PÊNASEKIRINA NETEWEYÊ: Li Tirkîyê di 1990an de dîroknûsîya Kurdî

PÊNASEKIRINA NETEWEYÊ:

Li Tirkîyê di 1990an de dîroknûsîya Kurdî

KONRAD HIRSCHLER – JI ÎNG.: YUSIV HEMED

Mijara vê gotarê li Tirkîyê di salên ‘90an de dîroknûsîya Kurdî ye û bi taybetî jî ka ew çawa nasnameya neteweyî ya Kurdî ava û pênase dike û ji nû ve dixebitîne.1 Ligel ku li ber hebûna dewleteke navendî li ser pêwendîya dîroknûsîn û nasnameya neteweyî ya Kurdî çend xebat hene, tevgera neteweyî ya Kurdî nebûye mijara lêpirsîneke wiha.2 Çavkanîyên ku hatine bikaranîn gotarên tekane rojnameya Kurd a bi rojane ye ku Ii Tirkîyê û qismen jî li Almanyayê (Ozgur Gundem-Rojeva Azad û peyrewên wê) tê weşandin ku ew jî heta niha nebûye mijara lêkolînê. Bi rîya bikaranîna van çavkanîyan ez ê nîşan bidim ku dîroka neteweyî ya Kurd di nav Kurdên rewşenbîr de bûye babeta nîqaşeke mezin. Li ser bingeha tehlîla vê nîqaşê, ez ê van argûmanan derxînim pêş: (i) cihê dîskursîv ê vê dîroknûsînê bi awayekî sereke ji alîyê rabêja neteweyî ya Tirk ve hatîye dîyarkirin di versîyona xwe ya navdar de, û (ii) di nav civaka Kurda de nasname bi awayekî sereke li tebeqeya bingehîn a etnîsîteyê ava bûbû, ku demên berê xwe dispart ser ol û çînan.

Bala sînorkirî ya vê gotarê a li ser yek herêma Kurda ye, ji ber vê nasînê ye ku nasnameya neteweyî ya Kurdî pir parçekirî ye. Ew ji alîyê cihêrengîya sîyasî û çandî ya Yên Din (Tirk, Faris an Ereb) ve di her netewe-dewletekê de cihê cihê tê karakterîzekirin.3 Lewra, destpêka her çi xebatekê ya li ser nasnameya neteweyî ya Kurdî divê xwedî têgihîştineke lokalîze be bi pêwendîya xwe ya nasnameya neteweyî ya serdest re. Lewra ev gotar hewl dide fêm bike ew awayên ku tê de dîroka neteweyî ya Kurda li Tirkîyê 1990an de ji alîyê nivîskarên Kurd ve tê nivîsandin û çima bi vî awayên tê nivîsandin. Herwiha ew, warên binîqaş ên sereke tespît dike di nav komê de û bi komên din re. Grîng e dîyar bikim ku ez ê xwe nespêrim wê pirsê bê ka metin raborîyê rast an şaş temsîl dikin. Lewma jî ez ê boçûna Geertzî bi kar bînim ku grîngîya têgihîştina yeksan a erka civatî ya îdeolojî û zanistê dûpat dike, her çi ferq nake bê ka rastî an çewtîyê temsîl dike. Geertz bîrdozîyê (îdeolojî) bi piranî wek pergaleke sembolîk a çandî, ‘xerîteyên rastîya civakî ya problematîk û qalibên bo çêkirina bîra kolektîf ’ pênase dike.4 Hestan diafirîne bi taybetî di demên guhertinên dîrokî yên bilez de. Bi vî awayî ew (bîrdozî) heman erka ol, felsefe û zanistê tîne cî, yanî bi rewşeke problematîk re têkildar e û oryantasyonê raberî mirov dike dema ku bi nebûna wê hat hisîn. Li vir di esasê xwe de ferqa zanist û bîrdozîyê di asta şêwazî (stylistic) de ye. Zanist bi bêlayenî û bi şêwazeke sînordarkirî, hişk û analîtîk ve karakterîze bûye. Berovajîya wê, bîrdozî bi dilsozî û şêwazeke xemlandî, geş û peşnîyazdar ve karakterîze bûye. Ji ber vê, boçûna Geertzî di asta erka xwe ya civatî de dihêle mirov li ser her çi babetê bixebite, bêyî ku mirov nîqaş bike bê ka heta kîjan radeyê ew rast an derew e.

Bo pirsgirêka Kurd kêm xebat, ku bi neteweperwerîyê re têkildar in, li ser neteweperwerîyê bi nîqaşên teorîk ên dawî5 de dadikevin.6 Lîteratura ser neteweperwerîya Kurd bêtir bi têkelbûna boçûnên modernîst û berdewam ve karakterîze bûye.7 Neteweperwerîya Kurdî ya Tirkîyê çar qonaxên mezin borand ji serê sedsala bîstemîn û vir ve. Di 1920 û 30an de serhildanin çêbûn8 (serhildana Şêx Seîd a 1925a, serhildana Agirî ya 1928a û serhildana Dersîmê ya 1937/38a). Divê mirov dûpat bike ku ol roleke mezin lîstîye di van serhildanan de, ku wek neteweperwer tên qebûlkirin, de û tevlîbûn heta radeyeke bilind bi helwestên eşirî dîyar dibû. Qonaxa duyem a bêçalakitîyê ya 1940-50yan bi qonaxa sêyem şikest di 1960-70yan de ku zêdebûnek nîşan dide di çalakîyên neteweperwer ên Kurd de. Qonaxa sêyem bi gelek rêxistinên sîyasî ve karakterîze bûye ku di 1970yan de her bi her radîkal dibûn. Ji derbeya 1980ê û vir ve PKK (Partîya Karkerên Kurdistanê) di tevgera neteweyî ya Kurd de serwer e. Di dîroka Komara Tirkîyê de qonaxa çarem bû şahidê dirêjtirîn serhildana Kurda ya biçek ku bi pêşengîya PKKê ye. Lê di 1999ê de bi girtina rêberê wê Evdilah Ocalan re ev çalakî hema tev de sekinîn.

PKK, piştgirîyeke xurt wergirt ji destpêka berxwedana biçek a 1984a û vir ve. Pêkhateyên rêxistinî yên berfireh bi pêş xistin û bi kapasîteyeke pir mezin xebitî da ku bi taybetî Kurdên li Ewropayê û yên nav Tirkîyê û derveyî wê têxe nav tevgerê. Hilatina neteweperwerîya Kurd ji 1980an û vir ve, herwiha encameke polîtîkaya xedar a piştî derbeyê li dijî derbirîna nasnameyên kêmaran hatîye wergirtin. Berovajîya salên borî, her çi îmaya nasîna Kurdbûnê wek rastîyeke civakî-çandî bi tevahî ji holê rakirin, ku proseya pêkhatina nasnameya Kurdî lezand.9 Lewra, di civaka Kurd de meyla giştî ya nasnameyê, ji hêmanên olî yên xurt î 1920-30an ber bi hêmanên çînî yên xurt î 1960- 70yan ve û ji wir ber bi etnîsîteyê ve, ku wek tebeqeya bingehîn a 1990an e, dihat.10

Lê dîsa jî, di nav civaka Kurdan de bi belavbûna nasnameya Kurdî ya neteweyî re (bi taybetî di 1980an de) pêkhatina hin nasnameyan jî pê re hat, wek nasnameyên ku li ser hîma bawerî (Elewîtî) an zimên (zazakîaxêv) pêk hatine.11 Kartêkerên ku ji bo vê geşedanê tên atfkirin bi yên meyla berê re manend in: rehendên wek bajarvanî, asta perwerdeya bilind ku alîgirên teorîya nûjenbûnê hevî dikir wê yekbûna gelheyan qaîmtir bike, di rastîyê de bûn xwedî bandorên berovajî.12 Ev pêvajo bi pênaseyên coxrafîk re bû sedema pevketinekê di navbera xetên heyî û yên nû-zayî de, bo nimûne ‘Zazaîstan13 an jî têgihanên (perception) nû yên bûyerên dîrokî, wek serhildanên 1925 û 1937-38an ku qismen wek serhildanên Zazayan tên ravekirin.14

Ji avabûna xwe û vir ve Komara Tirkîyê bi kevneşopa xwe ya dewleta navendî ya xurt re xwedî amûran bû bo belavkirina nasnameyeke yekbûyî. Di asta dîrokî-grafîk de ev bi Teza Dîrokî ya Tirk (Türk Tarih Tezi) û Teorîya Roj-Ziman (Güneş-Dil Teorisi) re dihat ravekirin ku di 1930an de serwer bû.15 Herdu jî di çarçoveya sazîyên dîroknûsînî yên fermî de hatine nivîsîn ji alîyê nivîskarên xwedî paşxaneya jev cuda: endamên parlamentoyê, rêvebirên mûzeyan, sekreteryaya dewletê ya bo perwerde û dîroknasan. Argûmenta sereke ya Teza Dîrokî ya Tirk ev bû:

Ji heyama kevn ve, xela (drought) û demsalên baştir berê koçan ji Asyaya Navend da ber bi Rojhilat, Rojava û Başur ve. Ev koçer Tirkîaxêv bûn. Wan şaristanên pêşveçûyî anîn herêmên ku lê bi cî bûn. Ew bûn ên ku li Mezopotamya, Misir, Anatolya, Çîn, Gîrît, Hîndîstan, herêmên Egeyê û li Romê şaristanî ava kirin. Ew, Tirk bûn. Ev kesên Tirkîaxêv xwedî roleke mezin in di avakirin û pêşvebirina şaristanîyan de û di belavkirina wan a nav dinyê de.16

Teorîya Roj-Zimên, ku di 1936ê de hatîye weşandin, temamkerê mantiqî ya Teza Dîrokî ya Tirk e ku angaş dike zimanê Tirkî jêderka hemû zimanên li dinyê ye. Lê ev herdu teorî divê wek parçeyeke homojen neyê dîtin ku bi deh salan nûsîna dîrokê dîyar kir. Ji xwe ev di 1940an de li ber çav e dema ku Mehmed Fuad Köprülüyê dîroknas boçûna nû wek romantîk û ne-zanistî bi nav kir, ligel ku wî di geşbûna neteweperwerîyê de ew wek gaveke hewce didît. Îro ev heterojenî di ferqa navbera rabêjên akademîk û popûler de li ber çavan e. Di ya pêşî de, bermayîyên teorîyan hema nexuyane.17 Di asta popûler de bandora wê, bi taybetî di kitêbên dibistanan de, heta îro dîyar e.18 Rabêja neteweyî a Tirkîyê li hember Kurda helwesta înkarkirinê wergirt ku ew wek Tirk pênase dikir. Sîyaseta paşverû, berxwedana eşirî yan jî paşdemayîna herêmî bûne atfên li ser pirsgirêka Kurd lê ti car wek pirsgirêkeke etno-polîtîk nehatîye binavkirin.19 Ji nav van dewletan, ku xwedî gelheyên Kurd in, herî zêde Tirkîye çalak bûye di înkarkirina hebûna wan de. Lewra, rabêja neteweyî ya Tirkîyê ti car qebûlkirina Kurda wek welatîyên Tirk red nekir. Lê belê ev qebûlkirin, bi tevlîbûna Kurda ya ji dil an bê dilê xwe ya nav civaka Tirkan re li gel çû.

