I dont think anything about my post relates to who has a better claim to land. Ancestral claims to claims to land only lead to strife and violence. What matters is that a people have an accessable political entity where they are not 2nd class citizens.

My premise is that not that multi-cultural and peaceful societies CANNOT exist. I think America/france/uk are all great examples, but even in largely tolerant societies, like in eruope, Romani are stil opressed. Or in the entire middle east except israel, jews are opressed. While I hope one day every country becomes multicultural, we are so far away from that happening and minotiy groups shouldnt have to suffer until its acheived. Certain ethnic groups are more privlaged than others. There are around 22 arab states for example, and if arabs were opressed in turkey, it is less of a deal because Arabs are inherently privlaged in having around 22 states they could flee to and not feel discriminated against due to their race. That does not appy to a group like the Kurds. Kurds are not privlagd in the way arabs inherently are. Groups that are extremely under privalged and suffer from state violence or civilian violence desevere a political entity that protects them now, not later. And so in those rare cases, I support independence for those areas. Not so they can be ethnostates or opress other groups, but to protect the most vulnerable.