How European Is Turkey?

[Freomæg]

It's almost unanimous around these parts that Turks are not racially European, and yet examples show some to be simply mediterranean looking - like an average Greek, Italian or Spaniard. An old friend of mine is half-Turkish and he looks essentially Atlantid. His Turkish father does not look out of place in Europe either.

So, what's the deal? Do we consider all Turks non-European, or is it more complex than that?

[Äike]

The native Europid population was assimilated, thus there are some European Turks. But overall, Turkey is not European.

[poiuytrewq0987]

No, quite far from European as the original Turks were completely Asiatic in origin. They came from Central Asia from regions like Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Today a lot of them are mongrels, if you paid Istanbul a visit, you wouldn't even have to ask whether they are European or not.

http://www.duckdaotsu.org/turk_rebel_torture.jpg

Although there is no "typical Turk" but in general they are mongrels excluding the Turks who have not mixed with the invaders; however those people have identified with Turks, a non-European group of people.

[Nodens]

Absent a real definition of "European", I'll say:

Too European to reject outright.

Not European enough to accept at this time.

[Monolith]

Not European enough to accept at this time.
...or at any other time in the future. ;)

[Gooding]

I would consider the Greeks still living in Turkey to be European, as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeks_in_Turkey , but the Turks themselves? No, I'm of the opinion that they're of Central Asian origin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_people and of a totally alien culture.

[Anthropos]

It's almost unanimous around these parts that Turks are not racially European, and yet examples show some to be simply mediterranean looking - like an average Greek, Italian or Spaniard. An old friend of mine is half-Turkish and he looks essentially Atlantid. His Turkish father does not look out of place in Europe either.

So, what's the deal? Do we consider all Turks non-European, or is it more complex than that?

Mikrasia (or 'Asia Minor') used to be Greek, Christian and European.

But you are dwelling on something quite different here and in my opinion the thread title and description of the subject do not match each other. I have no pretention whatever to sorting Turks in one European and one non-European category after phenotype or genetic data, and I doubt very much that the question framed thusly is interesting at all. I see that this is the genetic section, but I still doubt very much that it is a meaningful question. Europeanness is hardly defined by genetic data or phenotype; such reductionist and determinist ideas are not beneficial to the understanding of culture, in my opinion; quite the contrary.

[Monolith]

Europeanness is hardly defined by genetic data or phenotype; such reductionist and determinist ideas are not beneficial to the understanding of culture, in my opinion; quite the contrary.
Seconded.

Your genes don't determine your worth, your actions do.

[Jamt]

It's almost unanimous around these parts that Turks are not racially European, and yet examples show some to be simply mediterranean looking - like an average Greek, Italian or Spaniard. An old friend of mine is half-Turkish and he looks essentially Atlantid. His Turkish father does not look out of place in Europe either.

So, what's the deal? Do we consider all Turks non-European, or is it more complex than that?

No. The turks are hundturkar, dogs, and their will be no parlur. Newer. And no sarcasm, I mean it.

Edit. I am suspicious of you Cytraul.

[Psychonaut]

Your genes don't determine your worth, your actions do.

One's "Europeanness" is not, unless you're coming from a strictly racial supremacist perspective, a question of worth. It's a question of kinship and relatedness. Those outside of my family are not of less worth than those within, but they are still not my family.

[Anthropos]

One's "Europeanness" is not, unless you're coming from a strictly racial supremacist perspective, a question of worth. It's a question of kinship and relatedness. Those outside of my family are not of less worth than those within, but they are still not my family.

Then again, very few people would ask questions 'How alike-to-my-family are people who don't belong to my family?' and 'Who belongs to my family?'

[Psychonaut]

Then again, very few people would ask questions 'How alike-to-my-family are people who don't belong to my family?' and 'Who belongs to my family?'

Yes, because it's a smaller circle of connectedness. However, a hundred years ago, would anyone have been asking whether or not Turks were European? Methinks not.

[Anthropos]

Yes, because it's a smaller circle of connectedness. However, a hundred years ago, would anyone have been asking whether or not Turks were European? Methinks not.

Mustafa Kemal Pascha 'Atatürk' perhaps, and some of his followers? He did reform the country and its culture in a typically modern Western direction; otherwise, very few, for sure... some imperialists and humanists perhaps... Frankly I have not looked into it very carefully, but I don't exclude the possibility of some plot more or less connected to the founding of the Republic of Turkey.

[Amapola]

Speaking strictly about culture, How European could be some people that had annihilated Europeans, or the traditional idea of Europe, at the first available opportunity if we would have let them?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Battle_of_Lepanto_1571.jpg

Remember Lepanto

[Jamt]

Then again, very few people would ask questions 'How alike-to-my-family are people who don't belong to my family?' and 'Who belongs to my family?'

Anthropos, are you of Swedish ethnicity? Do you fear god as a Lutheran?

[Monolith]

One's "Europeanness" is not, unless you're coming from a strictly racial supremacist perspective, a question of worth. It's a question of kinship and relatedness. Those outside of my family are not of less worth than those within, but they are still not my family.
Indeed, and it wasn't my intention to compare Europeanness with worth, but to point out that you have to deserve to be called a friend, an ally or a brother. Or even a fellow European in this case.

However, a hundred years ago, would anyone have been asking whether or not Turks were European? Methinks not.
Of course not. They would simply be called enemies back then.

[Freomæg]

Are some of you going through PMT or something?


But you are dwelling on something quite different here and in my opinion the thread title and description of the subject do not match each other...
It's a very simple point of discussion my friend. I have not stated that Turkey is in any way European - I have asked whether there are any grounds for considering a European element to Turkey. I did not specify cultural or genetic; this thread is posted in this section because there is (obviously) no Turkish section to the forum and this seemed as appropriate a forum as any. What's the big problem? If you dislike the thread, or the way I presented it, then be on your way.


