|
Post by Salvador on Apr 26, 2005 12:43:55 GMT -5
I don't believe it's only a matter of race. Development of peoples also plays an important role. The Turks of the middle ages conquered many peoples because they were more cruel, primitive and thirsty. This point is not ment as an insult. It just is. Byzantines got soft after many centuries of prosperity. The same goes for numerous other examples.
Sovjet Union - Afghanistan USA-Vietnam
|
|
|
Post by Artemidoros on Apr 26, 2005 16:39:07 GMT -5
The europeans kicked our asses? ;D You are realy funny. The Ottomans began to lost battles after hunderts of years.. and you know why? Because they began to recrute Non-Turkic soldiers from Balkan While recruiting non-Turkic Anatolians led to victories of course. Shame on those Balkan cowards for kicking the Turks out of the Balkans. It was profoundly unfair ;D
|
|
|
Post by SensoUnico on Apr 27, 2005 9:09:30 GMT -5
You did not do a good job. The Turks are still in Europe, still have Constantinople and their legacy, muslims, are in the Balkans.
|
|
|
Post by uygurkazak1988 on May 1, 2005 8:10:59 GMT -5
The Arab nationalists here are funny. The Arabs were our servants and subjects for hunderds of years. The Seljuk Turks destroyed the Islamic Influence of the Arabs. The Turkic peoples pushed the Germanic peoples, so basically it is us that kicked ass. And The ottoman empire started crumbling out of inefficiency of rule( there was an oligarchy of military and religious personell that traditionally hindered sultans from carrying out reforms). Also a real turk is a turanid turk. turks from turkey arent the real original turks completely because of their admixture with greeks, slavs and arabs mainly. turkey shouldnt even be called turkey. it should be called oguziye or something, because it contains mainly oguz turks. I take pride in the image of turks as mericless warriors. Because we are and we never really cared two craps about what others thought, because they never though t anything good in the first place. A turk is a person that lives in Turan, and accepts the fact that one turk is worth the whole world and that military might and pride shape one's life, but that also there's a need to be tolerant of religions and peoples and believe in the "peace at home, peace in the world" ideal.
|
|
|
Post by Circe on May 2, 2005 3:46:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by uygurkazak1988 on May 2, 2005 8:55:28 GMT -5
yes they were but the oguz turks don't reflect all the turkic peoples. and these inhabitants of turkey are descendants of oguz turks because they mixed too much with dinarids, semites you name it, that there gene pool isn't predominantly turanid anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Circe on May 2, 2005 10:25:14 GMT -5
yes they were but the oguz turks don't reflect all the turkic peoples. and these inhabitants of turkey are descendants of oguz turks because they mixed too much with dinarids, semites you name it, that there gene pool isn't predominantly turanid anymore. I understand what you mean, but I don't think that the admixture and the fact that they are not Turanid anymore makes the descendants of Oghuz "lesser Turks"... genetic make-up is not the only thing that determines one's national identity, it's the language, religion, culture one was brought up in... Also, I don't see why the Oghuz should reflect ALL the Turkic peoples... I thought Turkey got its name after Turks who are only one of Turkic peoples... are you a pan-Turanist or pan-Turkist, or something?
|
|
|
Post by Meddish on May 2, 2005 19:46:07 GMT -5
The Arab nationalists here are funny. The Arabs were our servants and subjects for hunderds of years. The Seljuk Turks destroyed the Islamic Influence of the Arabs. The Turkic peoples pushed the Germanic peoples, so basically it is us that kicked ass. And The ottoman empire started crumbling out of inefficiency of rule( there was an oligarchy of military and religious personell that traditionally hindered sultans from carrying out reforms). Also a real turk is a turanid turk. turks from turkey arent the real original turks completely because of their admixture with greeks, slavs and arabs mainly. turkey shouldnt even be called turkey. it should be called oguziye or something, because it contains mainly oguz turks. First off it was WE who raised you from a people who milked goats and built your houses with dung to what became your people at your zenith in the Ottoman period.Also do not forget Turk that it is in OUR language that you use as you turn to pray 5 times a day it is OUR Koran that you value as the word of god and it is OUR nabi who you owe your obedieance!In fact it is our culture, learning,language,religion, food and history that you claim as your own.I agree with you though about a Turanid being a real Turk.However the best of the Ottoman period was not Turanid in fact it was mostly indo-european and semitic racially with a Turanid core.
