Analysis of Kurdish Historical Narratives

I've read and looked at this history so much— I mean, it's a farce.

What has been written for the Kurds is a political history from the

20th century, I mean most of it, by colonialist

institutions. What I am saying here is all backed by evidence;

even among Kurdish circles,

you see absurdities in the writings

of Kurdish historians as well.

No, the truth is, the Kurds did not write the beginning of this history.

Aside from Sharaf Khan, after Sharaf Khan, Europeans came and wrote the history

of the Middle East. How was this history written? Over the past hundred

years,

Europeans came to the region and drew a map, and in this map,

there are no Kurds. Their interests dictated it, so Kurds are not in it.

Because you are not on that map, European academic

institutions—I put all of this in a chapter— Kurdish history

was shaped later. What was written about the Kurds as

history

and sold to the world today, I mean, it's a farce.

So that this map they made, this

map of the Middle East they created could have an academic

excuse to support it. For example, the guy says, "Why do Kurds

claim to be Medes?"

Meaning he just mocks Kurds, even though there are hundreds and

thousands of proofs of Kurds being Medes.

Thus, because Kurds themselves lacked academic institutions,

our historians ended up using these as their sources.