ardeshir.reshwanzade

Among the arguments against participating in umbrella identities of neighboring people, the one that strikes me most is the one of a part of the Kurdish society that speaks against being a part of the Iranian culture sphere. Considering that this part sees the lesser evil in taking part in Turkish (neo-Ottoman) &, less so, Arab (predominantly Jaziric Sunni) societies and identities, their reaction against a proposal of returning to their own cultural Iranian cradle seems to bear a deep seated self-hatred. Maybe it can be compared to the more precarious identity of Pakistanis, who try to abolish any bridge to the Indian culture. But among Kurds, it is even more confusing, since the very first modern nationalists of the Kurds built their identity on Iranian heritage (compare to the nationalist ideologues of Pakistan, who argued for a mixed identity of "Aryan" and Semitic). On the Kurdish side, you rather had the argument that the very Kurds are the very bearers of Irano-Aryan cultural traits & heritage. Similar to the discussion you hear between Tajiks & Iranian nowadays, the first Kurdish nationalists engaged in that very discussion, when building their national identity. So I ask myself, where that specific part of Kurdish, self-proclaimed nationalists, that only foster a tribalistic, traditionalistic national memory, bases their very national consciousness on - that consciousness they owe to the first Kurdish nationalists that were proud of their Iranian heritage, who proclaimed the existence of Iranian fire temples on their lands, and who saw Rustam & Bahram of their own kind.