to the factor that other minorities didnt really care about getting turkified