Di dawîya 1980yan û serê 1990an de salên dawî yên serokatîya Turgut Ozal gav bi gav bû şahidê serbestîyekê di warên çandî de. Bandora polîtîkayên dewletê, yên wek di 1991ê de paşvekêşana qanûna li ser weşana ji bilî Tirkî bi zimanên din, kir ku nasnameyên ku li jêra nasnameya Tirkî û li jora nasnameya malbatê ne, dikarin bêtir xwe îfade bikin. Van Bruinessen yek ji encamên vê polîtîkayê li Tirkîyê wek ‘teqîneke rasteqîn di weşana Kurdî de’ rave kir.20 Dîsa jî ev boçûn, qe nebe bo Kurda, nebû sedema guhertineke esasî û heta îro nasîna her çi nasnameyeke Kurd wek metirseyekê hat dîtin bo yekbûna welatîyan ku bi pênaseya xwe ve Tirk in. Heta di asta akademîk de jî xebata ku ji alîyê Kirişçi û Winrow21 ve hatîye weşandin wiha tê ravekirin: ‘belkî li ser pirsgirêka Kurd ya Tirkîyê yekem cehd e ku rave û dahûraneke berfireh tê kirin ji alîyê akademîsyênên navdar ve ku xwe di nav civaka Tirka de bi cî dikin’.22

Ev gotar xwe dispêre wan metnan ku li rojnameya rojane ya Kurda Ozgur Gundem û li peyrewên wê (Özgür Ülke, Yeni Politika û Özgür Politika) di salên 1994-1997 de dihatin weşandin. Ev bijare hat kirin bi awakî sereke ji ber nebûna sazîyên dîroknûsîya Kurdî yên fermî û weşanên pê girêdayî. Bo tevgereke neteweyî, ku ne xwedîyê pêkhateyên dewletekê ye, rojnameyeke wiha grîng e lew bi nisbî xwe digihîne rayeke berfireh. Di heman demê de, ev rojname bi nisbî forûmeke serbixwe ye ku tê de nivîskarên xwedî nêrînên polîtîk ên jev cuda dinivîsin û babetên dîroknûsînê bi awayekî vekirî tên nîqaşkirin.

Ozgur Gundem û peyrewên wê, ger bi tevahî bê hildan, li Tirkîyê xwedî weşana herî dirêj e di nav hemû rojnameyên Kurda yên rojane de. Di 1960an de û bi taybetî jî di dawîya 1970yan de, li Tirkîyê ji alîyê Kurda çend kovar û rojname hatin weşandin.23 Tim zexteke derveyî hebû li ser wan û çi demeke dirêj jî xwe ranegirtin. Ozgur Gundem li Stenbolê derdiket ji 1992ê heta Nîsana 1994ê ku di vê salê de hat girtin. Piştî wê, çend derbên din jî hewl da ji ber zext û terora dewletê, nexasim wek kuştin an girtina gelek xebatkarên rojnameyê, ji nû ve bi navên din dest pê bike.24 Ji Nîsana 1994a heta girtina wê ya di Sibata 1995a de bi navê Ozgur Ulke derket, pişt re ji Nîsana 1995a heta girtina wê ya di Tebaxa 1995a de di bin navê Yeni Politika de derket, bi dû wê de Demokrasi, Ulkede Gundem, Ozgur Bakis derketin ku di Nîsana 2001ê de hat girtin. Her sê versîyonên pêşî hem li Tirkîyê hem li Ewropayê hatin belavkirin. Piştî girtina Yeni Politikayê, weşana Ewropayê navê Ozgur Politikayê girt ku hîn jî di bin wî navî de tê belavkirin li Neu-Isenburgê (Almanya). Piştî jevveqetîna fermî piştgirtina dualî ya herdu rojnameyan di gelek gotaran de berçav e ku ji Demokrasi û peyrewên wê bo Ozgur Politikayê dihat stendin. Tîraja Ozgur Gundemê bi texminî li dora 50,000î bû.25 Li gorî agahîyên rojnameyê bi xwe, tîraja Ozgur Politikayê 16,723 bû (8,610 li Almanyayê, 6,120 li welatên din û 1,993 jî abone).26 Dihat hesibandin ku bi giştî nêzîkî PKKê ye, lê ne weşaneke wê ya rastûr (direct) e. Berovajîya gelek weşanên rastûr ên PKK û pêkhateyên wê yên pê girêdayî, wek Serxwebûnê, wê cihêrengîyeke bilind vedihewand.

Ozgur Gundem û peyrewên wê bi Tirkî dihatin weşandin. Ev li Tirkîyê hinekî ji ber sedema qedexeya li ser Kurdî bû bo raya giştî û, di hin wextan de, bo bikaranîna şexsî ku ji ber wê ziman li gorî pewîstîyên nû-derketî hîn pêş ve neçûbû. Di heman demê de Kurdî gelek cudahîyan di nav xwe de vedihewand ku ev taybetmedîyeke ‘zimanên ne-neteweyî’ ye.27 Lewma di Ozgur Gundem û peyrewên wê de bikaranîna Tirkî wek zimanê hevpar (lingua franca) bijareyeke bi zanebûn bû. Aktorên tevgera neteweyî ya Kurd, û bi taybetî PKK, gelek hesas in ji cudahîyên nav civaka Kurd re, bi taybetî ji alîyê zaravayan ve (Kurmancî, Zazakî, Soranî). Bikaranîna Tirkî dikare wek hewlekê bê dîtin ku pêşîya şikestinên muhtemel ên ji ber xetên zimên çêdibin, bigre. Bijartina zimanê Tirkî herwiha nîşan dide ku ev rojname berê xwe daye civatekê ku bi piranî li nav Tirkîyê perwerde bûne yan bi kêmanî hay ji rabêja neteweyî ya Tirkî hene.

Ti nivîskarên sereke28 yên li ser mijarên dîrokî dinivîsin di rojnameyên di bin gefê de ne, ne dîroknasên ku li zankoyê perwerde bûbin. Gelek ji wan dikarin ta radeyekê bi giştî wek rewşenbîr bên binavkirin. M. Siraç Bîlgîn li fakulteya tipê ya li Dîyarbekrê xwendîye. Cemşîd Bender li Fransayê di hiqûqê de doktoraya xwe kirîye. Gurdal Aksoy jî ji hîqûqa Zankoya Ankarayê mezûn bûye. Selahaddin Mihutuli ji fîlolojîya Frensî ya Zankoya Enqereyê mezûn bûye û Torî wek zimannasekî dikare bê pênasekirin. Dîsa jî hin nivîskarên ku di rojnameyê de dinivîsin, mînak Selahaddin Mîhutuli,29 Cemşîd Bender30 û Gurdal Aksoy31 monografin li ser mijarên dîrokî weşandin. Herwiha hin ji wan xebatên wejeyî weşandin; bo nimûne, M. Siraç Bîlgîn romanek weşand32 û Torî jî çîrokên kurt33 an xebatên li ser beşên din wek ferhenga Kurdî-Tirkî ya Torî weşandin.34

Duyem alîyê karakterîstîk ê van nivîskaran ew e ku ji ber nivîsên wan zext heye li ser wan. Ji heşt nivîskarên sereke a rast tenê çar li Tirkîyê dijîn (Cemşîd Bender, Selahaddin Mîhutulî, Torî û M.Can Yuce yê hepskirî). Her çarên din li Ewropayê mişext in (M.Siraç Bîlgîn, Şerefxan Cizirî, S. Izzet Guven û Gurdal Aksoy). Komeke din a nivîskarên rojnameyê bi bênavkî (anonymously) dinivîsin û navên kolektîf bi kar tînin ku ew nav girêdayî rûpelên peywendîdar in ku tê de bi gelemperî gotarên dîrokî tên weşandin: Beşa Lêkolînê (Research Service) yan Beşa Civak û Jîyanê (Society and Life Service). Ev nav an nivîskarên derveyî rojnameyê yan jî gotarên kolektîf ên nivîskarên ku di rojnameyê de dixebitin, temsîl dikin.

Ozgur Gundem û peyrewên wê bûye forûmeke nîqaşan li ser babetên curbicur ên dîroknûsîyê. Ev nîqaş vedihewîne mijarên wek di sînordarkirina çîrokan de pêwistîya nivîsîna dîroka zanistî,35 ji alîyê dabeşkirina demê (periodization) ve pirsa pêşekîyan,36 pêwistîya jinûveguhertina xebatên EwrO-navendî,37 xwesteka guherandina nîvendê ji Mirovên Mezin ber bi gelheyan ve,38 bo roja îro bikaranîna analîzên dîrokî yên Ibnî Xaldûn.39

Gotûbêja herî dûdirêj bi awayekî demkî bala xwe dide ser yek ji warên sereke yên dîroknûsîya Kurdî ya li Tirkîyê: demên pêş-Îslamî. Di naveroka wê de, ew li derdora vê pirsê diçe û tê bê ka komeke dîroknasên Kurd dîrokeke zêde neteweperest ku hebûna gelên din înkar dike, dinivîsin an na. Li jêr, ez ê vê komê wek Monopolîst bi nav bikim lew dîroka herêmê di nav vegotineke Kurd de pawan dike (monopolize). Ji milê din ve, rexnegirên wan, înter-aktîvîst, kesên din ên herêmê dixin nav vegotinên xwe, bi kêmanî di asta razber de. Ev koma duyem, dema bi giştî bi gotûbêjên dîroknivîsê ve tê berawirdkirin, rola ‘revîzyonîstan’ hildigire ser xwe. Nîqaş bi Ozgur Gundem û peyrewên wê re ne sînordarkirî ye lê di rojnameyan de40 an jî di forma monografan de jî cî girtîye.41 Lê belê di çavkanîyan de, ku ji bo vê gotarê hatine bikaranîn, nîqaş li dora dawîya 1994 û destpêka 1995a gurr dibe. Gotarên hîstorîgrafîkal ên li dû, nîqaşa ku di dema berê de dest pê kiribû, domand.42

Monopolîst tên rexnekirin li ser esasê ku îdîa dikin hemû rehenda herêmê aidî Kurdan e.43 Înter-aktîvîst îdîa dikin ev nêrîneke romantîk û neteweperest a dîrokê ava dikin bêyî ku bikaranîna çavkanî û belgeyan kopîyeke vajîkirî ya Teza Dîrokî ya Tirk (Turk Tarih Tezi)e.44 Înter-aktîvîst ditirsin ku di vê pêvajoyê de bi ferzkirina dîrokeke fermî ya Kurdî boçûneke rexneyî û zanistî ya bo dîrokê wê were marjînalîzekirin di pêşerojê de.45 Di nav alîgirên sereke yên koma Monopolîst de Cemşîd Bender, Torî, Selahaddîn Mihutuli, Siraç Bîlgîn û S. Izzet Guven hene. Herwiha nivîskarên kolektîf ên bênav, Beşa Lêgerînê û Beşa Civak û Jîyanê, helwestin diparastin ku bi giştî dikarin wek Monopolîst bên binavkirin.