Your genes don't determine your worth, your actions do.
Who said anything about worth? Since when does being 'European' have anything to do with worth? Remember - this thread is in the "Genetics" section.


Edit. I am suspicious of you Cytraul.
Good to know. :thumb001:

[Tony]

Asia Minor is a real racial cauldron where people can trace their origins back to Hittites , Greco-Byzantines , Armenians , Arabs , Kurds , Circassians , Mongols , Turks , Jews and who knows how many more , according to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_origins_of_the_Turkish_people):


According to Cinnioglu et al, (2004)[29] there are many Y-DNA haplogroups present in Turkey. The majority haplogroups are shared with European and Near Eastern populations as E3b, G, J, I, R1b, which form 63.9% from the Turkish Gene pool and contrast with a smaller share of haplogroups related to Central Asia L, N, K, C, Q, O, R1a - 21.3%, India H, R2 - 1.5% and Africa A, E3*, E3a - 1%. Some of the percentages identified were:


Y chromosome Haplogroup distribution of Turkish people[29]J1=9% - Typical amongst people from the Arabian Peninsula.
J2=24% - Typical amongst Near Eastern and Western Asia peoples.
R1a=6.9% - Typical of Eastern Europeans and Central Asians
I=5.3% - Typical of Central Europeans and Balkan populations
R1b=14.7% -Typical of Central Asia and Western Europeans
G=10.9% - Typical of people from the Caucasus
E1b1b=11.3% - Typical amongst populations of the Balkans.
N=3.8% - Typical of Siberian and Altaic populations
T=2.5% - Typical of Mediterranean and South Asian populations
K=4.5% - Typical of Asian populations.
L=4.2% - Typical of Indian Subcontinent and Khorasan populations.
Q=1.9% - Typical of Northern Altaic populations.

I don't think they're far from the truth.

The problem with modern Turks is that many of them are racially Europoid but culturally Asiatic and Muslim , many of them are a combination of fanatical Islam , Turkish traditional militarism and bellicism , and European intelligence.
The worst combination for us!

[Jarl]

Speaking strictly about culture, How European could be some people that had annihilated Europeans, or the traditional idea of Europe, at the first available opportunity if we would have let them?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/Battle_of_Lepanto_1571.jpg

Remember Lepanto


Remember Vienna 1683, and the Lion of Lechistan! :P

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Sobieski_Sending_Message_of_Victory_to_the_Pope.jp g

http://larrytemple.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/battle_of_vienna_1683.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Vienna_Battle_1683.jpg

http://web.ku.edu/~eceurope/hist557/lect3-4_files/sobieskatViennalec2.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Wyjazd_z_Wilanowa_Jana_III_Sobieskiego.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Battle_of_Vienna_1683_1.PNG

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/citta/P-Sobieski.jpg

Besides... I don't think the Germans would feel comfortable with whole Turkey now in the UE ;)

[Freomæg]

Just to completely clarify... this thread is in the 'Genetics' section, so when I asked how European Turkey is, I meant genetically. I think it's obvious to anyone that it is culturally alien, but less obvious that it is genetically 100% non-European. I don't mind discussion here about whether Turkish culture is European or not, but it's not what I was originally referring to.

[Jarl]

Case is simple. Turkey is not in Europe, and it is simply not genetically "European".

[Freomæg]

Case is simple. Turkey is not in Europe, and it is simply not genetically "European".
Is there a European element to it? How do you explain these?

http://www.diziler.com/gallery/46d86dc400906b6e9cb26600b2fc6715a821656dm.jpg

http://www.nairalist.com/im/JMk5w-ZD_e2oBsi_tCg9jA==.jpg

http://www.themuslimwoman.org/images/arzuhan-doan-yalcnda_50.jpg

http://welcomestories.org.uk/images/uploaded/scaled/Melek_s.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2656/3881024028_a1391ebed1.jpg

A minority of the population, of course. But proof that there is a definite European genetic element to Turkey.

[Jarl]

Look, you said it yourself! There is an "element". If you asked me - are they genetically European? Id say no. They are not entirely genetically European. This is simple. They are close, which makes them Europid, but they are not really the same. Unless Arabs, Armenians and Egyptians are genetically European too.

[Freomæg]

If you asked me - are they genetically European? Id say no.
Is this based upon an assumption that all Turks have a non-European admixture to their ancestry, even when it doesn't show in their phenotype though? None of the people posted above would look out of place in southern Europe. In fact, some of them would not look at all out of place in Britain or northern Europe.

I agree that the likelihood is that there no pure Europeans in Turkey, but I think we may be a little irrational in labelling the Turks as completely non-European.

[Kadu]

I agree that the likelihood is that there no pure Europeans in Turkey, but I think we may be a little irrational in labelling the Turks as completely non-European.

That's like saying that Afghanistan is a Germanic country just because there are individuals there with Nordic phenotypes.
Turkey or Afghanistan don't comply three parameters for such determination and those are, geography, culture and language.

[Svanhild]

Exceptions prove the rule that Turks aren't European. Neither by culture nor by ethnicity or language.

Remember Vienna 1683, and the Lion of Lechistan! :P

Don't forget that the relief army wasn't Polish by a majority. :wink Surpreme commander Johann III. Sobieski had a majority of non-Polish fellow campaigners at his command. In point of fact, most of the fighting forces were Germans or Austrians: Kaiserliche, Saxons, Bavarians and Southwest German principalities.

http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/5434/entsatz.jpg

To each saint his candle but the victory near Vienna was no sole Polish splendid achievement.

[Jarl]

;) The command was Polish. Anyway, there seems to be some disagreement:


http://i47.tinypic.com/2vu10qt.jpg



German wiki lists 24 000 Poles. English lists 37 000!


Polish wiki lists 27 000 Poles (including 14 000 hussars and other cavalary), and about 38 000 others. So closer to German version.


