|
Post by zemelmete on Nov 12, 2005 10:10:48 GMT -5
What is funny - Caucasus geographycally is outside Europe, but europeans anthropologically are called caucasians!
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Nov 20, 2005 17:28:48 GMT -5
Armenia is just over the line, in geographical Asia--but filled with Armenians, who are 100% Caucasoid. As for Cyprus . . . It's an island in the Mediterranean. The Cypriots, too, are Greek. (The Myceneans arrived in Cyprus in 1600 B.C.) How in the world would you not consider Greeks in the Mediterranean to be European? Sure they're pretty close to Turkey, but Turkey used to be called Anatolia--and was the home of Greek city states like Ephesus, Troy, etc. Hell, the term "Ionian Greek" comes from Ionia--the west coast of Anatolia. "Turks" are modern arrivals. The Greeks were there since the Stone Age. So just because Central Asians showed up, magically, all the Greeks that pre-dated them somehow lose their Western status??? That's just retarded. Hell! England's an island that doesn't geographically touch Europe, either. What moron would ask if they're non-white? Following the reasoning of this thread: Since Arabs are moving to France and France is off the coast of an island called England, then, ipso fact, the question must be raised: Is England a part of Europe or a part of Saudi Arabia?
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Nov 20, 2005 17:45:49 GMT -5
The Turks might have up to 9% non-caucasoid DNA. You don' t know what you're talking about
|
|
|
Post by tonynatuzzi on Nov 20, 2005 18:02:20 GMT -5
Yeah but if you only have 9% non Caucasoid DNA your still not gonna resemble a Non Caucasoid.Some studues say Italians have 2% Negro ancestry but how many Italians have you seen that resemble Serena Williams and Michael Jordan thats right none because 2% African blood is not enough to make you actually resemble an African.
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Nov 20, 2005 18:45:16 GMT -5
Will/Seizure, Turks did INDEED come from Central Asia (where, not coincidentally, a country called Turkmenistan exists). Does this mean that all alleged Turks are "Turkish"? Of course not. One article I read said that actual Turks represent something like 5% of Turkey. The rest are Indo-European groups that are aboriginal to the peninsula: Armenians, Kurds, Greeks (and Chechyns who arrived in the Middle Ages when Russia took their country), etc. Other articles contest the 5% figure. One genetic study posted on Dodona claimed that modern Turks are about 30% Central Asian, 70% Indo-European. Regardless--- It's rather impolite of you to scream out "You don't know what you're talking about" when I mentioned Cyprus and its geographical proximity to Turkey. I in no way, shape or form broached the topic of Central Asian admixture in modern Turks. I merely railed against the stupidity of thinking that because some people in Turkey are of Central Asian extraction that that makes all other people in Anatolia non-Indo-European. I stand by that statement. I know you have Turkish ancestry, but this thread should really not have elicited the reaction you gave. (Especially since the subject of percetages of non-Indo-European dna in Turks was never even mentioned.) Please. If you're going to lash out with a rude remark next time, limit yourself to comments that were actually made. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by tonynatuzzi on Nov 20, 2005 18:51:29 GMT -5
Funny thing is there's actually a Greek restaurant in my neighborhood thats actually owned by Turks.If I was Greek that would certainly piss me off alot.
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Nov 20, 2005 19:03:58 GMT -5
Will/Seizure, Turks did INDEED come from Central Asia (where, not coincidentally, a country called Turkmenistan exists). Does this mean that all alleged Turks are "Turkish"? Of course not. One article I read said that actual Turks represent something like 5% of Turkey. The rest are Indo-European groups that are aboriginal to the peninsula: Armenians, Kurds, Greeks (and Chechyns who arrived in the Middle Ages when Russia took their country), etc. Other articles contest the 5% figure. One genetic study posted on Dodona claimed that modern Turks are about 30% Central Asian, 70% Indo-European. Regardless--- It's rather impolite of you to scream out "You don't know what you're talking about" when I mentioned Cyprus and its geographical proximity to Turkey. I in no way, shape or form broached the topic of Central Asian admixture in modern Turks. I merely railed against the stupidity of thinking that because some people in Turkey are of Central Asian extraction that that makes all other people in Anatolia non-Indo-European. I stand by that statement. I know you have Turkish ancestry, but this thread should really not have elicited the reaction you gave. (Especially since the subject of percetages of non-Indo-European dna in Turks was never even mentioned.) Please. If you're going to lash out with a rude remark next time, limit yourself to comments that were actually made. Thanks. For the last time, I don't know if I have Turkish ancestry. And again, Anatolian Turks, as a NATIONAL *AVERAGE* have 8-9% non-caucasoid DNA. That's mongoloid and negroid and more or less spread around the area. I made no remark as to whether it's central Asian, mongoloid, or anything before. I repeat, you don't know what you're talking about. How could they possibly represent Indo-European groups if they have almost a tenth non-Caucasoid ancestry?