Înter-aktîvîst li ser hebûneke dîrokî ya Kurda, ku ew hezaran sal in hene, hemfikir in. Lê ew li herêmê hebûna miletên din û têkilîya wan a bi Kurdan re dupat dikin, ku bi vê alîyên civakeke pir-etnîk qest dikin.46 Carna fikra têkilîya nijadan a di navbera Kurda de, wek bi Medan re, pûç dikin.47 Pawandar (monopolîst) îdîa dikin ku tevkarîyên wan tenê bertek in li xebatên hêja yên lêkolînerên wek Cemşîd Bender ku ew xwe nagîhînin asta bêqisûrîtîya wî.48 Bi nîyeta henekpêkirina li ser “fikrên ispatkirî’’ argumentên bêbingeh derdixin pêş. Argûmenteke sergirtî ya berdewam ew e ku ew projeya neteweperest dixin metirsîyê, çimkî derxistina gelekî ji nav dîrokekê tê wateya beralîkirina wî ya ber bi dîrokên din ve.49 Nivîskarên înter-Aktîvîst kesên wek Gurdal Aksoy, M.Can Yuce û Şerefxan Cizirî di nav xwe de vedihewînin.

Cudahîyên di navbera herdu koman de di bikaranîna çavkanîyan û şêwaza nivîsandinê de berçav e. Wek qaîdeyeke giştî, nivîskar çiqas helwestên Monopolîst bi awayekî eşkere qebûl dike, ewqas meyldar e şêwazeke xemilandî ya nivîsînê bi kar bîne û ewqas jî kêmtir meyldar e çavkanîyan nîşan bide. Ev senifandin divê wek duyatîyeke (dichotomy) asan neyê famkirin di navbera moderation (ılımlılık) û extremism (aşırıcılık) de. Mînak nivîskarekî înter-aktîvîst ê wek Gurdal Aksoy, dikare bi berfirehî li ser dîroka navan (onomastic) a Tirkan binivîse, bi balpêdana li ser navan ku bi kuçik, ga û ajalên manend ve peywendîdar in.50 Ev senifandin jî divê wek senifandineke hişk neyê famkirin. Mînak nivîskarekî Monopolîst ê wek Torî, helwesteke bêtir Înter-Aktîvîst nîşan dide dema ku di warê ‘xwe’ yê zimannasîyê de dinivîsî.51

Ger netewe wek berhemeke ‘dahênan’ an ‘texeyulkirin’ê were fêmkirin, hingê em bi vê pirsê re rûbirû dibin: di eslê xwe de civateke neteweyî çawa bi rîya dîrokîkirinê (historicization) re tê avakirin. Ez ê di rîya bikaranîna têgeha mîtê re hêmanên ku di rewşa Kurdî ya ‘matrîksên bo afirandina hișyarbûna civakî’52 de rave bikim. Mît li vir, wek çîrokeke ku teqez ne rast an jî teqez ne derew be, di wateya xwe ya orjînal a Yewnanî de tê fêmkirin. Ew, piştrastkirineke ji derve bi xwe, ne divê ne jî dihewîne. Lewma jî grîngîya mîtekê ne bi rêjeya xwe ya rastîyê re lê bi wateya xwe re, ya ku bo nivîskar û temaşevanan nîşan dide, tê pênasekirin. Grîngîya erkî (functional) di rola mîtê de ye ku di pênasekirina kolektîvîteyan de dilîze. Ew hêmaneke dîyarker in di pêvajoya derxistina ji nav civatên neteweyî û tevlîbûna wan a nav wan neteweyan de. G.Smith û hevpîşeyên wî hin mîtên wek ên etnîsîteyê, welêt, Heyama Zêrîn û yên karakterên neteweyî pênase dikin.53 Nivîskar dupat dikin ku mîtên bi hevdu re pêwendîdar bo her rewşekê diguherin. Mîtên ku li vir bi rastî hatine bikaranîn dibe ku li hevdu bihevrişin (overlap), hevdu biparêzin an jî li dij hev bin. Di vê gotarê de ez ê li ser mîtên herî berbiçav ên çavkanîyên lêkolînkirî rawestim: mîtên etnîsîteyê, welat, berxwedan û kesayeta neteweyî.

Mîta etnîsîteyê li pêwendîyeke etnîkî digere di navbera neteweya modern û ya kevnare de da ku geşedana ‘xwe’ ya serbixwe nîşan bide. Ev xwedî grîngîyeke jîyanî ye bo Kurdên li Tirkîyê ku hebûna wan a cuda bi dehan salan ji alîyê rabêja neteweyî ve hatîye înkarkirin. Ev mît roleke wisa berbiçav dilîze di dîroknûsîya Kurd de ku xeta di navbera etnîsîteya ku li bingeheke bîyolojîk de tê pênasekirin û ya ku li ser bingeheke çandî tê pênasekirin, bi giştî gelkî rewan e. Versîyona Monopolîst a niha pêwendîyekê ligel Aryanan ava dike. Di vê vegêranê de Aryan şênîyên xwemalî yên herêmên Kurda ne bi dîrokeke ku hin nivîskar dibin hetanî 60,000 sal berê. Kurd in ên ku herî nêzîkî Aryanên orjînal in û lewma wek nevîyên wan tên hesibandin.54 Yek ji hêmanên bingehîn ên vê vegêranê nîşandana safîtîyeke etnîk e ku ji alîyê miletên din ve bi awayekî kûr nehatîye karîgerkirin. Bajarê Maraşê ‘bi dirêjahîya dîrokê ve karaktera xwe ya saf a Aryanî parastîye’ li dijî êrîşên derve (bo nimûne; yên ji alîyê Asûrîyan, Roman, Ereb an jî Turkmenan ve).55 Ev versîyona Aryanî ya etnîsîteyê rasterast di Teza Dîrokî ya Tirk de hatîye armancgirtin ku angaşt dike Tirk ji Asyaya Navendî nijadeke Aryanî ne. Pênasekirina Kurda a wek nevîyên rastî yên Aryanan, ne tenê etnîsîteya wan rave dike lê di heman katê de versîyona Tirkî jî pûç dike.

Boçûneke moderate (ılımlı) ya revîzyonîst ji alîyê Aksoy ve hatîye pêşvebirin ku li ser bingeha etnîkî, Kurda bi Hînt-Ewropîya ve girêdide. Dîsa jî bandorên hêmanên Kafkas, Ermen û Tirkan dupat dike ku bi vî awayî li dij vegêrana safîtîyê derdikeve. Yuce tekane nivîskar e hemû hewlên ku pêwendîyên kokeke bîyolojîk ava dikin bi eşkere pûç dike bi sedama ku dibîne ev pêwendî îdeolojîk û nijadperest in. Hemfikir e li ser hebûna Kurda ya wek yekeyeke (unit) derbasdar a analîza dîrokî, ew vê yekeyê li ser bingeheke çandî rave dike.56

Bi giştî, meylek heye ku bavûkalên muhtemel ên Kurda dibe hetanî Medan ji dema ku Mînorsky di destpêka vê sedsalê de ev raber kirîye.57 Bender, bo nimûne, Gûtî, Hûrî, Kasît, Ûrartû û Medan dixe nav xeteke tenê ya etnîk.58 Vê kir ku Aksoy şîrove bike hin dîroknasên hemdem ‘şorbeya miletan’ çêdikin di rîya lêzedekirina bere-bere û ketûberkî (arbitrarily) ya bav û kalan li Medên ku ji xwe berê hene.59

Mîta etnîsîteyê pêwendîyekê ava dike di navbera miletê modern û yê kevnare de lê milê din ve mîta welêt armanc dike ku bi dirêjahîya dîrokê hebûneke coxrafîk a westar (stable) ava bike. Herêmên Anatolyayê warên sereke ne ku gotarên dîroknûsîyê li Ozgur Gundemê hatine weşandin û peyrewên wê bala xwe danê. Rabêja neteweyî ya Tirk angaşt dike ji ber koçên li ser hevdu, Anatolya bûye welatê Tirka. Lewma bo vegêraneke neteweyî ya Kurd pêwîst e îspat bikin ew war di eslê xwe de yên Kurda ne. Di vê vegêranê de navenda herêmên Kurda rojhilata Torosan û çîyayên Zagrosê ne ku sînorên eseh ên vî welatî nayên xêzkirin. Ji hin gotarên dawîya 1994a yên li ser bajarên Kurda em têdigîhên ku bajarên Meraş, Erzîncan, Erzirom û Qers sînorên rojava û bakur ên herêmê yên li Anatolyayê pênase dikin. Bi rêjeyeke mezin, ev xet bi bi taybetî amaje dike bi bajarên ku di nav sînorên Tirkîyeya îroj de mane. Ji ber wê, sînorên rojhilat û başur di nav vê çarçoveyê de nayên ravekirin.60 Torî rave dike warên eslî yên Kurdên Hûrîya (texmînî berîya Îsa 1400) bi sêgoşeyekê sînordarkirî ye, ku li başurrojavayê bi çemê Xabûrê, li başurrojhilatê bi çemê Dîyalayê û li bakur bi behra Wanê pêk tê. Ev war hema hema hevsengî sînora îro ya ku di navbera Sûrî, Iraq, Îran û Tirkîyê de ye. Vegêran dîsa jî berdewama pênasekirina sînorên westar ên hebûna polîtîk a Hûrîya dike ku ev sînor wê Behra Spî li rojavayê, Çemê Dîcleyê li rojhilatê be.