Allied infantry under duke of Lorraine and fieldmarshal Waldeck went first. Once they opened the way to through the Turkish lines, three columns of Polish cavalary and one Austro-German column attacked from the hills delivering the decisive blow to the Ottomans.

[Jarl]

Anyway... Turks seem to have an unhealthy fetish for blonde North European women, which does not seem very helpful in taking them for Europeans ;)

[Freomæg]

That's like saying that Afghanistan is a Germanic country just because there are individuals there with Nordic phenotypes.
Turkey or Afghanistan don't comply three parameters for such determination and those are, geography, culture and language.
You're right. But, I didn't say Turkey was 'Germanic', nor that it was 'European'. All i wondered was whether there is a European element to it, because it's so often taken as gospel that Turkey is 100% non-European.

[Monolith]

Anyway... Turks seem to have an unhealthy fetish for blonde North European women, which does not seem very helpful in taking them for Europeans ;)
Not just Turks but also Arabs. They'll always offer you far more camels for a blonde woman than for a dark haired one.

[Liffrea]

Based purely on genetics the border would be impossible to define, examples of European racial types are found through much of the Near East and North Africa, arguably Iran has more European genetic input than Turkey, but one would not rationally argue Iran is European.

Other factors need to be taken into account, culture, society, history, religion, and when they are Turkey is demonstrably not European.

[Bari]

Some Turks have Balkanian ancestry, but it doesn't make Turkey as a whole European. Their historical relations with European countries have been hostile since the beginning, their culture and overall racial stock completely alien. A possible question would be "Are Turks with mostly European ancestry European?". Still no, they have assimilated into Turkey long time ago and identify as such.

Being European is not defined by phenotype alone, and Turks are mostly not European racially.

Even so there is a small European genetical admixture among some, there is also a significant admixture(probably higher than the European) from Arabs, Kurd, and various middle-easterners, and probably also African. The country have many elements that makes no clear definition of it. But European would be the wrong definition.

Considering what they have done to Europe in history, and how they kept the Balkans backward for centuries and under oppression, can not be ignored. They tried to ruin my ancestral homeland and oppressing the native culture. By taxing a already poor people they tried to push their religion on us and turkify the country. Because of the Ottoman Empire my home region became and still is the most backward and poorest region in Albania(mostly Catholic). They halted 5 centuries of development and made the Balkans into a mess. If they had the chanse to, they would have islamized all of Europe, just like the Moors tried too and acting hostile to the European culture and lifestyle.

They have never been nor should be considered Europeans.

[poiuytrewq0987]

Is this based upon an assumption that all Turks have a non-European admixture to their ancestry, even when it doesn't show in their phenotype though? None of the people posted above would look out of place in southern Europe. In fact, some of them would not look at all out of place in Britain or northern Europe.

I agree that the likelihood is that there no pure Europeans in Turkey, but I think we may be a little irrational in labelling the Turks as completely non-European.

To be European, you have to be 100% European, just not a little bit of it. Otherwise we should start accepting halfbreed blacks from America since they're 50% European, yeah?

[Zyklop]

To each saint his candle but the victory near Vienna was no sole Polish splendid achievement.
...

Here I must recall Brigette Pohl's description, published in the "Deutsche Wochen Zeitung" no. 9 of 2 March 1979, of the noble Polish chronicle of Jan Sobieski and his movement to Vienna. It is worth recalling, even if only in excerpts, since it shows why the Poles always blame the Germans in connection with the battles against the Turks at Vienna, saying "the thieves didn't even say 'thank you'". The Poles always reveal their own character defects in attempting to accuse the Germans.

The "brave Polish king" remained behind with his comrades, far removed from the blood of battle at all times, at a safe distance from the battlefield. He knew just where to hide -- in the Vienna woods, at Dreimarkstein, where no Turk was to be seen or could even be expected for miles around...

Far behind the front line, the noble Sobieski was right up front: on Bald Mountain, ministering to the Papal nuntio Marco D'Aviano and reading Mass. Then he once again withdrew, leaving it to the Germans to defeat the Turks. He must have been about as peace-loving as the Soviet Union today. Again and again, the Germans attempted to pursuade the Polish nobleman to move forward to intervene. But in vain. He had letters to write to his noble wife, who wanted to know how much loot he would bring back. He replied that he and his son Jakob would quite certain to run no risk of danger.

This was while the Germans fought and died in fierce combats around Heiligenstadt, in Nussdorf, and Grinzing. The generals were wounded, the brothers Moritz of Duke Croy fell at Nudsdorf, the Duke himself was severely wounded. Prince Eugene, later to become famous, won his first laurels here, in the service of Germany; none spared himself. Streams of blood flowed over the famous wine region of Grinzing. Only the Poles held back, "biding their time...

But when they considered the battle safely won, oh, then they broke cover, since of course they wanted to be the first to divide the spoils. But they failed to reckon with the Pascha of Ofen, Ibrahim, who broke forth upon the Poles at the edge of the city of Dornbach, so that the Poles, crying for help -- this is reported by the chronlicler Diani, who is very well disposed towards Sobieski -- ran away in large numbers.

Count Ludwig of Baden then attacked with two of his Imperial dragoon regiments, and succeeded in rolling back the Turkish line of battle.

Duke Charles of Lorraine gained the victory by undertaking a daring wheeling movement with doubling and flanking movements. The road to the surrounded city of Vienna now lay open. The chronicler reports: "Our cavalry was too heavy to keep on their "the Turks'" heels. That of the king "Sobieski" was, of course, lighter; he, however, abandoned the attempt at pursuit due to other considerations" (!) For the Poles, in particular, their greatest hour had come: while the Germans buried their dead, cared for their wounded, comforted distraught and desperate refugees from the burning outlying villages of Vienna, and sought in vain to pursue the Turks with their heavy cavalry, the good Sobieski made himself at home in the tent of the Great Vizier and "gave his Polish army and accompanying hordes the order to plunder."
Thus the legend of "the brave King Sobieski" and his equally brave army is disproven on the basis of historical fact.

