baba4

son yıllardaki zaza kürt ayrımı yapanlara cevaben makaleyi yayınlıyorum vaktim olursa cevirecem yoksa sadece ingilizcesi olan arkadaqslar okuyabilecek kusura bakmayın aryık.



Claim to originality but in deep confusion Ethnic Differentiation among the Kurds

I recently read an article entitled, 'Ethnic Differentiation among the Kurds: Kurmanci, Kžzžlba§ and Zaza' by Paul White.1 The author was trying, in vain, to prove that the Kžzžlba§ and Zazas are distinct minorities from the Kurds. Of course, this is not a new idea, by which any academic by trying to do so, can claim to have created something 'original'. This view, as the author himself stated, has been around since the mid 1980s.
Why did this idea appear in the mid 1980s? Since the suppression of the Dersim revolt in late 1938, the Turkish state has been denying the existence of the Kurds in Turkey. It employed academics2 to achieve this aim. It called the Kurds 'mountain Turks'.3 Despite all attempts the Turkish state has not succeeded in assimilating the Kurds. From the 1960s onwards, Kurdish nationalism has been reviving. In the mid 1980s the Kurdistan Workers Party, **** staged an armed struggle against the Turkish government. As a result, the revival of the Kurdish identity was inevitable. The Turkish state, realising this fact, could not focus on denying the Kurdish identity any more. The best alternative was to divide and rule. So, it has been trying to exploit religion and dialect differentiation among the Kurds to prevent the development of Kurdish nationalism. That is where the idea of Kžzžlba§ and Zazas as separate ethnic minorities came into existence.

Let us, at the beginning, clarify some terms to avoid the confusion Mr. White has fallen into. He has distinguished between Kžzžlba§ and Zazas as two separate ethnic minorities. However, he thinks that they might have had common ancestors.4 Kžzžlba§ is a religious term and has nothing to do with race, language or nationhood of a minority. Kžzžlba§, Qizilbash, in Turkish means red heads. They were called so because Alevis were supporting Shah Isma'il Safavi, the founder of the Safavid dynasty in Iran, and his army used to wear red head gear. Qizilbash is a phenomenon of 15th century onwards.5 To separate Qizilbash from Kurds in general and Zazas in particular would be nothing but a historical fallacy. Separating a group of people from their nation on the basis of religion would be unrealistic. So far, as far as I am aware, no scholar has tried to do so. If Qizilbash are distinct from the Zaza Kurds so Ezidis6, Yazidis, should form a distinct minority group from the Kurds. They have a different religion from the majority of the Kurds. When one denies the Ezidis as Kurds so s(he) can claim Qizilbash are a distinct minority group. The question does not end here. What language does the Qizibash speak, or what racial group or nation do they belong to? Is it something apart from Demili, Zaza, which Mr. White mentions but does not explain? Qizilbash are the Demili-speaking Kurds.

Demilis, Zazas, are a part of the Kurdish nation. Daylamites are believed to be ancestors of Demilis. Daylam is a geographical name located in the present day Gilan, Iran. The Daylamites began their expansion from Daylam in early Medieval times. This led some scholars to think that the Daylamites were located outside Kurdistan and they were not Kurds. Pre-Islamic history indicates that the Daylamites were living in Anatolia, where other Kurdish tribes were living. Both Bundahistan, the Zoroastrian holy book, and the Church archives of late classical Christian Arberal, Erbil, located the Daylamites at the headwaters of the Tigris river. Furthermore, although some Demilis are Alevis, they still hold some ancient Kurdish beliefs.7

From a linguistic point of view, Demili is a part of the Kurdish language. Kurdish is divided into two main dialects, Pahlawani and Kurmanji. Each of these dialects in turn is divided into different sub-dialects. The two main sub-dialects of Pahlawani are Gurani and Demili which are closely related but Guranis are located in the South and Demilis in the North of Kurdistan. Pahlawani was spoken throughout of much of Kurdistan before internal migration. From the 16th century onwards, Kurmanji began to expand south and northwards from the Hakkari region and replaced Pahlawani. As a result, Pahlawani retreated more and more, the Demili toward the north and the Gurani toward the south.8

Mr. White maintains that by the time of the Islamic era, most Daylamites were so iranicised that they spoke northern Iranian dialects distinct from the southern Iranian languages, Persian and Kurdish.9 One should ask which northern Iranian language group affected the Daylamites language? This is a question which has not been answered by Mr. White. So, I should stress that it is Kurdish which belongs to northern Iranian language group. Minorsky believes that Kurdish belongs to the north-west language groups.10 Whaby reinforces this by stating, 'The weight of evidence strongly indicates that the position of the Kurdish language is among the North-Western Iranian group'.11

Mr. White continues his confusion into the 20th century. He describes the Kurdish insurgencies from the 1920s to 1930s, and categorises them as Qizilbash (Seyt Reza), Zaza (Sheikh Sa'id) and Kurmanji (Xoybun). For him the surprising thing is that all these insurgencies were conducted in the name of Kurdish nationalism while, except Xoybun, none of them were Kurdish. He reasons for this self-denial or 'self-deception' of Qizilbash and Zaza leaders in terms of the danger of extermination and non-recognition by the outside world. The Qizilbash and Zaza were in danger of extermination by the Turkish army. They shared a common enemy with the Kurmanji Kurds. The Kurds were better known to the outside world, so claiming Kurdish origin would make international bodies listen to their plight.12

One should ask why the Qizilbash and the Zazas would claim Kurdish origin if they were not really Kurds. If under any pressure they would change their identity, why did they not become Sunni Muslim when they were being persecuted by the Ottomans? Why did they not claim Turkish origin and avoid persecution, and even better become a part of the dominant nation? Why did they want to become poor Kurds and be subject to persecution indefinitely? To put it another way, Mr. White thinks that the Qizilbash and Zaza tribal leaders made fools of themselves and were killed for something they were not. To maintain this position would require an ignoring of plain historical fact. Amir Sharaf Khan Bidlisi put the Demilis (Dumbilis) among the Kurdish tribes 400 years ago.13 Therefore, it is not true to claim, as Mr. white does, that Kurdish nationalists have created a notion that the Demilis are Kurds. It is a historical fact.