Vegêrana welêt du xalên grîng dupat dike. Ya yekem, herêm wek ‘welatê Aryanan’ (ku nevîyên wan Kurd in),61 tê pênasekirin ku ‘welatê me ye’.62 Bavûkalên Kurda herêm bi sînorên kifş ên xwezayî û çandî bi rê ve birin.63 Ya duyem, Kurd di herêmê de wek miletê herî kevn tên qebûlkirin. Ev jî li dijî miletên ‘derveyîn’ e ku ew pişt re gîhane.64 Ev miletên ‘derveyîn’ (yên wek Faris, Roman, Bîzansî, Ereb an Tirk) wek êrîşker an dagirkerên herêmên Kurda tên şayesandin. Pênaseya ewên ku wek ‘hûndirîn’ tên fikirîn, jev diguhere. Gelek caran ew (pênase) tenê bi Kurda re tê sînorkirin jî, milê din ve kom û miletên din ên wek Ermen û SuryanîOrtodoksa jî di nav xwe vedihewîne.65 Ecêb e ku bi giştî hebûna meşrû ya miletên din an kêmareyên etnîk di asta razber de tê qebûlkirin. Bi heman awayî, rehendên erênî yên vê mozaîka pir-çandî û pir-neteweyî tên dupatkirin. Lê belê, ev milet û kêmare kêm tên dîtin di pênaseya dîrokî ya şênber de. Ev pênasekirin, ji xeynî hin kêm-mînakan, bi Kurda ve sînorkirî ye.66 Miletên din ên wek Ermen67 an Çerkez68 bi awayê sereke wek qurbanîyên komkujî an tehcîrên di dema dawî ya Împeratorîya Osmanîyan de xuya dikin.

Mîta berxwedanê armanc dike ku vegêraneke dijberîya ebedî ya li dijî rêveberîya bîyanî ava bike. Berxwedana bo rizgarîya neteweyî û avakirina siberojê ya netewe-dewletekê wek encama geşedana dîrokî û armancî (teleological) tê temsîlkirin. Ev tê wê wateyê ku demên rêveberîya bîyanî dikare bandora xwe ya mayinde winda bike û xilasîya xisletên neteweyî dikare bê nîşandan. Di 1990an de ji ber rewşa tevgera neteweyî ya Kurd ya li Tirkîyê, ev mît xwedî grîngîyeke taybet e di temsîlkirin û pêkhatina nasnameya neteweyî de. Wek ku li jor jî hatîye ravekirin, li ser mîta welêt, dîroknasên Kurd cudatîyeke zelal xêz dikin di navbera yên hûndirîn û derveyîn de. Di vê vegêranê de Kurdistan tim û daîm hatîye erîşkirin û dagirkirin. Digel polîtîkayên zordarî, pişaftin û qirkirinê yên bi destê van dagirkeran ve tên kirin (bi awayê sereke Ereb, Faris û Tirk), Kurda dev ji kelepora xwe bernedane.69 Ev şîyana bo parastina xisletên xwe bi awayê sereke bi berxwedana berdewam a Kurda ya li dijî van polîtîkayan ve peywendîdar e.70

Pîrozbahîyên Newrozê wek goşe-kevirê (corner-stone) mîta berxwedanê a Kurda kar dikin. Newroz xwedî wateyeke sembolîk a xurt e bo tevgera neteweyî ya Kurd. Bi dirêjahîya 1980 û 1990an ew bû derfetetek bo pîrozbahîyên mezin li Ewropa û herêmên Kurda yên li Tirkîyê, ku ev pişt re bi tundî her car dihatin tepisandin ji alîyê hêzên artêşa Tirka ve. Herwiha Newroz warekî berçewt ê zêde-nîqaşkirî ye ji cerga ku dewleta Tirkîyê şîroveya xwe ya naveroka sembolîk, wek a dewleta Îranê, hewl dide bide nasîn. Di 1995ê de Newroz wek betlaneyeke Tirka hat ragihandin ku bi vê pîroz dikin ew roja ku ji welatê xwe Asyaya Navendî, Ergenekonê, derketine. Hingê Newroz di versîyona xwe ya Tirkîzebûyî de bûbû wek Nevruz. Di heman demê de, Newroz wek pîrozkirina biharê dihat raberkirin.

Versîyona Kurd a mîtolojîk ew e, Kawayê hesinkar Kurd ji zordestekî, ku wî her roj mejîyê du ciwanan dixwar, xelas kirine. Piştî ku Kawa zordestî dikuje, di 21ê Adarê de agir tê dadan li ser çîyayên Kurdistanê da ku rizgarîyê pîroz bikin. Di asta dîroknûsîyê de ev bûyer berî Îsayî di 612ê de bi dîroka serkeftina Medan a li hember Asûrîyan ve, ku têkçûna dewleta Asûrîyan nîşan dikir, hatîye dîyarkirin. Ev bûyer ji alîyê Monopolîstan ve grîng tê dîtin ji ber ku Medan ‘hemû miletên Aryanî di bin alakê de kirin yek û wisa herêm ji dagirkirin û wêrankirina Îskîtan parastin.’71 Ev serkeftin herwiha wek nîşana dawîbûna sedsalên zordestîya Samîyan a li ser Kurda tê fêmkirin. Ji wî çaxî ve, Kurda bi vê minasebetê Newroz pîroz kirine, ku ew herwiha roja pêşî ya salnameya Kurda ye.72 Di vê vegeranê de ‘Kawa dibe arezûya rizgarbûnê, arezûya serhildana li dijî zordestîyê.’73

Berovajîyê vê, Varol îdîa dike, Kawa û Newroz di vê talîyê de bi hevdu re hatine pêwendîdarkirin. Di tevahîya wêjeya Kurdî û nivîsên dîrokî de, bo nimûne di Şerafnameya74 Şerefxan a dawîya sedsala şazdemîn de, navê Kawa derbas nabe. Tîne zimên ku Kawa şûna lehengê mîta Mîhrîcana Farisî girtîye ku li wir di esasê xwe de lehengekî duyem-pile (second-class) bûye. Mîta Mîhrîcanê bi wateya xwe manenda Newroza hemdem e. Pişt re Kawa ji vê mîtê hat derxistin û li nav çarçoweya Newrozê, ku ji xwe tê de hebû, hat bicîkirin ku li vir wî çaxî ne xwedî wateya rastî ya berxwedanê bû.75

Min çend caran ji xwe qala fehma hindur/derve kir di pênasekirina bûyerên dîrokî de. Ev dijberîya herdu koman di vê rewşê de di bin rexneya bi alîyê Tirkîyê de ye. Mîta kesayetîya neteweyî çarçoweya heyî bi taybetîyan tije dike da raborîyeke cihê, ku ji yên Din bi eşkere cîyawaz e, pênase bike. Lewma bi dirêjahîya dîrokê em xwedî baqeke taybetmendîyên dubeşkirî (dichotomistic) ne.

Ligel mîta berxwedanê, mîta karaktera neteweyî roleke berbiçav dilîze, ne tenê bo nîşandana kokan lê belê bo berdewamîyê jî. Ev tê bidestxistin di rîya avakirina vegêrana li dor fikra hindirînên (insider) şareza û derveyîyên (outsider) barbar re. Mîta şaristanî hemberî mîta barbarîzmê babeteke dubare ye di çavkanîyan de. Nivîskarên Monopolîst ên wek Bender, Torî û Mihutuli wê di analîzên xwe yên dîrokê de wek konsepteke navendî bi kar tînin.76 Di vê peywendê de Mihutuli tîne zimên ku grîngîya miletan a di dîrokê de ne girêdayî wê navdarîyê ye ku distînin, belam girêdayî ‘xizmetên di warê şaristanîyê de, hêmanên çandî yên mayî û qayîmkirina dewlemendîya dîrokê’ ye.77 Bender di vî warî de rêz dike destkeftîyên Kurda ku yekem milet bûne ku hesp kedî kirine, genim çandine, li derveyî şikeftan cihnişîn ava kirine, peristgeh ava kirine, rêgezên matematîk û geometrîyê dane nasîn û teleskob bi kar anîne.78 Rojhilata Nêzîk tê qebûlkirin ku dergûşa şaristanîyan e û Kurd xwedî roleke gelekî cîyawaz in di geşbûna van şaristanîyan de. Ev Heyama Zêrîn tenê bi hatina Ereb, Faris û Tirkan a li herêmê bi dawî bû.79 Ji ber vê yekê, mirovahî negihişte heman rêjeya kişf, îcat û şaristanîyan wek a di dema serwerîya polîtîk a Kurd a berîya Îsayî 534ê de.80

Ewê Din ê barbar bi giştî wek beramberîya (correspondence) mantiqî ye ji Xwe’ya şareza re ku bi eşkereyî hatîye ravekirin. Dîsa jî, Mihutuli dîyar dike di demên pêşî yên geşbûna şaristanîyê de ti Samî (Ereb), Faris an Turkmen tunebûn li herêmê. ‘Ti agahî nînin’, didomîne, ‘derheqê wan de bê ka wan çi dikir di vê demê de li Asyaya Navîn û li çolên Ereban an jî di nav kîjan şertan de dijîyan. Ew nehatîye îspatkirin ku wana tevkarîyê li şaristanî yan zanistê kiribin.’ Dîrok wek têkoşîneke ebedî ya di navbera hindirînên şareza yên berxwedêr û derveyîyên barbar ên êrîşkar de tê dîtin. Evên derveyî ne tenê êrîşî welêt kirin û ew dagir kirin, herwiha ne xwedî dîrokeke şaristanîyê bûn û ‘dîroka medenî serûbin dikin û ‘hêmanên ku şaristanîyan ava kirine bi awayekî barbar û neşareza ji holê rakirin.’81 Wek di mîta berxwedanê de jî hat nîşandan, Kurd qe di bin bandora yên derveyî nemane. Torî vê bi koka kûr a çandî ya Kurda ve girêdide ku xwe di tesîrên Ereb, Osmanî û yên din de dide xuyakirin. Kurda xwe bi Îslamê jî dan nasîn, bo nimûne di rîya avakirina tarîqatên xwe re ligel ku dev ji olên xwe yên dualîstîk berdan.82

