Kurd Referendum

[FaxModem1]

CNN

Iraqi Kurds cast their votes in historic referendum
By Tamara Qiblawi, Nima Elbagir and Ghazi Balkiz, CNN
Updated 5:15 PM ET, Mon September 25, 2017
Iraqi Kurds casting votes on independence
Now Playing Iraqi Kurds casting...
Source: CNN

Iraqi Kurds casting votes on independence 02:35
Irbil, Iraq (CNN)Iraqi Kurds cast ballots in a controversial independence referendum Monday as tensions between Iraq's largest ethnic minority and the Iraqi government in Baghdad intensified.

Voting got underway at 8 a.m. (1 a.m. ET) and ended at 7 p.m. (12 p.m. ET). The first results should be known within 72 hours.
Kurdish election officials said 72% of eligible voters had cast their votes in the referendum.
The Kurdistan Regional Government, which administers a semi-autonomous region in northern Iraq, says the referendum will give it a mandate to achieve independence from Iraq.

"It is the beginning of a struggle today in which we hope after a talking process with Iraq, with our neighbors, friends and rivals, to be able to reach our nation's objectives, be able to fulfill the dream that grew with us since childhood," he told reporters in comments reported by Kurdish media outlet Rudaw. "Today marks the first phase in a long-term process."
He said the referendum shouldn't be viewed as a threat by neighboring countries.
"We just ask our nation a question: Do you want to live in an independent state, and today our nation will be answering that question. It is not that we are declaring independence tomorrow," he said.
The referendum was met with backlash from the international community. Domestically, the Iraqi parliament authorized Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi "to use force whenever is needed to maintain the unity and sovereignty of Iraq, said lawmaker Muwaffaq al-Rubaie.
Iraq should opt against use of force of coercion when possible, he said, but he reiterated his sentiment that the referendum "defied the establishment and the foundation" and violated the constitution.
Fears from regional powers
The vote comes as Kurdish forces play an instrumental role in the fight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. In helping to eliminate the terror group, Kurdish leaders appear to have expected the backing of the international community in pursuing nationalist aspirations.
But that support has not been forthcoming, with many world and regional powers opposing the vote and warning that it could further destabilize the Middle East.
Both Iran and Turkey have sizable Kurdish minorities and fear a vote for independence in Iraq might galvanize movements in their countries.
A boy rides a bike outside of polling station.

The United States, United Kingdom and the United Nations also warned the KRG against holding the referendum, citing fears that it could detract from the campaign against ISIS.
On Sunday, Iran closed its air space to the autonomous Kurdistan region after issuing several condemnations against the vote.
And as voters cast their ballots Monday, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan described the referendum as "illegal" and suggested Turkey could cut off oil exports from northern Iraq, depriving the KRG of a key source of revenue.

Kurds stand in line to vote at the Azadi neighborhood polling station in Irbil on Monday.
Northern Iraq "is not the living space of only one person or of one tribe, and this should be known," Erdogan said during remarks in Istanbul. "We consider the referendum, regardless of outcome, null and void. We say it is illegal."
Israel is the only country in the region that supports the vote, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu endorsing what he described as "the legitimate efforts of the Kurdish people to achieve their own state."
'This is a great day in my life'
On Monday, hundreds of voters lined up outside a polling station in Irbil, many wearing traditional Kurdish dress.
Hiro Mahmoud, 38, in Irbil on Monday.

"These clothes are a language of their own. It expresses who we are and what we want," said Hiro Mahmoud who was decked out in traditional dress.
Meanwhile, ex-Peshmerga fighter and former Kurdish MP Aso Karim Mohamad told CNN the vote was a celebration.
"To see the crowds and the parties standing shoulder-to-shoulder, this is a great day in my life," he said.
Aso Karim Mohamad, a former MP and ex-Peshmerga fighter, with his wife and daughter at a polling station in Irbil.

According to officials, people voted at 2,000 polling stations across the region.
Abdel Kader Dizaye, a 75-year-old farmer, described it as the "biggest and happiest day of my life."
"This is a dream of a lifetime," he added.