|
|
|
Post by tonynatuzzi on Nov 20, 2005 19:13:37 GMT -5
Hey Seizure according to many Nords and Afrocentrics your not pure Caucasoid either you have Black Moor genes in your Spanish family tree.
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Nov 20, 2005 19:18:06 GMT -5
Oh snaps! Seriously!
Could ask you why you have to keep mentioning this? Are you f*cking stalking me or something? This is the third, fourth, or fifth time for sure that you've told me I can't be WN.
Am I seriously supposed to give a shit?
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Nov 20, 2005 19:33:23 GMT -5
You keep telling me I can't be WN because of all that Iranian blood I got FOR NO REASON TOTALLY OUT OF CONTEXT, you keep mentioning WN, you keep calling people Beaners, rednecks, etc. You're boring. You're lame, and frankly, you're annoying as f*ck. I don't like you. And I wish you'd stop responding to my posts. I'm real sorry I ever responded to any of yours. I'm sorry if I ever offended you, or called you some name, or did anything else, but please, don't talk to me ever again.
BYE!
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Nov 20, 2005 20:06:34 GMT -5
Will, Please underline the sentence that shows "I don't know what I'm talking about" in my initial post about Cyprus. I was talking about Myceneans in Cyprus and you bust out with dna percentages about Turks--which was totally irrelevant to what I was saying. So please enlighten me. If I'm to be insulted, I'd like to know what I'm being insulted about. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Nov 20, 2005 20:11:13 GMT -5
4/10 of the island is Turkish, and 1/5 of the population and growing. The English/French/Arabian analogy doesn't work. I'ts not like England has a 20% French mulatto population.
|
|
|
Post by ohes on Nov 20, 2005 20:27:15 GMT -5
We were talking about GEOGRAPHY here, not about if they are "WHITE ARYANS", where did all of this come from?
|
|
|
Post by asdf on Nov 20, 2005 20:32:49 GMT -5
Well, geographically the idea of "Europe" is debatable. I don't even believe it's on its own major plate. As for islands that may or may not be on that plate, they're not part of the continent, so no, they're not part of Europe. Like Human2 said, why don't we make an arbitary "East Asian" continent, because they're by civilization set apart.
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Nov 20, 2005 22:20:29 GMT -5
Will, See? --You lash out and insult people sometimes and then you place yourself in a bad position. Here's why: You took exception with me calling Cyprus a "Greek island," and pointing out that Turks are newcomers to the region. 1) Turks are newcomers to the region; the Greeks, by contrast, can be dated on the island back to 1600 B.C. 2) You incorrectly stated that Turkish Cypriots make up 4/10ths of the island. According to Wikipedia, "Historically, Greek and Turkish (the Cypriot dialects) were largely evenly distributed throughout the island, although Greek-speakers were in a substantial majority (82%)." So 18% are Turks. Not 40%, as you stated. The CIA World Factbook (found at http://www.cia.gov) lists Cyprus's demographics at roughly the same as Wikipedia, and I quote: "Greek 77%, Turkish 18%, other 5% (2001)".
So next time you feel inclined to rudely post insulting accusations about "people not knowing what they're talking about," don't blunder and claim that Turks are half of the population when they're about 18%, and don't yell about Turkish dna percentages when no one had even brought that subject up. You're setting up straw men and having arguments with--yourself.
|
|