Ê Din ê neşareza di demên Îslamî de tenê ji alîyê Osmanîyan ve – têgehek e ku bi awakî pêkguhêr (interchangeably) bo ‘Tirkan’ tê bikaranîn- temsîlkirin. Civaka xwe di nav çarçoveya ‘îdeolojîyeke talanê’ de ava kirin, tenê li ser bingehên leşkerî. Piştî ku firehbûna derveyîn xelas bû, ew piştî Siltan Silêmanê Yekem (m.1556) li talankirina hindurîn a herêmên dagirkirî zivirîn.83 Ji ber hindê, zordarîya îro ya artêşa Tirka mîrata Osmanîyan e.84

Helwesta revîzyonîst di du astan de li dijî vê nerînê derdikeve. Ya yekem, vegêrana yek-jêderkirî (single-sourced) û kurtkirin (encapsulated) tê pûçkirin. Ligel ku Kurd xwedî xisletên taybet in jî ev, berhemên bandora dualî ya bi miletên din re ne. Welat dupat dike ku di nav van hêmanên yekbûyî de yên Ereb, Faris û civakên Tirk hene.85 Ya duyem, pênaseya miletan, bi taybetî ya Tirka ya wek barbar, tê pirsyarîkirin. Aksoy îma bi fehma problematîk a niştecihan dike ku ew difikirin miletên koçer barbar in ji ber cudahîyên di jîyana wan miletan. Ligel ku bi dû pênaseya neyênî ya Tirka diçe jî, ew red dike ku Tirk wisa besît barbar bên binavkirin.

Dikotomîya hindur-derve, wek ku di mîtên karaktera neteweyî û welêt de li ser hatibû xebitîn, xwedî encameke din e: kesayetîyên dîrokî ku bi gelemperî wek Kurd tên pênasekirin û warên wan ên sereke yên tevgerê li derveyî welatê rastîn e, ji vegêranê hatine derxistin. Bo nimûne, bi giştî qala Selahedîn nayê kirin. Di rêzeke li ser ‘Kesayetîyên Kurd ên Dîrokî’ de agahîyeke tam li ser nayê dayin lê tenê di nîv-hevokekê de amaje pê tê kirin.86 Di gotareke cudakirî ya li ser Selahedînî de konfederasyona Eyubîyan wek dewleteke Kurda nayê binavkirin an daxilî dîrokeke neteweyî ya Kurda nayê kirin.87 Yek dikare îdîa bike ku ev ji ber berbelavbûna Kurda ya hemdem û zehmetîyan e di pêkanîna projeya neteweyî de, heta li herêmên navendî ji. Vegêraneke ku dîroka dewletê li herêmên derve derdixe pêş, xuyaye di vê rewşê de betal (superfluous) e. Li ser Selahedînî, tunebûna wî ya di çavkanîyên rexnekirî de reng e bêtir pêwendîdar be ligel rastîya ku ew roleke berbiçav di rabêja neteweyî ya Tirk de nalîze. Berovajîya rewşa li dewletên Iraq û Sûrîyê, pêwîstîya ‘jinûvestendina’ wî ne babeteke berbiçav e bo dîroknûsîya Kurdî ya li Tirkîyê.

Pêkhatina nasnameya neteweyî ne tenê bi naveroka nasnameya têkildar ve sînordar e lê di heman demê de sînorên koma têkildar jî di vê pêvajoyê de roleke bi yeksanî grîng dilîze. Li jor hate nîşandan bê ka Ên Din û Xwe çawa tên pênasekirin bêyî ku bi rastî jî bala xwe bide pirsa ku sînorên van kategorîyan li ku ne. Li vir ji ser mînaka Elewîyan ez ê rave bikim bê ka çawa komek, ku mijara nîqaşê ye, daxilî Xwe dibe.

Elewî yan wek mezheb û civateke Îslamî ya heterodoks an jî wek berdewamîya Zerdeştên pêş-îslamî û bawerîyên Manîheîzmê tên pênasekirin.88 Bi giştî pênaseya pêşî bi lîteratûrê ve tê girêdan. Ji ber cudahîyên di pênaseyê de têgeh herî baş wek ‘termeke tevlîker’(blanket term) tê qebûlkirin ku gelek komên heterodoks ligel gelek bawerî û rîtûelên cîyawaz rave dike.89 Ev kom bi taybetî li Anatolyayê zal e. Rêjeya tevahîya gelheya wan li Tirkîyê bi texmînî di navbera ji sedî 10 û 30-40 de ye. Behra Kurda a li nav tevahîya Elewîyên Tirkîyê bi texmînî di navbera ji 10 û 30 de ye û behra Elewîya di nav Kurdên Tirkîyê de kêmzêde ji sedî 30 e.90 Elewîyên li Tirkîyê komên ku bi Erebî, Azerbeycanî, Tirkî û Kurdî diaxivin, di nav xwe de vedihewînin, ku herdu komên talî ji alîyê hejmarê de yên herî grîng in. Koma ku bi Kurdî diaxive dabeş dibin di nav xwe de wek zazakîaxêv û Kurmancîaxêv.

Elewîyan bi giştî pişta Komara Tirkîyê girtine ku sekûlarîzma wê ya fermî parastineke dîyar vaad kirîye bo komên heterodoks. Bi dirêjahîya hebûna Komara Tirkîyê grîngî û hêza nasnameya Elevîtî kêm dibû, ku ev di destpêka 1980an de bû sedema spekûlasyonekê li ser windabûna Elewîtîyê wek civatekê. Ev bi dirêjahîya 1980an guherî ku vê yekê rê ne tenê li ber nîqaşeke gur li ser pênaseya Elewîtîyê vekir,91 lê di heman demê de bû sedema berxwedaneke mezin a çandî û polîtîk … bo rihên Elewîyên Tirkîyê.92 Lewma cihên cehda mezin ên dilsozîyê neteweperestîya Tirk, neteweperestîya Kurdî û Elewîtî ne.

Helwesta fermî ya Tirk, Elewîtîyê wek formekî spesîfîk ê Îslamê pênase dike ku wê bi kokên Turkmen ên pêş-îslamî ve girê dide. Lewma wek dil û rihê çanda Tirk tê qebûlkirin ku ew bi dirêjahîya sedsalan domîyaye. Di 1980an de toleransa sazîyên fermî yên Tirk a li ser geşbûna krîstalîzebûna nasnameyeke Elewî ya spesîfîk herwiha di tevgera neteweyî ya Kurd de jî hat armanckirin. Bi alîkarîya kifşa dewletê ya bo Elewîyan, Elewîyên Kurdîaxêv bi taybetî hatin hedefgirtin da ku rê li ber çûna nasnameya ber bi neteweperwerîya Kurdî ve were girtin.

Beşdarên nîqaşa li ser Elewîyan ên vê dehsala dawî, ligel ên din, di nav avakirina civata xwe de cî girtine, ku berê tiştekî wiha tune bû. Bi pêvajoyan, ku herî baş wek ‘Îcada Keleporê’93 tê pênasekirin, civat bi awayê sereke di rîya dîrokê re tê avakirin. Lew vê talîyê meyla nivîskaran heye ku wê dupata Tirkbûnê ya di nav Elewîtîyê de kêm bikin û grîngîya wê ya wek mozaîkeke çandî ya li Anatolyayê dupat bikin. Dîsa jî hema hemû nivîskarên Tirk û zazakîaxêv hemfikir in li ser koka Tirka bo Elewîtîyê ku bi şêlû hatîye ravekirin.94 Di nav Elewîya de Kurdbûna Elewîtîyê roleke marjînal dilîze di vê nîqaşê de. Ev helwest bi awayê sereke ji alîyê Bender ve tê temsîlkirin ku ew dikare wek xelekekê bê dîtin di navbera nîqaşên heyî yên li ser Kurdbûnê, ku di vê gotarê de tê analîzkirin, û nîqaşa li ser Elewîtîyê ku ji alîyê Vorhoff ve tê analîzkirin.95

Herwiha tevgera neteweyî ya Kurd jî Elewîyan wek komeke grîng dibîne bo tevlîkirinê. Ji ber ku bireke mezin a Elewîyên Kurdîaxêv bi zaravayê Zazakî diaxivin, ev kom xwedî grîngîyeke taybet e bo pênaseya sînorên Kurdbûnê. Bo nimûne, PKK ji 1994an ve kovareke bi navê Zulfîkar diweşîne ligel slogana ‘Rûreş e yê ku koka xwe înkar bike!’96 Bender tîne zimên ku Elewîtî li ser rehên Kurda ava bûye. Da ku Kurdbûna Elewîtîyê nîşan bide sê xalên sereke derdixe pêş. Ya yekem, îdîa dike, Elewîtî şaxeke Zerdûştîyê ye ku ew oleke Kurda bû. Di rîya qalkirina hin manendîyên herdu bawerîyan re, bo nimûne pîrozbûna êgir an jî monogamî, ji ser zemên berdewamîyek tê nîşandan di nav van olên ‘Kurd’ de. Ji bilî vê, Elewîtî bi zelalî cuda ye ji Îslamê. Bi raberkirina Îslamê wek bîyanîyeke êrîşker re, vegêran didome ‘yek behreke Kurda bi zorê derbasî Îslamê bûne, milê din ve behreke mezin vekişîyan Zagrosê û hewl dan ku bawerîyên xwe yên kevn biparêzin di bin kirasekî Îslamî de. Navê wê geşedanê: Elewîtî.’97 Vê dûmahîkê, hewl dide Bektaşîtîyê98 ji Elewîtîyê veqetîne, di rîya nîşandana wê re, wek geşedaneke paşê di nav Osmanîyan de ku ne pêwendîdar e bi Haci Bektaş Velî re wek ku tim tê îdîakirin.99

Xala dawî grîng e bo pirsa bê ka Elewîyên Tirkîaxêv wê çawa bên pênasekirin. Gelek caran, ev kom di tekstên rexnekirî de bi awayekî nixumandî tevlî civata Kurd tê kirin. Ev bi rîya angaşta ku Elewî ‘nema bi zimanê dê û bavê xwe diaxivin’,100 pêk tê yan jî bi berdewamî di rîya binavkirina ‘Elewîtîya Kurd’ re çêdibe lê li alîyê din ‘Elewîtîya Tirk’ hîç nayê qalkirin.101 Ev meyl ligel nivîskarên din jî tê dîtin, wek Vorhoffî ku qala ‘vajî’yeke teza Tirk a li ser Elewîtîyê dike.102 Lê belê, pênaseya li jor a Bektaşîtîya Tirk hember Elewîtîya Kurd reng e wê Elewîyên Tirkîaxêv û Kurdîaxêv jev veqetîne. Tevî ku Bender Bektaşîtîyê bi Haci Bektaş Velî ve girê nade, nivîsên wî xwedî meyleke hevşib in bi dîyardeya (phenomenon) ku di nîqaşên netewe-beralîvekirî (nation-oriented) yên di nav Elewîya de: Elewîyên Tirkîaxêv meyldar in Haci Bektaş Velî wek sembola xwe bi kar bînin, lê Elewîyên Kurdîaxêv wek sembolê xwe Pîr Sultan Abdalê helbestvan û serhildêrê sedsala şazdemîn bi kar tînin.