Six-year old Hedad holds three rocks, each representing "divorce" from Iraq.
But others were skeptical of the vote, claiming that an independent Kurdistan would turn non-Kurds into second-class citizens.
"The policies of the Kurds in Kirkuk is Saddam Hussein's policy," said Ali Mehdi of the Iraqi Turkmen Front, referring to the late Iraqi dictator who was routed from power after the US-led invasion in 2003.
"Kirkuk is very tense at the moment and the Kurds are pushing the downtrodden non-Kurdish elements to participate in the referendum," Mehdi said.
Those sentiments were echoed by Arab tribal leader Sheikh Burhan Mezher who showed CNN anonymous Facebook messages with threats to harm his children.
He said he didn't believe the threats were coming from officials but that tensions were running high and "more could be done."
CNN's Becky Anderson contributed to this report.

So, Kurdish independence, could it happen? What will this mean?

Discuss

[mr friendly guy]

Independence in that area, maybe. The whole of "kurdistan," which includes parts of Iran and Turkey. Not likely.

[Simon_Jester]

As to "the whole of Kurdistan," yeah that is very unlikely. On the other hand, in a real sense Kurdistan already de facto exists as a semi-independent polity in Syrian/Iraqi territory, thanks to the power vacuum created by ISIL and the need of the Kurds to defend themselves aginst ISIL.

I wonder if the Kurds feel more push towards independence because they've had to fight so hard to stop ISIL, with minimal help from the Iraqi government, which I gather has been rather less than 100% effective against ISIL itself? It's like, the new post-Hussein government may not be actively oppressing them, but if it's useless to them and if they've had to prove to their own satisfaction an ability to defend themselves without anyone else's help... That's the kind of thing that boosts the appeal of regional secession.

If an Iraq-based Kurdistan were created, I wonder if we might see the Turks trying to expel Kurds into it. I wouldn't be surprised.

[K. A. Pital]

If an Iraq-based Kurdistan were created, I wonder if we might see the Turks trying to expel Kurds into it. I wouldn't be surprised.

And risk having armed insurrectionists plot against you from the territory of a neighboring nation, which you can't just invade easily because there's a power vacuum, unlike Northern Syria? Not a very sound strategy for Turkey, although it may be tried.

[Simon_Jester]

If an independent Kurdistan forms via secession from Iraq, the Turks may not have a choice; their options are fight a guerilla war forever, expel the Kurds from Turkish territory, or cede the relevant land to Kurdistan.

For this very reason, the Turks will no doubt oppose formation of an Iraq-derived Kurdistan.

[LadyTevar]

One should remember history:
Iraq, Iran, and Syria were created by the British Colonial System. The borderlines were drawn up by what worked for the British Government, not what tribe/sect lived where. All three countries, amongst others, are simply artifacts of British Rule.

Had the Brits actually paid attention to sect and tribe, then there'd already be a Kurdistan.

[K. A. Pital]

And with overwhelming support of independence it ends.

Let us see if they follow up their claims with actions. I am positive they can. I mean, Iraq could barely deal with ISIS, as it was.

[The Romulan Republic]

One should remember history:
Iraq, Iran, and Syria were created by the British Colonial System. The borderlines were drawn up by what worked for the British Government, not what tribe/sect lived where. All three countries, amongst others, are simply artifacts of British Rule.

Had the Brits actually paid attention to sect and tribe, then there'd already be a Kurdistan.

I think its a damn shame that people still think that borders should be drawn based on the principle of racial/ethnic separatism, although I suppose it might be preferable to the "constant civil war" status quo in certain places.

Or just lead to war between ethnic nation states, rather than war inside multi-ethnic states.

[Crazedwraith]

One should remember history:
Iraq, Iran, and Syria were created by the British Colonial System. The borderlines were drawn up by what worked for the British Government, not what tribe/sect lived where. All three countries, amongst others, are simply artifacts of British Rule.

Had the Brits actually paid attention to sect and tribe, then there'd already be a Kurdistan.

The Brits did pay attention iirc. Divide and conquer and all that.

[houser2112]

I think its a damn shame that people still think that borders should be drawn based on the principle of racial/ethnic separatism, although I suppose it might be preferable to the "constant civil war" status quo in certain places.

Or just lead to war between ethnic nation states, rather than war inside multi-ethnic states.

I think war between states is preferable to civil war or internal oppression. At least with interstate war, it's more obvious when there's strife. When everything happens inside the border, it's easier to keep the oppression on the down low.

[The Romulan Republic]

I suppose that might be a valid argument, in some situations at least.

[Alyrium Denryle]

One should remember history:
Iraq, Iran, and Syria were created by the British Colonial System. The borderlines were drawn up by what worked for the British Government, not what tribe/sect lived where. All three countries, amongst others, are simply artifacts of British Rule.