-----

Translator's note: The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica disputes this, but depicts Sobieski as a traitor in the pay of Louis XIV: "He died a broken-hearted man, prophecying the inevitable ruin of a nation which he himself had done so much to demoralize."

-----

Sobieski's behaviour is strikingly similar to that of the Polish Marshal in the last war, Rydz-Smigly, who naturally wished to be depicted in an equestrian victor's pose before the wings of the Brandenburg Gate in the summer of 1939, but who, when the war which he demanded actually came about, rapidly left his troops in the lurch and fled to a foreign country (Roumainia).

Polish bravery was -- and is -- simply a legend, just like their honesty. Why would they need to call the Germans robbers and plunderers at all times if they didn't need to distract attention from their own misdeeds?
Plundering the treasures of the Great Vizier Kara Mustafa at Vienna can hardly have been so unprofitable as not to be worth fighting for. But this must not be admitted; attention must therefore be diverted towards the ungrateful Germans.

[Freomæg]

To be European, you have to be 100% European, just not a little bit of it. Otherwise we should start accepting halfbreed blacks from America since they're 50% European, yeah?
Theoretically, of course. But I'm willing to bet even several members of this forum have some distant non-European ancestry - even if only 0.5%. But that's largely irrelevant.

[poiuytrewq0987]

Theoretically, of course. But I'm willing to bet even several members of this forum have some distant non-European ancestry - even if only 0.5%. But that's largely irrelevant.

That's really ludicrous, if they have non-European ancestry then they'd look non-European meaning those members are in the wrong place.

The answer is simple, the majority of Turks are not European, thus the country is not European. It's that simple, really.

[Freomæg]

That's really ludicrous, if they have non-European ancestry then they'd look non-European meaning those members are in the wrong place.
No it's not. It's not uncommon for Americans to have some distant Amerindian, or mediterraneans to have some (very) distant north-African. The one-drop rule is a little-subscribed-to mindset on forums like this. Being even 1/64 non-European is unlikely to show in one's appearance and most people wouldn't know if they had it. Do you know who every one of your ancestors was going back seven generations?

[Jarl]

Here I must recall Brigette Pohl's description, published in the "Deutsche Wochen Zeitung" no. 9 of 2 March 1979, of the noble Polish chronicle of Jan Sobieski and his movement to Vienna. It is worth recalling, even if only in excerpts, since it shows why the Poles always blame the Germans in connection with the battles against the Turks at Vienna, saying "the thieves didn't even say 'thank you'". The Poles always reveal their own character defects in attempting to accuse the Germans.

The "brave Polish king" remained behind with his comrades, far removed from the blood of battle at all times, at a safe distance from the battlefield. He knew just where to hide -- in the Vienna woods, at Dreimarkstein, where no Turk was to be seen or could even be expected for miles around...

Far behind the front line, the noble Sobieski was right up front: on Bald Mountain, ministering to the Papal nuntio Marco D'Aviano and reading Mass.

Indeed. Sobieski as the leader of the Allied forces commanded the whole operation.


hen he once again withdrew, leaving it to the Germans to defeat the Turks. He must have been about as peace-loving as the Soviet Union today. Again and again, the Germans attempted to pursuade the Polish nobleman to move forward to intervene. But in vain. He had letters to write to his noble wife, who wanted to know how much loot he would bring back. He replied that he and his son Jakob would quite certain to run no risk of danger.

This was while the Germans fought and died in fierce combats around Heiligenstadt, in Nussdorf, and Grinzing. The generals were wounded, the brothers Moritz of Duke Croy fell at Nudsdorf, the Duke himself was severely wounded. Prince Eugene, later to become famous, won his first laurels here, in the service of Germany; none spared himself. Streams of blood flowed over the famous wine region of Grinzing. Only the Poles held back, "biding their time...

This is some gross nonsense. He did not "withdraw once again" and he did not write letters to his wife from the battlefield. Duke of Lorraine attacked first and the Polish cavalary moved next. This is the whole story. Accusations of Sobieski purposefuly delaying Polish attack are simply unfounded.



But when they considered the battle safely won, oh, then they broke cover, since of course they wanted to be the first to divide the spoils. But they failed to reckon with the Pascha of Ofen, Ibrahim, who broke forth upon the Poles at the edge of the city of Dornbach, so that the Poles, crying for help -- this is reported by the chronlicler Diani, who is very well disposed towards Sobieski -- ran away in large numbers.

Count Ludwig of Baden then attacked with two of his Imperial dragoon regiments, and succeeded in rolling back the Turkish line of battle.

Duke Charles of Lorraine gained the victory by undertaking a daring wheeling movement with doubling and flanking movements. The road to the surrounded city of Vienna now lay open. The chronicler reports: "Our cavalry was too heavy to keep on their "the Turks'" heels. That of the king "Sobieski" was, of course, lighter; he, however, abandoned the attempt at pursuit due to other considerations" (!)

This is simply not true. Battle of Vienna was won partly thanks to the charge of Polish cavalary columns.


For the Poles, in particular, their greatest hour had come: while the Germans buried their dead, cared for their wounded, comforted distraught and desperate refugees from the burning outlying villages of Vienna, and sought in vain to pursue the Turks with their heavy cavalry, the good Sobieski made himself at home in the tent of the Great Vizier and "gave his Polish army and accompanying hordes the order to plunder."
Thus the legend of "the brave King Sobieski" and his equally brave army is disproven on the basis of historical fact.


Yeah, yeah... Sobieski and his army sucked. The brave Germans freed Vienna. Coward Sobieski and his "hordes" just took all the spoils, while Sobieski received thanks from the Pope and Emperor along with a church erected in his name at Kahlenberg...


Translator's note: The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica disputes this, but depicts Sobieski as a traitor in the pay of Louis XIV: "He died a broken-hearted man, prophecying the inevitable ruin of a nation which he himself had done so much to demoralize."