|
|
|
Post by Meddish on May 2, 2005 19:55:05 GMT -5
Behavior is more important than the subrace!! If you don´t think like a Turk and act like a Turk, it does not profit even if you look like a hun And about the DNA : Every Turk has original Turkic (central asian) genes!! Maybe 80% or 50% or 30 or maybe 10% MAIN THING IS THAT HE HAS!!Ok well im at least 12.5% Turkish maternal grandmother from Istanbul so I must have maybe 1% Turkic(central asian genes) So does that make me a Turk???
|
|
|
Post by Batucan on May 2, 2005 23:58:39 GMT -5
So if I started speaking turkish and went to live in the country would I be seen as a Turk? Of course. Why not??? If you define yourself as Turkish and feel as a Turk you can be seen as a Turk. Blood relation is not important in Turkey. or is being Turkish only open to people born there with at least 4 turkish grandparents? Or is it as Mustafa Kemal said "Happy is he who calls himself a Turk" ? Officially and non-officially "being Turk" is related with feelings, cultural stuffs. It is not related with blood. Ok well im at least 12.5% Turkish maternal grandmother from Istanbul so I must have maybe 1% Turkic(central asian genes) So does that make me a Turk??? Well this opinion is due to lack of knowledge of history, and wrongly conducted genetic studies. (I do not trust most of them since they could be manipulated due to political purposes). The right study on today's Turks of Anatolia, Turks in Russia, Balkan Turks and Azeris should be based on the skeletons of Central Asia and Mongolia 2000 years ego. If you compare today's Central Asia with today's west Turks you can not make a RIGHT comparaison. Since, after Genghis Khan the population structure of Central Asia has changed enormously. Tunguzic/Mongoloid element became more dominant and Mongols have also heavily mixed with Chinese after their conquest of China. Here you are an example of a RIGHT sudy on the subject conducted by French scientists: " DNA from a 2,000-year-old burial site in Mongolia has revealed new information about the Xiongnu, a nomadic tribe that once reigned in Central Asia. Researchers in France studied DNA from more than 62 skeletons to reconstruct the history and social organization of a long-forgotten culture.
The researchers found that interbreeding between Europeans and Asians occurred much earlier than previously thought. They also found DNA sequences similar to those in present-day Turks, supporting the idea that some of the Turkish people originated in Mongolia.
This is the first time that a complete view of the social organization of an ancient cemetery based on genetic data was obtained,” says Christine Keyser-Tracqui of the Institut de Médecine Légale in Strasbourg, France. “It also helps us understand the history of contacts between the Asiatic and European populations more than 2,000 years ago.
Most scientists had previously thought that people from Asia mixed with Europeans sometime after the 13th century, when Ghengis Khan conquered most of Asia and parts of the Persian Empire. However, Keyser-Tracqui and her coworkers detected DNA sequences from Europeans in the Xiongnu skeletons.
“This suggests that interbreeding between the European and Asian people in this part of the world occurred before the rise of the Xiongnu culture,” says Keyser-Tracqui.
Skeletons from the most recent graves also contained DNA sequences similar to those in people from present-day Turkey. This supports other studies indicating that Turkish tribes originated at least in part in Mongolia at the end of the Xiongnu period. ”www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/07_03/ancient.shtm l
|
|
Ardashir
Junior Member
Life,war and nothing else!