Had the Brits actually paid attention to sect and tribe, then there'd already be a Kurdistan.

I think its a damn shame that people still think that borders should be drawn based on the principle of racial/ethnic separatism, although I suppose it might be preferable to the "constant civil war" status quo in certain places.

Or just lead to war between ethnic nation states, rather than war inside multi-ethnic states.

You say that because you live in a civic-nationalist state. Most states are ethnic nation-states. Shared language, shared values, shared history; they are all derived from those ethnic and cultural identities rather than from the founding of the state itself.

That is why you get those civil wars. The minority ethnicity in a ethnic nation-state tends to get shat upon, either intentionally due to...tumultuous histories, or unintentionally just because their cultural values are not reflected in the laws of the state in which they live.

Civic nation states get around this by having a commonly-accessible identity that others can adopt that is more ideological than anything else. By adopting our shared mythology as one's own it is possible to become American, Canadian, British (to a lesser extent), or Australian. One cannot do that and become a Kurd.

[The Romulan Republic]

One should remember history:
Iraq, Iran, and Syria were created by the British Colonial System. The borderlines were drawn up by what worked for the British Government, not what tribe/sect lived where. All three countries, amongst others, are simply artifacts of British Rule.

Had the Brits actually paid attention to sect and tribe, then there'd already be a Kurdistan.

I think its a damn shame that people still think that borders should be drawn based on the principle of racial/ethnic separatism, although I suppose it might be preferable to the "constant civil war" status quo in certain places.

Or just lead to war between ethnic nation states, rather than war inside multi-ethnic states.

You say that because you live in a civic-nationalist state. Most states are ethnic nation-states. Shared language, shared values, shared history; they are all derived from those ethnic and cultural identities rather than from the founding of the state itself.

That is why you get those civil wars. The minority ethnicity in a ethnic nation-state tends to get shat upon, either intentionally due to...tumultuous histories, or unintentionally just because their cultural values are not reflected in the laws of the state in which they live.

I said its shame. I have no illusions about the fact that it is nonetheless a reality in many countries.

That said, I have a lot of doubts about weather it is possible to maintain anything remotely resembling an ethnically-homogenous state in a globalized world without adopting despotic policies to do so.

I think that, barring a collapse of civilization, its an idea who's time has passed. It'll just be a few decades/centuries before that transition is complete. But I could be wrong- only fools think they can predict the future on that scale with any confidence, as a rule.

After all, even in the US and Canada, my countries, that sense of shared identity is more tentative than one might think. The US is ridiculously polarized (often over race), and even Canada has its Quebecois separatist movement.

Civic nation states get around this by having a commonly-accessible identity that others can adopt that is more ideological than anything else. By adopting our shared mythology as one's own it is possible to become American, Canadian, British (to a lesser extent), or Australian. One cannot do that and become a Kurd.

One cannot become a Kurd, no. But I do wonder why a country like Iraq has not been able to forge a shared identity even after decades of shared (admittedly often horrific) experiences as a single nation, and what it would take for a country that doesn't have that shared sense of identity to do so.

[AniThyng]

Would you consider Japan and south Korea to be "despotic" states? I think alyrium hit the nail on the head with regards to the difference between a country like the US or Canada( American culture is certainly not native culture), and a country like Japan or even China, which has ethnic minorities who are forced to bend to the prevailing dominant culture.

And what happens when the "minority" culture refuses to assimilate to the majority culture, and the majority culture refuses to lose control of the national culture and any symbiosis culture? On one extreme, you have Iraq, which as you said, has no unifying identity. On the other hand you have countries like Malaysia, trapped in a balancing act between a majority and a minority that will not truly assimilate. And you have Singapore, who has tried to force a Singaporean identity that does not alienate anyone not Chinese.

[The Romulan Republic]

Would you consider Japan and south Korea to be "despotic" states?

Not generally, no. But I think that as more and more time passes in an increasingly globalized world, its going to be harder and harder to maintain that sort of country without apartheid-type laws. And in the Western world, I think the emergence of the "Alt. Right" is, in no small part, a backlash against that reality.

But I admit that I have no way to prove that hypothesis. Its simply speculative.

I think alyrium hit the nail on the head with regards to the difference between a country like the US or Canada( American culture is certainly not native culture), and a country like Japan or even China, which has ethnic minorities who are forced to bend to the prevailing dominant culture.