To sum up, Qizilbash and Zazas are not two different and distinct minorities. Qizilbash is a religious, not a racial, term. It came into existence from the 15th century. Both Qizilbash and Zazas are one people and a part of the Kurdish people. Trying to manipulate information to serve one's aim will only lead to confusion. This has been tried by the Turkish state long ago but proved ineffective. Therefore, the Qizilbash and Zazas are Demili-speaking Kurds.

Historical and linguistic evidence show that Demilis are part of the Kurdish people. Closing one's eyes to half the truth cannot serve any academic purpose. Mr. White has differentiated between Kurmanji and Kirmanji (Qizilbash dialect of Demili).14 Is there really any substantial difference between words Kirmanji and Kurmanji? According to what measures has it been differentiated? Mr. White is not aware that in the Iranian and Iraqi parts of Kurdistan what he calls Kurmanji is called Kirmanji.

Trying to show great historical insurgencies aimed at gaining self-determination as a wrongly perceived identity if not an insult to those people, is an unkindness. One can not assume that the Demili-speaking leaders were so ignorant of their identity. All insurgencies conducted in Dersim region were without exception aimed at creating an independent Kurdistan. If this is not the case why would the Demili-speaking Kurds be exterminated in the first place, and then try to show themselves as the Kurds to attract outside help?

Apart from historical evidence the Demilis regard themselves and feel themselves as Kurds.15 The Kurds have not had a state of their own to say that they have affected the Demilis and Kurdified them. There is no indication that the Kurds have tried to assimilate them. So, why should the Demilis feel they are Kurds? Is it not that they really are? Trying to say otherwise is to say that the majority of the Demilis do not know who they are and their feelings are wrong. Only I a 'scholar' thousands of kilometre away, know who they are, and so I have produced something 'original'. If the Kurds have such friends, to be sure, they do not need any enemy.


kaynaklar ve notlar

Endnotes
1. This article was published in the Journal of Arabic Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies, Vo.2, No.2, 1995, pp. 67-90.
2. One of them is M. Fahrattin Kirzioglu who wrote a book in Turkish entitled Kurtlerin Koku, the Origin of the Kurds, in 1963. In this text the author tries to establish that the Kurds are of Turkish origin.
3. Kendal, Kurdistan in Turkey', Gerard Chaliand (ed) People Without a Country, London, Zed Press, 1980, p.68.
4. Paul White, 'Ethnic Differentiation among the Kurds: Kurmanci, Kizilbas and Zaza', Journal of Arabic Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies, Vo.2, No.2, 1995, p.76.
5. Mehrdad Izady, The Kurds: A Concise Handbook, Washington, Taylor and Francis International Publishers, 1992, p.151.
6. Ezidi is an ancient Kurdish religion which has survived to the existing day. Ezidis are mainly living in Iraq and other former Soviet Union's Republics.
7. Mehrdad Izady, op cit, pp.43-45.
8. Ibid, pp.172-75.
9. Paul White, op cit, p.71.
10. Basile Nikitine, The Kurds and Kurdistan, Second Edition, Tehran, Niloofar Publishing, 1987, pp.46-47. (Persian translation by Mohammad Ghazi).
11. T. Wahby, The Origin of the Kurds and Their Language, This lecture was delivered by Wahby to the KSSE, UK Branch Conference on 22 December 1964. The written manuscript is an off-print from the Magazine 'Kurdistan' of KSSE Nos IX and X, reprinted in Sweden 1982, p.16.
12. Paul White, op cit, pp.77-84.
13. Amir Sharaf Khan Bidlisi, Sharafnameh, Tehran, Elmi, 1994, p.399. (Persian)
14. Paul White, op cit, p.76.
15. Philip G. Kreyenbroak, 'On the Kurdish Language', Philip G. Kreyenbroak and Stefan Sperl eds. The Kurds: A Contemporary Overview, London and New York, Routhledge, 1992, p.70.

__________________

| Üye İmzalarını Görmek İçin Buraya Tıklayarak Kayıt Olabilirsiniz. |

Mezar

güzel bir paylasim olmus,ellerine saglik heval!!...tabiki hepimiz kürdüz düsmanlarimiza güzel bir cevap olmus,bizi kimse ayiramaz cünkü et tirnaktan ayrilmaz!!!her biji Kurdistan!!saygilar!

baba4

__________________

bari20

yavv inanış farklı denilerek zazaların kürtlerden ayrı tutulma çabası anlamsızdır.birbirine düşürmeye çalışmaktır.ama bunlar artık sökmez.ne kadar saçma bir yaklaşım.biz kürt halkının içerisindeyiz.inanç farklılığı var diye kürt olmadığına inanmak mantık ötesidir.türk halkı içerisinde de inanç farklılığı vardır.o zaman inanç şekline göre hepsi farklı bir millet mi olacaktır?ki aslında inanç farkı denen birşey yoktur.her iki inanışta da insan göz önüne alınmıştır.insana önem verildiği zaman inanışına milliyetine vb. bir dolu şeye de önem verilir aslında.hepimiz kürdüz.hem de ölene kadar. spas heval..

rojekanu

hevalo türkçesi yada kürtçesi olursa çok iyi olurdu...spas

__________________