-----

Sobieski's behaviour is strikingly similar to that of the Polish Marshal in the last war, Rydz-Smigly, who naturally wished to be depicted in an equestrian victor's pose before the wings of the Brandenburg Gate in the summer of 1939, but who, when the war which he demanded actually came about, rapidly left his troops in the lurch and fled to a foreign country (Roumainia).

Polish bravery was -- and is -- simply a legend, just like their honesty. Why would they need to call the Germans robbers and plunderers at all times if they didn't need to distract attention from their own misdeeds?
Plundering the treasures of the Great Vizier Kara Mustafa at Vienna can hardly have been so unprofitable as not to be worth fighting for. But this must not be admitted; attention must therefore be diverted towards the ungrateful Germans.

Polish bravery was -- and is -- simply a legend, just like their honesty. Why would they need to call the Germans robbers and plunderers at all times if they didn't need to distract attention from their own misdeeds?
Plundering the treasures of the Great Vizier Kara Mustafa at Vienna can hardly have been so unprofitable as not to be worth fighting for. But this must not be admitted; attention must therefore be diverted towards the ungrateful Germans.

This is simply ridiculous, schizophernic German propaganda, made by Pohl.




I got another version:

"The battle started before all units were fully deployed. Early in the morning at 4:00, Turkish forces opened hostilities to interfere with the Holy League's troop deployment. A move forward was made by Charles, the Austrian army on the left, and the German forces in the center.

Mustafa Pasha launched a counter-attack, with most of his force, but holding back parts of the elite Janissary and Sipahi for the invasion of the city. The Turkish commanders had intended to take Vienna before Sobieski arrived, but time ran out. Their sappers had prepared another large and final detonation under the Löbelbastei, to provide access to the city. While the Turks hastily finished their work and sealed the tunnel to make the explosion more effective, the Austrian "moles" detected the cavern in the afternoon. One of them entered and defused the load just in time.

At that time, above the "subterranean battlefield", a large battle was going on, as the Polish infantry had launched a massive assault upon the Turkish right flank. Instead of focusing on the battle with the relief army, the Turks tried to force their way into the city, carrying their crescent flag.

After 12 hours of fighting, Sobieski's Polish force held the high ground on the right. At about five o'clock in the afternoon, after watching the ongoing infantry battle from the hills for the whole day, four cavalry groups, one of them Austrian-German, and the other three Polish, totaling over 20,000 men, charged down the hills. The attack was led by the Polish king in front of a spearhead of 3000 heavily armed winged Polish lancer hussars. This charge broke the lines of the Ottomans, who were tired from the long fight on two sides. In the confusion, the cavalry headed straight for the Ottoman camps, while the remaining Vienna garrison sallied out of its defenses and joined in the assault."

[Monolith]

That's really ludicrous, if they have non-European ancestry then they'd look non-European meaning those members are in the wrong place.

Why is that ludicrous? Historically, there were many Asian invaders here, like Huns, Avars, Bulgars, Hungarians, Ottoman Turks etc., as well as some Semitic influences, like Arab and Jewish (including the Turkic Khazar element).

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Indeed, and it wasn't my intention to compare Europeanness with worth, but to point out that you have to deserve to be called a friend, an ally or a brother. Or even a fellow European in this case.

Of course not. They would simply be called enemies back then.

And still are---Turcophobia.
Some interesting articles here:
http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/turcophobia-effects.htm

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Theoretically, of course. But I'm willing to bet even several members of this forum have some distant non-European ancestry - even if only 0.5%. But that's largely irrelevant.

According to the Bible our ancestors were jews (Noah):eek:

[Ibericus]

Well, Turkey has , by a very large margin, more J1 than any European country. It Has haplogroup L which is not found in european countries, etc.

Haplogroup J1 :
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f2/Distribution_Haplogroup_J1_Y-DNA.svg/800px-Distribution_Haplogroup_J1_Y-DNA.svg.png

Now, if we look at Autosomal DNA and Haplotypes, they can tell us how European they are :

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/295/plot2uz3.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Ish7688voT0/Sx-pMth-rnI/AAAAAAAACEI/VKsn_nlOLRU/s1600/fig2.jpg

[Kanasyuvigi]

Is there a European element to it? How do you explain these?

http://www.diziler.com/gallery/46d86dc400906b6e9cb26600b2fc6715a821656dm.jpg

http://www.nairalist.com/im/JMk5w-ZD_e2oBsi_tCg9jA==.jpg

http://www.themuslimwoman.org/images/arzuhan-doan-yalcnda_50.jpg

http://welcomestories.org.uk/images/uploaded/scaled/Melek_s.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2656/3881024028_a1391ebed1.jpg


Here's the explanation : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissary
From Murad I to 1648, the Janissaries were recruited through the devşirme system. This was the conscription of non-Turkish children, notably Balkan Christians, but also Armenian Christians and Albanian and Bosnian Muslims; Jews were never subject to devşirme

The Ottomans were carrying away the best Bulgarian, Serbian, Greek, Romanian children for centuries and converting them to islam. These Balkan christian children became the most fanaticised warriors of the Ottoman Empire

[Wulfhere]

Whilst it goes without saying that Turks are beyond the pale - not least (though not only) because they're Muslims - I would advocate a military reconquest of that part of Turkey in Europe, including Istanbul, expelling all Turks, clearing the slums and renaming it Constantinople. Let it never be forgotten that this city was once the greatest - albeit Christian - city in Western Civilisation, and now it's not even ours at all. This needs to be put right.

[Poltergeist]

Whilst it goes without saying that Turks are beyond the pale - not least (though not only) because they're Muslims - I would advocate a military reconquest of that part of Turkey in Europe, including Istanbul, expelling all Turks, clearing the slums and renaming it Constantinople. Let it never be forgotten that this city was once the greatest - albeit Christian - city in Western Civilisation, and now it's not even ours at all. This needs to be put right.