And what happens when the "minority" culture refuses to assimilate to the majority culture, and the majority culture refuses to lose control of the national culture and any symbiosis culture? On one extreme, you have Iraq, which as you said, has no unifying identity. On the other hand you have countries like Malaysia, trapped in a balancing act between a majority and a minority that will not truly assimilate. And you have Singapore, who has tried to force a Singaporean identity that does not alienate anyone not Chinese.

Yeah, there's no easy solution when the minority decides they're done with conforming. Though the Singaporean approach sounds like the least shitty of the options you described (though I'm sure it also has its drawbacks).

I think that finding an answer to this problem, of how to unify a diverse populace (with all the advantages that brings) without resorting to undue oppression, is arguably the most important social problem facing governments in many countries today.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I said its shame. I have no illusions about the fact that it is nonetheless a reality in many countries.

The consequences can sometimes be a shame when it leads to civil wars, but why is their existence a shame?

That said, I have a lot of doubts about weather it is possible to maintain anything remotely resembling an ethnically-homogenous state in a globalized world without adopting despotic policies to do so.

Homogeneous? No. No one really tries to be homogeneous. The problem comes when people aren't there by choice. Immigrants are one thing, they can assimilate well enough over time if they are accepted into the civic body (I can move to Germany and Become German enough that I don't rankle.
I couldn't do that in... say... Japan. Their culture is more insular.), and they chose to be there. But you get problems when you have two ethnic-nationalisms within the same state. It gets worse if they are at odds within one another.

I.E. It becomes a problem when you have two groups of people within the same borders who have historically resided within two distinct plots of land within the same border, but where one has political control and the other has none.

When you have a situation like the Kurds do, where they are definitely A People who have occupied a given space for centuries, who, because of the way their borders are drawn, are split between three other ethnic nation states and have no right to self-govern according to their own values. Or even, in Turkey, to speak their native language in public.

One cannot become a Kurd, no. But I do wonder why a country like Iraq has not been able to forge a shared identity even after decades of shared (admittedly often horrific) experiences as a single nation, and what it would take for a country that doesn't have that shared sense of identity to do so.

... Nation? What nation? Iraq has been a state, NEVER a nation. It has nations within it, but Iraq has never been a nation.

[The Romulan Republic]

The consequences can sometimes be a shame when it leads to civil wars, but why is their existence a shame?

Because the concept of a nation built around a single ethnicity and ethnic culture, for that ethnicity's benefit and to the exclusion of others, is an inherently racist and oppressive concept?

Homogeneous? No. No one really tries to be homogeneous. The problem comes when people aren't there by choice. Immigrants are one thing, they can assimilate well enough over time if they are accepted into the civic body, and they chose to be there. But you get problems when you have two ethnic-nationalisms within the same state.

I.E. when you have two groups of people within the same borders who have historically resided within two distinct plots of land within the same border, but where one has political control and the other has none.

Well, I can certainly sympathize with any ethnic group who is being subjugated by another, dominant ethnic group. When I advocate for multi-ethnic states, I am certainly not advocating one ethnicity holding all the power over other ethnic groups.

When you have a situation like the Kurds do, where they are definitely A People who have occupied a given space for centuries, who, because of the way their borders are drawn, are split between three other ethnic nation states and have no right to self-govern according to their own values. Or even, in Turkey, to speak their native language in public.

The ideal outcome, to me, would be for the Kurds to gain greater rights and representation within the states to which they currently belong.

Failing that, though (and it doesn't seem likely in the foreseeable future, I'll admit), I'm certainly more sympathetic to their separatists than I am to, say, American or Canadian separatists, even if its in a "lesser evil" kind of way.

... Nation? What nation? Iraq has been a state, NEVER a nation. It has nations within it, but Iraq has never been a nation.

You are correct, I suppose. People so frequently use the terms "country", "state", and "nation" interchangeably that I made the error of doing so, despite knowing better. My apologies.

Anyway, I'm not really trying to argue against Kurdish independence. I'm basically just saying "It sucks that its this way", though I'm willing to keep an open mind on Kurdish independence being the least shitty practical option for the time being.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Because the concept of a nation built around a single ethnicity and ethnic culture, for that ethnicity's benefit and to the exclusion of others, is an inherently racist and oppressive concept?

No, it really isn't. France is the place where French people live. They developed their Nationhood more or less organically over the course of centuries in that spot. How is it racist or oppressive for the people who live in a place to be the deciding factor in how that place is run? Why is it inherently racist or oppressive for the people who live in a place to WANT that to be the case?

