I am half-Turkish and half-Kurdish. I have a few questions for Turks and Kurds.

Hey as someone who is part Kurdish as well:

I think it's important to seperate the concept of a homeland with the concept of ethno-nationalism. Kurdistan as viewed by many Kurds is their homeland, where their people are from and where their culture and history flourishes. This is the case for almost any ethnic group, whether it's Armenians, Assyrians, Arabs, Russians, Italians, etc. Homelands can overlap. The issue arises when people take this concept and turn it into nation-states or ethno-states and we draw borders and say that this only belongs to a certain group. That is ethno-nationalism. When leftist Kurds talk about Kurdistan, they don't generally mean a Kurdish nation-state. That goes against Öcalan's ideology of democratic confederalism. Kurds and other minorities like Armenians and Assyrians have had their culture actively be destroyed for centuries, it's not a surprise they will hold on to it as much as possible.

"would you be in favour of a united "Turkey" as a nation for all?" Much in the same way that the US is currently sold as a a nation for all (mostly), for people of all religions and ethnicities? Would you be in favour of a Turkey with a strict set of Constitutional rules for equity-based politics? Whether Kurd or Turkish, that the rule of law truly protects you?

No. Why? Because Turkey is ethno-nationalist in it's very foundation, no matter how much it tries to pretend it's not. We can see this in the actions of Kemalists against the non-Turkish minorities to laws that are still in place. (Such as the surname law they copied from fascist Italy) Turkey is meant a country for Turks, not anyone else. We see this time on time again, even Gezi park is built on a demolished Armenian cemetary (the gravestones were used to build paths) To truly achieve equality you would need to get rid of that system entirely

The obvious, instinctive answer is "yes,", yet a lot of Kurdish separatist movements (and a lot of posts of music and literature in this subreddit) has seemed to me as "separatist on a purely ethno-centric basis." One which I find synonymous to white ethno-nationalism in the US, and Aryan ethno-nationalism in Nazi Germany.

Most people in this sub aren't necessarily seperatist, Öcalan is against a Kurdish nation-state as it would cause the same problems that a Turkish nation-state would. (A lot of actual Kurdish nationalists don't like him much because of that) He is against the idea of nation-states in general in favour of a bottom-up democratic system. Kurdish seperatism is only a last resort temporary solution for him if the other options are not available. I suggest you read some of the stuff he wrote since it would interest you a lot and answer some of the questions you have.

To clarify for a second time; I am fully aware of the blatant policing of almost any Kurdish thought in the current Turkish regime (which I oppose entirely. Erdogan must go. As must any political leader in favour of treating Kurds any differently than anyone else).

The thing is, Erdogan is a bad president for Turks, for other minorities, every president Turkey ever had was despicable. It won't end with Erdogan going away. Treating everyone as Turks won't fix things either when you had your culture destroyed for decades

"Should we perhaps push the idea of Kurdistan as something which isn't purely ethno-centric?"

Well, that is literally what r/rojava is. Why do you think it's only unofficially referred to as rojava? The official name is AANES (autonomous administration of north and east syria) because this is about more than Kurds, it's a coalition of Arabs, Assyrians, Armenians, Turkmens, Kurds and Yezidi's. It's not about Kurdish nationalism. For Kurdish nationalism go to r/kurdistan which is a more general sub with both leftwingers and rightwingers

/r/rojava Thread