Demir hinekî xwedî helwesteke înter-aktîvîst e bo pirsa kokên Elewîtîyê. Hemfikir e bi xetên fireh ên ku Bender rave kirine lê milê din ve dupat dike ‘ew ne pêkan e mirov înkar bike Îslam û bawerîyên din ên li Anatolyayê û Turkmenan tevkarî li dewlemendîya Elewîtîyê kirîye.’103

Nîqaşa ser şîroveya koma Elewîyan a ku zêde hatîye nîqaşkirin, du xalên sereke nîşan dike. Ya yekem, mijara Elewîyên zazakîaxêv hîç nehatîye nîqaşkirin. Bi awayekî nixumandî cî girtine ji ber ku di nav civata Kurdîaxêv de wek komeke taybet a potansîyel jî qala wan nayê kirin. Wiha xuyaye nivîskar li vir stratejîyeke bêdengîyê werdigrin li dijî meyla Zazayan a ji bo avakirina nasnameyeke serbixwe. Ya duyem, Elewîyên Tirkîaxêv bi giştî ji alîyê nivîskaran ve wek ên hindirîn tên ravekirin ku ev ji faktora zimên aza ye. Dîsa jî, wisa xuyaye ku cudabûnek dikare pêk were li ser bingeha avakirina Elewîtîyeke ‘rastî’ ya Kurd hember Bektaşîtîyeke ‘çêkirî’ ya Tirk.

Encam

Vê gotarê vekoland ew rêya ku tê de dîroka Kurd a destpêkê ji alîyê elîtên rewşenbîr ên Kurd ve tê nivîsîn. Li ser bingeha vê vekolînê, niha ez bi dawî bikim bi sê xalên sereke yên li ser rewşa rastî ya vê dîroknûsînê re. Lê belê, hêjayî dupatkirinê ye ku armanca vê gotara berdest ne senifandina dîroknûsîya Kurd a li Tirkîyê ye di nav kategorîyên req û bi eşkereyî jev cihê de. Lê armanc bêtir di demeke şênber de têgihîştina fehma dîrokê ya di nav yek çavkanîyeke grîng de ye da ku nûqteyeke destpêkirinê (a point of departure) bo xebatên berawirdî ava bike.

Ev gotar nîşan dide ku dîroka Kurd ji alîyê elîtên rewşenbîr ên Kurd ve bi xurtî tê nîqaşkirin û bi awayên jev cuda tê famkirin. Ji ber ku di esasê xwe de em bi fikrên bijarteyeke rewşenbîr ve daketine. Illeh ne girêdayî tunebûna netewe-dewleteke navendî ye an jî ne bi karaktera nîspeten nû ya neteweperwerîya Kurd ve têkildar e, ku ew (neteweperwerî) bi rêjeyeke mezin li Tirkîyê ye. Di asta bijarteyî de heterojenîya dîroknûsîyên neteweyî ji alîyê xuyakirina wê ya li Tirkîyê di vê gotarê de hate nîşandan û herwiha ew dîyardeyeke bi berfirehî raçavkirî ye ji alîyê konteksta Ewropî ve.104 Lewma em bi dîyardeyeke normal re rûbirû bûne ku herwiha neguherîye bi geşedana tevgereke xurt a Kurda ve ku di 1980 û 1990an de bi awayê sereke li dora PKKê yek-navendî bûye.

Ligel ku hebûna fehmên cuda yên dîrokê şîroveyekê pêwîst dike jî ev rewşa ku nîqaş ji xelkê re vekirî ye, bêtir metelhişt e bo xwendekarên van çavkanîyan. Babetên binîqaş bi awayekî vekirî, û carna jî zêde bi polemîk, tê nîqaşkirin. Ev vekirîbûn li Tirkîyê, ku li vir nasnameyeke hevpar jî tê nîqaşkirin û pênasekirin, di babetên pir-hevşib (quite similar) ên li ser Elewîtîyê de tune ye. Ev tê ravekirin ku bi armanca ‘berjewendîyan bide qebûlkirin li hember derdora di navbera nezanî û dijminahîyê de ye, û ‘Em’ekê çêke, pêk bîne û biparêze.’105 Ev ravekirin ji ber ku ji bo rewşa Kurda jî derbasdar e, hingê pirsyarîbar (questionable) e bê ka zexta derveyîn û cehda hindurîn a bo homojenîtîyê têrê dike ya na da ku karibe asta vekirîbûnê ya di nîqaşekê de rave bike.

Ya duyem, li Tirkîyê dîroknûsîya neteweyî ya Kurd di asteke populer de bi piranî berê xwe daye dîroknûsîya neteweyî ya Tirk, jê bandor girtîye û bertek dayê. Ev dîyar e di bijartina herêma coxrafîk a sergirtî de, di jinûvepênasekirina mîtên navendî yên dîroknûsîya neteweyî ya Tirk de û di nava vê rabêja babetên niqaşkirî de, bo nimûne Elewîtî. Tirk herwiha Yên Din ên sereke ne, wek ku di beşa li ser mîta karaktera neteweyî de hatibû nîşandan. Wek ku Vali di peywendên Kurda yên di welatên cihê de anîbû zimên û di peywenda Iraqê de nîşan dabû, nasnameya neteweyî ya Kurd di çarçoveya têkilîya navbera Xwe û Yên Din de, ku ev nasnameyên Tirk, Faris û Ereb in, derket holê.106 Ev rewşên pêkhatina nasnameya neteweyî qismen bûne sebeba formûlasyona Teza Dîrokî ya Tirk a bi hevtayî (symmetrically) vajîkirî (inverted). Ev di nav metnên vekolandî de ne meyleke mezin e, lê bi kêmanî Selahedîn Mihutuli di vê peywendê de dikare bê binavkirin. Rabêjên neteweyî yên din, bo nimûne ya Îranê, roleke kêmtir berbiçav dilîzîn û bi eşkere nayên şêwirîn (refer). Rastîya ku Newroz herwiha roja pêşî ya salnameya Îranî ye yan jî Şerefnameya çavkanîya sedsala dawîya şazdemîn bi Farisî hatîye nivîsandin, tê piştguhkirin. Helbet rabêja ku li jor hate ravekirin herwiha li dijî rabêja yekitîya Mislimanan, ku Komara Îslamî ya Îranê wergirtîye, derdikeve. Tevî vê, rewşa taybet a Kurd li Îranê xuya ye bandor li ser perspektîva dîrokî nake. Jêkvebûna Elewî-Sunnî li Tirkîyê dîyar e lê milê din ve şopên jêkvebûna Sunnî-Şîi ya li Îranê nexuyaye. Rewş wiha ye tevî ku jêkvebûna olî ya li Îranê beralîkirina sîyasetê heta rêjeyekê bandor dike: Kurdê Şîi meyldar in ku pişta Ayetullah Humeynî bigrin û li gor Kurdê Sunî kêmtir dilxwaz in bo projeyên xweserîyê.

Rabêja neteweyî ya Tirk xwedî roleke bingehî ye di pêkhatina qada dîskursîv de ku tê de nasnameya Kurd tê nîqaşkirin. Di çavkanîya vekolandî de, ev pêwendî têkildar e (a) bi xwezaya çavkanîyê û paşxaneya nivîskaran ve û (b) di 1990an de li Tirkîyê bi veguherîna taktîkî ya aktorê mezin ê tevgera neteweyî ya Kurd ve: PKK.

Metn di çavkanîyeke populer de tê weşandin – asteke ku li wir di weşanên Tirkî de Teza Dîrokî ya Tirk hîn jîndar e. Xwînerên (readership) van metnan, ku bi Tirkî tên weşandin, bi piranî di nav rabêja neteweyî ya Tirk de perwerde bûne. Di heman demê de, nivîskar xwe dispêrin mîrata partîyên Kurd ên 1970an, ku bi piranî çepgir in û ji fikir û helwestên Kemalîst bandor girtine.

PKK, ji çaxa ku di dawîya 1970yan de ava bû, di veguherînên taktîkî re derbas bûye. Ji armanca îlankirî ya Kurdistaneke yekpare û serbixwe, bi rîya hedefa Kurdistaneke serbixwe ya li nav Tirkîyê re, di 1990an de veguherî ser armanca avakirina xweserîyeke li nav dewleta Tirkîyê. Ev rewş hetanî vê talîyê jî didomîya dema ku PKK daxuyand ku dev ji şerê çekdarî berdide bo çareserkirina ‘pirsgirikên Tirkîyê’ bi awayên demokratîk.107 Ji ber vê yekê, dêhna ser Tirka wek Yên Din ên sereke, ya li ser Anatolyayê wek welêt an jî ya li ser Împeratorîya Osmanî wek dijminê sereke yê di demên Îslamî de nîşan dide ku hêza texeyula dîrokî bi van veguherînan karîger dibe. Di vê peywendê de, ne seyr e ku di nav çarçoveya rabêja vekolînkirî de ew têkilîya bi civatên Kurdên din î li welatên cîran re xwedî grîngîyeke pir hindik be. Dîsa jî, ev gotar nîşan dide ku rabêja neteweyî ya pevçêbûnî (concurrential) ne tekane nûqteya referansê ye. Herwiha rehendên din ên nasnameyê jî, wek Elewîtî yan Îslamîtî, roleke grîng dilîzin do geşedana dîroknûsîna Kurd de.