It is no different from The United States of America being the place where Americans live. The only difference is Americans trickled in from various places over the course of a couple hundred years from various ethnicities and formed a common identity from adopted values and history rather than one based on where they were born, and it is easier to do that with American nationalism than French, because that shared history is shorter and those shared values are an ideology one can adopt rather than having to be raised in to really get.

[The Romulan Republic]

Building a nation that puts one ethnicity over others isn't a racist concept?

And from what I've heard... yeah, there's quite a lot of racism in France. For God's sake, Marine La Penn was their Presidential runner-up.

And that's the problem. When you say "this country is for this ethnicity and their culture", and you have other people living their, those other people get pushed to the bottom. And the only way not to have other people living their is to deport them/bar them from entering. Which means anti-immigrant xenophobia, draconian border security, possibly even marrying foreigners/minorities being discouraged. Or else it breaks down over time, because people move around and intermingle, especially in a globalized world.

And seriously, "America is the place where Americans live" has been used to justify a lot of "Keep out them immigrants" bullshit.

Yeah, I'm aware that I'm probably out of step with the majority of the human race on this point, but I don't see any good ultimately coming of promoting the ethnic nationstate model.

I'm also deeply skeptical of the argument that one must be raised from childhood with French values in order to adopt them, but I'm willing to listen if you want to elaborate on that.

[AniThyng]

I think that finding an answer to this problem, of how to unify a diverse populace (with all the advantages that brings) without resorting to undue oppression, is arguably the most important social problem facing governments in many countries today.

True, don't disagree with that. Personally, I think in some cases, the best way is to freely allow for people to be able to freely go to places where there is both opportunity and a value system that works for them. E.g. if religious fundamentalism is important to you, then you go to a place that embraces fundamentalism, and if liberalism is more important, then you go there.

This breaks down horribly partly because (a) some people prefer to change the place they are in instead, leading to friction (b) what if you drag your family along and they don't wanna and so on.

I get you really believe diversity is a virtue, and in some ways it is, but in other cases it genuinely leads to conflict, because there are some things you simply can't just force a society/culture to compromise on.

I guess what I'm saying it's too bad we can't just live our lives the way we choose internet forums or fandoms or whatever. Like, if I didn't like the atmosphere here in SDN, i'd just go find some other forum. Or whatever. But it's nowhere near as trivial or easy to do IRL. Even if you advocate for free movement of people, even SDN reserves the right to outright ban troublemakers for some reason...

Building a nation that puts one ethnicity over others isn't a racist concept?

And from what I've heard... yeah, there's quite a lot of racism in France. For God's sake, Marine La Penn was their Presidential runner-up.

And that's the problem. When you say "this country is for this ethnicity and their culture", and you have other people living their, those other people get pushed to the bottom. And the only way not to have other people living their is to deport them/bar them from entering. Which means anti-immigrant xenophobia, draconian border security, possibly even marrying foreigners/minorities being discouraged. Or else it breaks down over time, because people move around and intermingle, especially in a globalized world.

And seriously, "America is the place where Americans live" has been used to justify a lot of "Keep out them immigrants" bullshit.

Yeah, I'm aware that I'm probably out of step with the majority of the human race on this point, but I don't see any good ultimately coming of promoting the ethnic nationstate model.

I'm also deeply skeptical of the argument that one must be raised from childhood with French values in order to adopt them, but I'm willing to listen if you want to elaborate on that.

I think there's a certain kind of irony that globalization has both managed to bring people closer together and yet also make them more aware of their differences. Japan and China have been "open" to each other for trade and tourism for decades now, but the antipathy and outright hatred seems to have only gotten worse, and you can see this even with people who might actually like tourism and exported pop culture.

[LaCroix]

France is not an ethnic, but a cultural nation state. Like most states are. You can learn to be French. There is a bit of a bigger hurdle if you are not Caucasian or Christian, but unless you are a very religious Muslim (or something else that is visible from afar by specific clothes/behaviour), you can adapt to their way of life and blend in.

Japan, or for example, is an ethnic nation state. You need to be Japanese to be a full member, for no matter how long you live there, if you are Chinese/Caucasian/whatever, people will always see that you are not really a member of the club. Even intermarriage can only overcome this after generations.

Israel is a religious nation state - Jews are top. Iran is the same, but with Muslims.

The USA is for rich, white Caucasians speaking English. All others are second class citizens.