There is one member of The Apricity (formerly on Stirpes) who also thinks Constantinople should be reconquered. He has started to collect army, you can contact him to join him in his enterprise.

[Monolith]

Would you volunteer to lead the campaign, Wulfhere?

[Poltergeist]

Would you volunteer to lead the campaign, Wulfhere?

No, there can't be two leaders. Dvx is already the leader. Wulfhere could pretend to the postion of one of the top commanders of the campaign.

[poiuytrewq0987]

Whilst it goes without saying that Turks are beyond the pale - not least (though not only) because they're Muslims - I would advocate a military reconquest of that part of Turkey in Europe, including Istanbul, expelling all Turks, clearing the slums and renaming it Constantinople. Let it never be forgotten that this city was once the greatest - albeit Christian - city in Western Civilisation, and now it's not even ours at all. This needs to be put right.

A lot of countries will want to have control of Constantinople especially if Turks are being kicked out. Greeks can claim for control of the city because they largely dominated the latter part of the Eastern Roman Empire. Italians can too claim for control of the city since it was a Roman who made Byzantium great and it was "passed" onto the Greeks after the Western Roman Empire collapsed. Bulgarians can place a claim on the city since Bulgarians conquered Constantinople before and its Tsar was proclaimed Tsar of the Bulgarians and Romans. Russians will probably want to try and take Constantinople if Turkey is collapsing largely because of its strategic location and the fact Russians almost took it in 1878 before people like you stopped them.

P.S. I thought we Southern Europeans were Gypsies to you. Why would you care? :rolleyes:

[Wulfhere]

Would you volunteer to lead the campaign, Wulfhere?

Lol. I have no particular military expertise. I know how to delegate authority. :)

[Wulfhere]

A lot of countries will want to have control of Constantinople especially if Turks are being kicked out. Greeks can claim for control of the city because they largely dominated the latter part of the Eastern Roman Empire. Italians can too claim for control of the city since it was a Roman who made Byzantium great and it was "passed" onto the Greeks after the Western Roman Empire collapsed. Bulgarians can place a claim on the city since Bulgarians conquered Constantinople before and its Tsar was proclaimed Tsar of the Bulgarians and Romans. Russians will probably want to try and take Constantinople if Turkey is collapsing largely because of its strategic location and the fact Russians almost took it in 1878 before people like you stopped them.

P.S. I thought we Southern Europeans were Gypsies to you. Why would you care? :rolleyes:

Either it would become a condominium, controlled jointly by the European powers, or it would become Greek (if they had the capacity to handle it - they're not in very good shape at the moment). There's no doubt it rightfully belongs to the Greeks - it was Greek long before it was Roman, and the Greeks later took control of the Eastern Roman Empire anyway. As for the Bulgarians, as you so rightly say they conquered it (briefly) - it's not theirs.

I don't think all Southern Europeans look and act like Gypsies - just the inhabitants of the Balkans. And because of their vast achievements in the past, I'm always prepared to cut the Greeks a bit of slack, no matter how much of a basket case they've become.

[poiuytrewq0987]

Either it would become a condominium, controlled jointly by the European powers, or it would become Greek (if they had the capacity to handle it - they're not in very good shape at the moment). There's no doubt it rightfully belongs to the Greeks - it was Greek long before it was Roman, and the Greeks later took control of the Eastern Roman Empire anyway. As for the Bulgarians, as you so rightly say they conquered it (briefly) - it's not theirs.

Nevertheless, multiple European peoples can claim the city for their own.



I don't think all Southern Europeans look and act like Gypsies - just the inhabitants of the Balkans. And because of their vast achievements in the past, I'm always prepared to cut the Greeks a bit of slack, no matter how much of a basket case they've become.:rolleyes2:

[Wulfhere]

Nevertheless, multiple European peoples can claim the city for their own.

:rolleyes2:

So can the Turks, since they've controlled it for five and a half centuries. That cuts no ice with me though, and so the very brief Bulgarian occupation has no bearing at all, either.

[poiuytrewq0987]

So can the Turks, since they've controlled it for five and a half centuries. That cuts no ice with me though, and so the very brief Bulgarian occupation has no bearing at all, either.

Turks aren't Europeans so that is enough reason for them to be disqualified from placing claim on European land. You continue to point out the Bulgarians, I'm not only talking about them there are others who too can place claim on the city. :coffee:

[Wulfhere]

Turks aren't Europeans so that is enough reason for them to be disqualified from placing claim on European land. You continue to point out the Bulgarians, I'm not only talking about them there are others who too can place claim on the city. :coffee:

Such as who? The Romans? The Venetians? Both of those cities aren't even independent states any more. No, the city is quite obviously Greek. No one else has any valid claim at all - briefly conquering a place does not entitle one to a legitimate claim. Quite the opposite, if anything.

[Absinthe]

Hey, I got birth rights to Constantinople since my blood line descends from there, and I am willing to lead the Crusade. Roll call!! :D

[poiuytrewq0987]

Such as who? The Romans? The Venetians? Both of those cities aren't even independent states any more. No, the city is quite obviously Greek. No one else has any valid claim at all - briefly conquering a place does not entitle one to a legitimate claim. Quite the opposite, if anything.

Oh dear, do you even have any knowledge of what Byzantium was before it was conquered by the Romans? It was a mere village until Romans conquered the city and made it Second Rome. If anything, Italians are the only legitimate owners of Constantinople. Byzantium is not even in Greece, it's in Thrace so if the original Thracians were still here today it'd be part of their state.

[Wulfhere]

Hey, I got birth rights to Constantinople since my blood line descends from there, and I am willing to lead the Crusade. Roll call!! :D

Are you a Palaeologue?

[Wulfhere]

Oh dear, do you even have any knowledge of what Byzantium was before it was conquered by the Romans? It was a mere village until Romans conquered the city and made it Second Rome. If anything, Italians are the only legitimate owners of Constantinople. Byzantium is not even in Greece, it's in Thrace so if the original Thracians were still here today it'd be part of their state.