Posts: 97
|
Post by Ardashir on May 3, 2005 2:48:01 GMT -5
Behavior is more important than the subrace!! If you don´t think like a Turk and act like a Turk, it does not profit even if you look like a hun And about the DNA : Every Turk has original Turkic (central asian) genes!! Maybe 80% or 50% or 30 or maybe 10% MAIN THING IS THAT HE HAS!!Only 9% of Anatolian Turks,inherited Central Asian genes!
|
|
|
Post by Batucan on May 3, 2005 4:39:47 GMT -5
Only 9% of Anatolian Turks,inherited Central Asian genes! It seems like you did not read what I have written. Which Central Asian population are you talking about?
|
|
|
Post by uygurkazak1988 on May 3, 2005 5:47:47 GMT -5
I understand what you mean, but I don't think that the admixture and the fact that they are not Turanid anymore makes the descendants of Oghuz "lesser Turks"... genetic make-up is not the only thing that determines one's national identity, it's the language, religion, culture one was brought up in... Also, I don't see why the Oghuz should reflect ALL the Turkic peoples... I thought Turkey got its name after Turks who are only one of Turkic peoples... are you a pan-Turanist or pan-Turkist, or something? I am pan-turkist and pan-turanist, although not in the usual sense because secularism is extremely important to the efficient rule of a country. Turkey shouldn't be called turkey. It sounds like a flightless bird eaten during Thanksgiving and New Year, first of all, and the Oguz Turks aren't the only Turks there are. There are Tatars, Kirghiz, Kazaks , Uzbeks, Bashkirs, Chuvashs, Sibirs, azeris you name it. Since the other nations are called by the name of the turkic tribes, then turkey should be called oguziye or oguzistan and not turkiye, since its population are descendants of the Oguz Turks and the Oguz Turks don't reflect all Turks.
|
|
|
Post by uygurkazak1988 on May 3, 2005 5:56:16 GMT -5
First off it was WE who raised you from a people who milked goats and built your houses with dung to what became your people at your zenith in the Ottoman period.Also do not forget Turk that it is in OUR language that you use as you turn to pray 5 times a day it is OUR Koran that you value as the word of god and it is OUR nabi who you owe your obedieance!In fact it is our culture, learning,language,religion, food and history that you claim as your own.I agree with you though about a Turanid being a real Turk.However the best of the Ottoman period was not Turanid in fact it was mostly indo-european and semitic racially with a Turanid core. Correction. We conquered you, slaughtered you and then imitated your culture. You'll be suprised that the number of people who pray in Turkish and not in Arabic. Arabic is not in anymore. I also state once again that the real turkic culture is that of nomadic horsemen/conquerers and so the settled down state of the Oguz Turks does not reflect the whole of the Turkic Culture. Ottomans becoming so much influenced by the Arabs is quite shameful. We as nomads would have been influenced by anyone. Why couldn't we be influenced by decent people. Arabs were civilized and everything, invented Algebra and made advances in Science, but they're "merte" now and so is Turkey for being close minded to Western Culture during the years of the Industrial Revolutions and so on. Long Live Turan!
|
|
|
Post by Meddish on May 3, 2005 6:10:08 GMT -5
RE:Correction. We conquered you, slaughtered you and then imitated your culture. You'll be suprised that the number of people who pray in Turkish and not in Arabic. Arabic is not in anymore. RE:I also state once again that the real turkic culture is that of nomadic horsemen/conquerers and so the settled down state of the Oguz Turks does not reflect the whole of the Turkic Culture. Ottomans becoming so much influenced by the Arabs is quite shameful. We as nomads would have been influenced by anyone. Why couldn't we be influenced by decent people. Arabs were civilized and everything, invented Algebra and made advances in Science, but they're "merte" now and so is Turkey for being close minded to Western Culture during the years of the Industrial Revolutions and so on. Long Live Turan! Point 1.) No we EMPOLYED you USED for our wars and AWARDED you LAND and then like the TREACHROUS lot that you ARE you took over the Calpihate.They may pray in Arabic since Ataturds reforms but if they do they arent really Muslims.The only reason we put up with you was becasue the Ottoman empire was not racist and Arabs were as much an Ottoman as a Turk in fact during that time no Turk called himself a Turk as that was an insult as it refered to the turkic goat lovers of the steppes.People would say Osmanli Christian or Muslim Jew etc etc. Point 2.) I agree the real "turks" are the Turanids of central asia however those people have done nothing since Osman the firsts day and so when I talk of Turks I talk of the races of modern Turkiye and not the barren wastes of mongolia.
|
|