Wek encam, tevî heterojenîya ku li jor hate nîşandan, dîroknûsîya Kurd a li Tirkîyê ji alîyê meyleke zêde-hevpar a bo vîzyona dîrokeke bi giranî etnîk ve tê karakterîzekirin. Ev meyl zelaltir e, her ku nivîskarek helwestên Monopolîst bêtir werdigre. Dîroka etnîk li vir wek boçûneke berdewam (perennial) tê famkirin ku Kurdbûnê di dîrokê de wek faktoreke daimî dihesibîne ku ev faktor li ser esasên çandî yên bîyolojîst hatîye şîrovekirin an jî bi yên cewherîparêz (essentialist) re pêwendîdar e. Di rîya mîtên navendî re, milet, bûyer an warên coxrafîk tevlî vegêraneke berdewam a Kurdbûnê tên kirin an jî jê tên derxistin. ‘Motora dîrokê’ ya di vê vegêranê de lêkdana nav miletan e ku bi giranî di forma dîkotomîya di navbera barbartî û şaristanîyê de hat ravekirin. Boçûnên Marksîst tunene çiqas helwestên eşkere yên Marksîst di dema nîqaşên dîroknûsîyê de hebin jî.108 Nîqaşa di navbera Monopolîst û Înter-Aktîvîstan de li ser tiştên biçûk e, ne li ser wê ye bê ka têgeha dîroka etnîk hîç derbasdar an na.109 Sakallioglu îdîa dike ku nasnameya civaka Kurd ji yeka xwedî hêmanên xurt î olî ya 1920-1930an derbasî yeka xwedî hêmanên xurt î çînî ya 1960-1970yan bûye, ji wir jî derbasî yeka xwedî cewhereke bi giranî etnîk a 1990an bûye.110 Lewma çavkanî rengdaneke vê guherînê ne. Bo ceribandina vê pêwendîyê, wê balkêş bûya vekolîna metnên dîroknûsîya demên berê.

Manendî hene di navbera çavkanîyên vê gotarê û xwendina Vali ya ser nivîsên dîrokî yên Kurdê Iraqî Mihemed Emîn Zekî (di 1931-33 de hatîne weşandin) û Cemal Nebez (di 1984ê de hatîye weşandin) de, ku tê de lêhûrbûna (intensification) faktora etnîk raçav dike. Nivîsên pêşî (M. Emîn) di têgihiştinê de bi piranî lîberal in û cudahîyên etnîk mutleq nake (absolutize) an şablonên etnîk nahewîne. Berovajî wê, nivîsên paşê (C.Nebez) bi boçûneke berdewam karakterîze bûye ku li wir cudahîyên neteweyî yên têgihiştî mutleq in û wek rastîyên dîrokî yên qebûlkirî tên pêşkeşkirin.111 Wek hîpotezekê ew dikare were gotin ku çûna ber bi nasnameyekê, ku li dora etnîsîteyê ava dibe, ne tenê bo peywenda Kurd ya li Tirkîyê tekane ye lê di heman demê de bo dîroknûsîya Kurd a li dewletên din î serwer jî derbasdar e.

Bo siberojê, nûveyên jor divê bi nasnameyên neteweyî yên Kurd re, yên li netewe-dewletên din, di nav çarçoveyeke berawirdî de were danîn. Ligel ku nûqteya destpêkê divê pêwendîya bi nasnameya hegemonyal re têkildar be jî, nêrîneke berawirdî wê tevkarîyê bike li kûrahîya têgihiştina me ya geşbûna nasnameya neteweyî ya Kurd.*

* Ev gotar bi Îngilîzî bi sernavê “Defining the Nation: Kurdish Historiography in Turkey in the 1990s” di Middle Eastern Studies de sala 2001ê de hatîye çapkirin. (ed.)

1 ‘Dîroknûsîna Kurdî’ li vir tê fêmkirin wek tekstên bi babetên dîrokî ku di weşanan de hatine weşandin an jî weşanxaneyên ku dilxwaz an piştgirên yek ji çalakvanên tevgera neteweyî ya Kurd in.

2 Ji bilî ya A. Vali ‘Nationalism and Kurdish Historical Writing’, New Perspectives on Turkey, Cild.14, rr. 23–51 (1996), ku bingeha çavkanîya wê monograf in ku ji alîyê Kurdên Iraqê û K.M. Ahmed ve hatine nivîsîn, Tarihin Tarihi, Kürtlerde Tarih, Tarihte Kadın (Istanbul, 1997), rr.51–116, ku enteresan e derbarê agahîyên ser nivîskaran.

3 A. Vali, ‘The Kurds and their “Others”’, Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa and the Middle East, Cild.18 (1998), rr.82–95.

4 C. Geertz, ‘Ideology as a Cultural System’, C. Geertz, The Interpretation of Cultures. (New York, 1973), rr. 193–233.

5 Amaje bi wê nîqaşê dike ku di destpêka 1980yan de dest pê kiribû, bi taybetî bi xebatên: E. Hobsbawm and T. Ranger (eds.), The Invention of Tradition (Cambridge, 1983) û B. Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism (London, 1983/1991).

6 G. Behrendt, Nationalismus in Kurdistan (Hamburg, 1992); M. van Bruinessen, ‘Kurden zwischen ethnischer, religiöser und regionaler Identität’, C. Borck, E. Savelsberg and S. Hajo (eds.), Kurdologie: Ethnizität, Nationalismus, Religion und Politik in Kurdistan (Münster, 1997(a)), rr.185–216, an jî bi rêjeyeke hindiktir H. Ağuiçenoğlu, Genese der türkischen und Kurdischen Nationalismen im Vergleich (Münster, 1997).

7 Bo nimûne, A.C. Turner, ‘Kurdish Nationalism’, P.J. Chelkowski û R.J. Pranger (eds.), Ideology and Power in the Middle East (Durham and London, 1988), rr.379–410 yan jî J. Blau and Y. Suleiman, ‘Language and Ethnic Identity in Kurdistan: A Historical Overview’, Y. Suleiman (ed.), Language and Identity in the Middle East and North Africa (Richmond, 1996), rr.153–64.

8 Xebatên li jêr bi taybetî ji bo vê hejmarê kêrhatî ne: N. Entessar, Kurdish Ethnonationalism (Boulder, CO and London, 1992); G. Gürbey, ‘The Development of the Kurdish Nationalist Movement in Turkey since the 1980s’, R. Olson (ed.), The Kurdish Nationalist Movement in the 1990s (Lexington: 1996), pp.9–37; M. van Bruinessen, ‘Kurdish Society and the Modern State’, T. Atabaki and M. Dorlejin (eds.), Kurdistan in Search of Ethnic Identity (Utrecht, 1990), rr.24–51.

9 H.J. Barkey and G.E. Fuller, Turkey’s Kurdish Question (New York, 1998), rr.15 f.

10 Ü.C. Sakallıoğlu, ‘Historicising the Present and Problematising the Future of The Kurdish Question in Turkey’, di New Perspectives on Turkey de, Cild.14 (1996), rr.1–22.

11 Zazakî wek zaravayeke Kurdî yan jî zimanekî serbixwe tê pênasekirin. Bruinessen Elewîyan di bin navê gelemperî yê “Elewîyên Kurd” de, dixe nav wan, li milê din Vorhoff ‘Kurd’ û ‘zazakîaxêvan’ ji hev cuda dike. M. van Bruinessen, ‘Bêjî ye yê ku eslê xwe înkar bike!’ Nîqaşa li ser nasnameya etnîk a Elewîyên Kurd, K. Kehl-Bodrogi, B. Kellner-Heinkele û A. Otter Beaujean (eds.), Syncretistic Religious Communities in the Near East (Leiden/New York/Cologne, 1997(b)), rr.1–23; K. Vorhoff, Zwischen Glaube, Nation und neuer Gemeinschaft: Alevitische Identität in der Türkei der Gegenwart (Berlin, 1995).

12 Bruinessen, Kurdish Society, rr.35 ff.

13 Bruinessen, Identität, rr.205 ff

14 Bruinessen, Kurdish Alevis, rr.15 f.

15 Bo hûrgilîyên guhorînan, binerin M. Strohmeier, Seldschukische Geschichte und türkische Geschichtswissenschaft (Berlin, 1984), rr.102 ff.

16 I. Beşikçi, Türk Tarih Tezi ve Kürt sorunu (Ankara, 1977), rr.20.

17 Bo nimûne, di xebatên dîroknasên Tirk ên Emperatorîya Osmanî de wek Halil Inalcık, Selim Deringil an Şerif Mardin.

18 H. Millas, ‘History Textbooks in Greece and Turkey’, History Workshop Journal, Cild.31 (1991), rr.21–33.

19 M. Yeğen, ‘The Turkish State Discourse and the Exclusion of Kurdish Identity’, S. Kedourie (ed.), Turkey. Identity, Democracy, Politics (London/Portland, 1996), rr.216–29, li vir r.216.

20 M. van Bruinessen, ‘Shifting National and Ethnic Identities: the Kurds in Turkey and Europe’, Ev li Sempozyûma Navneteweyî hat pêşkeşkirin ‘Redefining the Nation, State and Citizen’, Istanbul, 28–29 March (1996) (a), r.2.

21 K. Kirişçi û G.M. Winrow, The Kurdish Question and Turkey: an Example of Trans-State Ethnic Conflict (London, 1997).

22 D. Köksal, ‘Who Writes about the Kurdish Problem (review article)’, New Perspectives on Turkey, Cild.17 (1997), rr.174–80, li vir r.175.

23 Bo nimûne ‘Dicle-Firat’ di 1962ê de an jî ‘Yeni Akiş’ di 1966 de; bi agahîyên ser çapamenîya Kurdî ya ta 1980yan binerin K. Burkay, Geçmişten bugüne Kürtler ve Kürdistan, Cild.1 (Istanbul, 1992); bi taybetî bo 1990an binerin M. Yücel, Kürt Basın Tarihi (Istanbul, 1998).

24 I.G. Imset, ‘Turkish Roulette: The Freedom Enjoyed by Turkey’s Profuse and Daily Newspapers Does Not Extend To Their Kurdish Counterparts’, Index on Censorship, Cild.25 (1996), rr.74–7.

25 Imset, Turkish Roulette, r.74.

26 Özgür Politika, 10 May 1999, r.2.

27 Niha li Ewropayê di nav civata mişextbûyî de hewlin hene bo yekitî û nûjenkirina Kurdan:

Bruinessen, ‘Shifting National’ (1996) (a). Li vir peyka TVyê ya Kurdî roleke mezin dilîze.