So what? Byzantium was a Greek city - its size irrelevant - for fully half a millennium before the Romans took it over. And the Greeks had taken over the Eastern Empire by AD 600, and ran it for nearly a millennium after that. Still, I agree that Italy has a better claim than any Slav interlopers.

[poiuytrewq0987]

So what? Byzantium was a Greek city - its size irrelevant - for fully half a millennium before the Romans took it over. And the Greeks had taken over the Eastern Empire by AD 600, and ran it for nearly a millennium after that. Still, I agree that Italy has a better claim than any Slav interlopers.

:lol00002:

Anyway, since you continue to bring up Slavs over and over like a person with a bad obsession... I said before that ancient Thracians are the ones who can only properly claim Constantinople for their own since the city is on their soil. One thing that's obvious is ancient Thracians aren't here today like ancient Greeks aren't. So, we have to look at the successors like the modern Greeks or modern Thracians. And who those modern Thracians may be? I'll provide you with a hint.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/91/ODRYSIANKINGDOM2.jpg/800px-ODRYSIANKINGDOM2.jpg

Since Bulgarians are essentially successors of ancient Thracians, it's only proper for Bulgaria to be entitled to all Thracian land. :thumbs up


So what? Byzantium was a Greek city - its size irrelevant - for fully half a millennium before the Romans took it over.You continue to ignore an important fact, if it wasn't for the Romans who gave life to the city and made it an imperial city worth of envy. It would be nothing today.

[Wulfhere]

:lol00002:

Anyway, since you continue to bring up Slavs over and over like a person with a bad obsession... I said before that ancient Thracians are the ones who can only properly claim Constantinople for their own since the city is on their soil. One thing that's obvious is ancient Thracians aren't here today like ancient Greeks aren't. So, we have to look at the successors like the modern Greeks or modern Thracians. And who those modern Thracians may be? I'll provide you with a hint.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/91/ODRYSIANKINGDOM2.jpg/800px-ODRYSIANKINGDOM2.jpg

Since Bulgarians are essentially successors of ancient Thracians, it's only proper for Bulgaria to be entitled to all Thracian land. :thumbs upYou continue to ignore an important fact, if it wasn't for the Romans who gave life to the city and made it an imperial city worth of envy. It would be nothing today.

The Bulgarians have nothing to do with the Ancient Thracians, any more than the English have anything to do with the Ancient Britons.

[Tony]

Such as who? The Romans? The Venetians? Both of those cities aren't even independent states any more. No, the city is quite obviously Greek. No one else has any valid claim at all - briefly conquering a place does not entitle one to a legitimate claim. Quite the opposite, if anything.

I somewhat agree that Istanbul and the whole Anatolia should be given to Greece first , the problem is (aside the Turkish occupation of course...) that Greece has a very low population and wouldn't be able at all to repopulate Asia Minor.
We would eventually end in a situation similar to that in South Africa , where a small white ruling elite is sorrounded by multitude of non-whites who sooner or later will retake "their" land , a risky case scenario.

[Wulfhere]

I somewhat agree that Istanbul and the whole Anatolia should be given to Greece first , the problem is (aside the Turkish occupation of course...) that Greece has a very low population and wouldn't be able at all to repopulate Asia Minor.
We would eventually end in a situation similar to that in South Africa , where a small white ruling elite is sorrounded by multitude of non-whites who sooner or later will retake "their" land , a risky case scenario.

That's why I only suggested retaking European Turkey. I agree though that Anatolia, and indeed the whole of the Middle East and North Africa, were once part of Western Civilisation. After 1300 years of Muslim rule, though, they've been changed from extremely wealthy and prosperous areas to desert hell-holes. I don't think we really want them any more. I do, however, make an exception for Israel - after just 60 years of Western rule, the desert is blooming again.

[Tabiti]

Europeid turks - yes, there are.
European turks - no, there aren't.

[Baron Samedi]

Not European!

Not Welcome!

[Gennady]

I have seen in Kemer blond Turk
And many Turks are like southern Europeans

[Kanasyuvigi]

I somewhat agree that Istanbul and the whole Anatolia should be given to Greece first , the problem is (aside the Turkish occupation of course...) that Greece has a very low population and wouldn't be able at all to repopulate Asia Minor.
We would eventually end in a situation similar to that in South Africa , where a small white ruling elite is sorrounded by multitude of non-whites who sooner or later will retake "their" land , a risky case scenario.
I think that Eastern Anatholia and Constantinople should be returned to Greece, too. The problem with the population could be solved easily - the descendants of those Greeks who have migrated to Macedonia and Thrace from the Smirna area and Constantinople would go back to their home lands.

[Arne]

We should ask.. How Turkish is Europe especially Germany in this Question....
I give a damn about belonging to the European Union..
And some Brittains think that Germans are small and they mean it serious..

[The Khagan]

I somewhat agree that Istanbul and the whole Anatolia should be given to Greece first , the problem is (aside the Turkish occupation of course...) that Greece has a very low population and wouldn't be able at all to repopulate Asia Minor.
We would eventually end in a situation similar to that in South Africa , where a small white ruling elite is sorrounded by multitude of non-whites who sooner or later will retake "their" land , a risky case scenario.

RE-populate?

uh... what?

While in antiquity, and indeed, post classical times, there was a larger population of Greeks inhabiting Anatolia, but by no means did they constitute a majority of the population.

The Persians also had a pretty big claim on Anatolia back in the day, suppose we should give them that too, huh?

[Óttar]

In the 19th century, the Turkish sultan was called "the sickman of Europe." The Turks aren't too terribly different from the Huns. I don't think they should be able to spread all about Europe however. They are ruled out linguistically, Turanic languages aren't IE, and Islam still plays too much of a role in modern Turkey IMO. If they were a bunch of Rakhi swilling, Tenri worshipping shamanists I would have less of a problem, but they have shown that they have no intention of assimilating into German society, they are ruining the German public school system. They aren't all a bunch of well mannered, nicely dressed, anti-Islamist, moustachioed Kemal Ataturks.