Canada is pretty much the ONLY nation that lets itself be dominated by a minority (dual language everywhere, but not in Quebec). But here we have the same thing, reversed. I got publicy yelled at by a random Quebequois in Toronto airport for stating in a conversation with a travel mate that while I speak a lot of languages, I don't speek French, because you don't really need it (due to most french speaking nations also speaking English). The guy yelled at me for daring to say that French is not important, and that he won't find any place in Quebec that would speak English.

So actually, you have a very racist ethnic/cultural nation in the Canadian union, which is trying it's best to suppress the other provinces (by forcing them to do everything official bilingual, while not using English as official language, themselves.)

[The Romulan Republic]

I think that finding an answer to this problem, of how to unify a diverse populace (with all the advantages that brings) without resorting to undue oppression, is arguably the most important social problem facing governments in many countries today.

True, don't disagree with that. Personally, I think in some cases, the best way is to freely allow for people to be able to freely go to places where there is both opportunity and a value system that works for them. E.g. if religious fundamentalism is important to you, then you go to a place that embraces fundamentalism, and if liberalism is more important, then you go there.

So, free immigration?

I agree with that, but try selling it to the ethnic nationalists. Its literally the opposite of their world view.

This breaks down horribly partly because (a) some people prefer to change the place they are in instead, leading to friction (b) what if you drag your family along and they don't wanna and so on.

That too.

I get you really believe diversity is a virtue, and in some ways it is, but in other cases it genuinely leads to conflict, because there are some things you simply can't just force a society/culture to compromise on.

I guess what I'm saying it's too bad we can't just live our lives the way we choose internet forums or fandoms or whatever. Like, if I didn't like the atmosphere here in SDN, i'd just go find some other forum. Or whatever. But it's nowhere near as trivial or easy to do IRL. Even if you advocate for free movement of people, even SDN reserves the right to outright ban troublemakers for some reason...

Heh, yeah.

I think that diversity poses difficulties, but that that isn't a reason to abandon the ideal. Because if you can get it to work, the gains outweigh the disadvantages, and in any case, the alternatives are always, or nearly always, worse.

I think there's a certain kind of irony that globalization has both managed to bring people closer together and yet also make them more aware of their differences. Japan and China have been "open" to each other for trade and tourism for decades now, but the antipathy and outright hatred seems to have only gotten worse, and you can see this even with people who might actually like tourism and exported pop culture.

Of course, China and Japan are starting from a particularly bad history- that being Japan's invasion/occupation/mass rape of China in WW2, which occurred within living memory, and for which you still have Japanese politicians refusing to take responsibility for in modern times.

[Simon_Jester]

I think what it comes down to is that people like to form recognizable cultures. Networks of interpersonal ties, special rules of interaction, shared sense of history that informs how they react to external events, and so on. Cultures form constantly, spontaneously, even fractally. And every budding culture wants to carve out physical or intellectual "space" in which it can play by its own rules. For cultures that form among the ethnicity of a certain region, that translates as the desire to form one's own nation-state. Different cultures trying to coexist in the same physical territory create inevitable friction, because even if neither side actually hates the other, there's still conflict created by different groups with different internal rulesets and different opinions about their own shared history.

Western-style liberal democracy, individual rights, and multiculturalism treat the symptoms here. They pour a massive layer of tolerance over all this stuff, and they tend to cause extremists of all the disparate cultures to find themselves outcompeted by 'modern ways.' Everyone starts to flow together a bit- metaphorically speaking, your people may drink apple cider and mine may drink yak milk, but when we all start drinking Coca-Cola we find a bit more common ground. Thus, "modernity" can do a great deal to mute these issues and make them less severe. But they're still around, under the surface.

And in places where people have a strong sense of national-cultural identity, and NOT a strong sense that everyone who lives within their national borders is just as deserving a person as themselves... well, things erupt back out of the surface and reveal themselves.

[mr friendly guy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3XrrbkPk1I

VICE has some interesting things on the referendum. Including the fact the Kurds are claiming areas like Kirkuk which the Iraqi troops abandoned to ISIS and the Kurds took. Kirkuk is quite ethnically diverse and I guess there are questions about how the Kurds will deal with such an area given the history of sectarian violence in that region, and also whether the "traditional" land of the Kurds extend to that area.

[Thanas]

This is about securing as much oil and bargaining chips as posssible, something the kurds have not been shy about proclaiming to German media.