28 Ji alîyê kartêkirinên li rojnameyê û weşanên din ên ku gotara berdest de hatine binavkirin.

29 S. Mihutuli, Arya uygarlıklarından Kürtlere (Istanbul, 1992).

30 C. Bender, Kürt uygarlığında Alevilik (Istanbul, 1991).

31 G. Aksoy, Tarihi yazılmayan halk: Kürtler (Istanbul, 1996).

32 M.S. Bilgin, Yapraklar açana dek (Stockholm, 1997).

33 Torî, Qolinç (Istanbul, 1992).

34 Torî, Ferheng Kurdî-Tirkî, Türkçe-Kürtçe (Istanbul, 1992).

35 Gürdal Aksoy, ‘Kürtlerde tarih bilinci ve söylenci’(23 Mij. 1994, r.10).

36 Rohat Alakom, ‘Bir halkın tarihini düşman yazamaz’ (11 Pûşber 1996, r.9).

37 Şerefxan Cizirî, ‘Tarih anlayışı üzerine’ (12 Mij. 1994, r.10)

38 Şerefxan Cizirî, ‘Birey ve tarih’ (18 Kan. 1994, r.10).

39 Hasan Oğuz, ‘Tarih biliminin öncüsü’ (24, 25 û 26 Cot. 1996, r.8).

40 G. Aksoy, ‘Kürtlerin kökeni bilim dünyası’ndaki yeri’ Berhem, Cild.6–7 (1993).

41 Aksoy, Tarihi yazilmayan halk.

42 M. Sıraç Bilgin, ‘Tarih yazıcıları’ (27 Pûş. 1996, r.9) an Şerefxan Cizirî: ‘Özgür tarih’ (15 Tîrmeh 1996, r.9).

43 Şerefxan Cizirî, ‘Tarih anlayışı üzerine’ (12 Mij. 1994, r.10).

44 Deniz Çelik, ‘Resmi Kürt tarihinin sonu mu?’ (29 Adar 1996, r.9).

45 Gürdal Aksoy, ‘Tarihte Kürtler, Kürtlerde tarih’ (4 Çile 1995, r.10).

46 Gürdal Aksoy (4 Çile 1995).

47 M. Can Yüce, ‘Kürt tarih yazıcılığında yöntem üzerine’ (17 û 18 Pûş. 1996, r.2).

48 S. Izzet Güven, ‘Cemşid Bender’in tezleri üzerine’ (21 Kanûn 1994, r.10).

49 Torî, ‘Tarih tartışması’ (14 Pûş. 1996, r.9).

50 Gürdal Aksoy, ‘Tarihte Türk isimleri’ (13 Tîrmeh 1994, r.10).

51 Torî, ‘Kürtçe’de dil birliklerinin oluşması’ (6 Cot. 1995, r.9).

52 Geertz, Ideology, p.220.

53 G. Smith, V. Law, A. Wilson, A. Bohr and E. Allworth, Nation-Building in the Post-Soviet Borderlands (Cambridge, 1998), rr.24 ff.

54 Selahaddin Mihutuli, ‘Arya-Sümer Kürt anonim kültüründen motifler’ (10 Tîrmeh 1997, r.9).

55 Toplum Yaşam Servisi, ‘Adım adım güneş ülkesi’ne – Mereş (Gurgum)’ (2 Mij. 1995, r.12).

56 M. Can Yüce (17 û 18 Hez. 1996).

57 V. Minorsky, ‘Kurden’ Enzyklopaedie des Islam (Leiden, 1913–36).

58 Danûstandina Aydın Dere li gel Cemşîd Bender, ‘Cemşid Bender’le Kürt tarihi üzerine …’ (26 Îlon 1995, r.9).

59 Gürdal Aksoy (4 Çile 1995).

60 Toplum Yasam Servisi, ‘Adım adım, günes ̧ ülkesi’ne: Erzincan, Mereş, Qers, Erzirom’ (5 Çile, 2, 16 û 30 Mij. 1995).

61 Selahaddin Mihutuli (10 Tîrmeh 1997).

62 Toplum Yaşam Servisi, ‘Adım adım günes ̧ ülkesi’ne – Agrî’ (Ararat) (12 Cot. 1995, r.12).

63 Torî, ‘Anadolu uygarlığında Kürt etkisi’ (9 Nîsan 1994, r.8).

64 Danûstandina Aydın Dere ligel Cemşîd Bender (26 Îlon 1995).

65 Toplum Yaşam Servisi, ‘Adım adım güneş ülkesi’ne doğru – Mêrdin’ (28 Îlon 1995, r.12).

66 Bo nimûne M. Ali Welat, ‘Kürdistan ortak kültürlerin anasıdır’ (7 Cot. 1994, .10).

67 Fatih Sönmez, ‘Türk egemenlik sistemi içinde: Ermeni halkının trajik sonu’ (24, 25, 26, 27 û 28 Nîsan 1996, r.8).

68 Ragıp Zarakolu, ‘Adlarını başkaları verdi’ (29 Îlon 1997, r.5).

69 Selahaddin Mihutuli, ‘Halkı kurtaran kahraman’ (17 Tîrmeh 1997, r.9).

70 Toplum Yaşam Servisi (2 Mij. 1995).

71 Toplum Yaşam Servisi (16 Mij. 1995).

72 Torî, ‘Tarihte duygu sömürüsü’ (1 Tab. 1996, r.9).

73 Hüsseyin Kaytan, ‘Ateşi bedenler uyandırîyor’ (22 Adar 1994, r.12).

74 Şerefnameya Şerefxanê Bêdlisî dîrokeke Kurdan e ku bi farisî hatîye nivîsîn. Îroj nivîskar di çavkanîyên lêkolînkirî de wek yek ji pêştirîn neteweperestên Kurd tê qebûlkirin; bo nimûne binerin Mehmet Can, ‘Xanê, Kürt ulusalcılığının babasıdır’ (24 Çile 1995, r.9)

75 Yılmaz Varol, ‘Kawa Kürt mü?’ (7 Tîr. 1994, r.10).

76 Danûstandina Aydın Dere ligel Cemşîd Bender (26 Îlon, 1995); Torî (9 Nîsan 1994); Selahaddin Mihutuli (17 Tîr. 1997).

77 Selahaddin Mihutuli, ‘Uygarlığın yaratıcıları; Aryalar’ (2 Nîsan 1994, r.8).

78 Danûstandina Aydın Dere ligel Cemşîd Bender (26 Îlon. 1995).

79 Selahaddin Mihutuli (2 Nîsan 1994).

80 Danûstandina Aydın Dere ligel Cemşîd Bender (26 Îlon 1995).

81 Selahaddin Mihutuli (2 Nîsan 1994).

82 Torî, ‘Kültürün bütünselliği’ (29 Adar 1996, r.9).

83 Çetin Arkaş, Burhan Babaoğlu, Nurset Benek, ‘Türk-Batı ilişkilerinin tarihsel temelleri’ (12 Îlon 1996, r.8).

84 Fatma Gönen, ‘Türk ordusunun dünü bugünü – Vahşet Osmanlı’dan miras’ (22 Çile 1996, r.8).

85 M. Ali Welat (7 Cotmeh. 1994).

86 Araştırma Servisi, ‘Tarihi kürt kişilikleri’ (19, 20, 21 û 22 Îlon 1995, r.8).

87 Ilhami Yazgan, ‘Kürt orijinli Islam Sultanı’ (17 Pûş. 1997, r.9).

88 Bo nimûne binerin Vorhoff, op. cit. (1995).

89 M. van Bruinessen, ‘Kurds, Turks and the Alevi Revival in Turkey’, Middle East Report 200 (1996 (b)), rr.7–10, li vir r.7.

90 P.A. Andrews (ed.), Ethnic Groups in the Republic of Turkey (Wiesbaden, 1989), r.57 and rr.116–17.

91 Ev nîqaş mijara xebatê Vorhoffî ye (1995).

92 Barkey û Fuller, Kurdish Question, r.67.

93 Hobsbawm and Ranger, Invention.

94 Vorhoff, Alevitische Identität, rr.111 ff.

95 Vorhoff, Alevitische Identität.

96 ‘Aslını inkar eden haramzadedir!’.

97 Cemşid Bender, Aleviliğen Tarihi Kökeni (7 Tebax. 1995, r.8).

98 Ev rêzeke mîstîk a Îslamî ye ku digîhê hetanî sedsalên dozdem û sêzdem û ta Haci Bektaş Veli. Ji ber têkilîya nêzîk a bi Elewîtîyê re, herdu têgeh îro gelek caran di şûna hev de tên bikaranîn.

99 Cemşid Bender, ‘Aleviliğin kökeni üzerine düşüncüler’ (beşa 3yem ya 3yê) (28 Îlon 1996, r.8).

100 Zîya Aydın, ‘Tarihini unutan bir halk, köledir’ (14 Adar 1996, r.9).

101 Haydar Demir, ‘Arap kültürünün boğduğu din: Zerdüştlük’ (1 Nîsan 1994, r.8).

102 Vorhoff, Alevitische Identität (1995), r.114.

103 Haydar Demir (1 Nîsan 1994).

104 Bo nimûne binerin S. Berger, M. Donovan, û K. Passmore (eds.), Writing National Histories (London/New York, 1999).

105 Vorhoff, Alevitische Identität (1995), r.79.

106 Vali, Kurdish Historical Writing, r.50.

107 Guardian, 10 Sib. 2000.

108 Bo nimûne M. Can Yüce (17 Hez. 1996) an Şerefxan Cizirî (18 Kanûn. 1994). 109 Ji bilî M. Can Yüce (17 û 18 Hez. 1996).

110 Sakallıoğlu, Historicising, r.14.

111 Vali, Kurdish Historical Writing, rr.31 ff.

* Dixwazim spasîya Ulrike Freitag, Ben Fortna, Jody Sarich û Edwin Towill bikim ku merhaleyên cuda yên pêşnûmaya vê gotarê şîrove kirin.

PÊNASEKIRINA NETEWEYÊ: Li Tirkîyê di 1990an de dîroknûsîya Kurdî

Vejandina Zimanê Îbranî

Nûrealîzma Îtalî, Yilmaz Guney û Hêvî

Tehlîlek di Peywenda Teorîya Monomîtê de li ser Çîroka “Meymûn Xanim û Mîrze Memûd”

Leave A Reply Cancel Reply

PÊNASEKIRINA NETEWEYÊ: Li Tirkîyê di 1990an de dîroknûsîya Kurdî

Related Posts

Vejandina Zimanê Îbranî

Nûrealîzma Îtalî, Yilmaz Guney û Hêvî

Tehlîlek di Peywenda Teorîya Monomîtê de li ser Çîroka “Meymûn Xanim û Mîrze Memûd”

Leave A Reply Cancel Reply