I do however like their instruments, their rugs, their guttural Central Asian language, their wool clothing, and their spinning Alevi dervish dances. I also like the "devil"-worshipping Yezidi Kurds, they are as cool as f*ck. :p (There are 90,000 in Deutschland) Who knows? Maybe one day we'll have a clan of Peacock Angel worshipping Halbdeutscher.

Stranger things have happened. Ancient Roman traders porked Egyptians in port cities, I'd imagine there must have been some children produced from these unions.

[Comte Arnau]

It is quite evident that, even if they share the language with other Central Asian peoples, most Turks are not the result of a Central Asian migration into Turkey, but of a culturally assimilated local Caucasoid population.

As for culturally, at this moment in History, I'd consider European those secular Turks west from the capital (mainly those in Thracia and the Egean shore). East of Ankara, it's a different world.

[Wulfhere]

I do however like their instruments, their rugs, their guttural Central Asian language, their wool clothing, and their spinning Alevi dervish dances. I also like the "devil"-worshipping Yezidi Kurds, they are as cool as f*ck. :p (There are 90,000 in Deutschland) Who knows? Maybe one day we'll have a clan of Peacock Angel worshipping Halbdeutscher.

Kurds are not Turks. But Kurds are certainly Muslims (except a few Yezidis and the like, whose "devil worshipping" credentials have been very much exagerated in the West).

[Wulfhere]

It is quite evident that, even if they share the language with other Central Asian peoples, most Turks are not the result of a Central Asian migration into Turkey, but of a culturally assimilated local Caucasoid population.

As for culturally, at this moment in History, I'd consider European those secular Turks west from the capital (mainly those in Thracia and the Egean shore). East of Ankara, it's a different world.

It is quite evident that Turks look a lot like southern Europeans. Whether this is an argument for including Turks as European, or excluding the Mediterranean swarthies altogether, is an interesting point.

[Comte Arnau]

It is quite evident that Turks look a lot like southern Europeans. Whether this is an argument for including Turks as European, or excluding the Mediterranean swarthies altogether, is an interesting point.

An interesting point to you and Henry, of course. Most people in this forum don't seem to share the same paranoia.

[Wulfhere]

An interesting point to you and Henry, of course. Most people in this forum don't seem to share the same paranoia.

Paranoia? Sorry, I don't follow.

There is a level of hypocrisy here which few have touched on. A true white alliance in Europe would only include Northern Europe - halfway down France, and halfway down Germany. Why are we still expected to carry the southern swarthies? Pumping money into them from the north, as is now happening, will have about as much effect as pumping money into Africa. We can be strong only when you lot go away.

[Svipdag]

Frankly, I don't give a rat's podex what the Turks LOOK like. The Turks are not historically, culturally, linguistically, or religiously European. Turkey, as long as it has been called Turkey, has never been part of Europe. It is part of the Middle East and the Turks are culturally, linguistically, and religiously Middle Eastern.

Admitting Turkey to the European Union would not change anything, except to make the European Union less European.

[Comte Arnau]

Paranoia? Sorry, I don't follow.


That's the only certain part of your post: You just don't follow.

Anyway, I don't want to derail the thread.

[Ibericus]

It is quite evident that Turks look a lot like southern Europeans. Whether this is an argument for including Turks as European, or excluding the Mediterranean swarthies altogether, is an interesting point.

You know this is not true. unless you have mental problems, which is probably the case.

[Wulfhere]

You know this is not true. unless you have mental problems, which is probably the case.

On the contrary, I know it is true.

[Ibericus]

Paranoia? Sorry, I don't follow.

There is a level of hypocrisy here which few have touched on. A true white alliance in Europe would only include Northern Europe - halfway down France, and halfway down Germany. Why are we still expected to carry the southern swarthies? Pumping money into them from the north, as is now happening, will have about as much effect as pumping money into Africa. We can be strong only when you lot go away.
Yes, you have a PARANOIA, See, you are now talking about a "White alliance" , who the hell is here talking about a White alliance ?? Don't you see your paranoia now ?

[Wulfhere]

Yes, you have a PARANOIA, See, you are now talking about a "White alliance" , who the hell is here talking about a White alliance ?? Don't you see your paranoia now ?

It's not paranoia - do you even know what the word means? I simply suggested that our race will only be strong when it casts off the southern swarthy leeches who are sucking all our money away.

[Arne]

Paranoia? Sorry, I don't follow.

There is a level of hypocrisy here which few have touched on. A true white alliance in Europe would only include Northern Europe - halfway down France, and halfway down Germany. Why are we still expected to carry the southern swarthies? Pumping money into them from the north, as is now happening, will have about as much effect as pumping money into Africa. We can be strong only when you lot go away.

Where would you make the line in Germany ?
The South Germans also belong to here..
But for some East German areas i have many doubts..
In some Areas in West Germany there are many polish slavics..
Dividing it in the middle of the north and the south can´t be the answer..

[Wulfhere]

Where would you make the line in Germany ?
The South Germans also belong ..
But for some East German areas i have many doubts..
In some Areas in West Germany there are many polish slavics..

I would draw the line closer to the North Sea coast than to the Austrian border.

[Arne]

You mean you would exclude bavaria from Germany ?
Austrians belong to Germany inferring that austria belonged to germany.

[Wulfhere]

You mean you would exclude bavaria from Germany ?
Austrians belong to Germany inferring that austria belonged to germany.

Yes, I would exclude Bavaria, Austria etc.

[Arne]

I have South German Ancestry...
And i´m not less Germanic than most People i´d saw in the public.

[Wulfhere]

I have South German Ancestry...
And i´m not less Germanic than most People i´d saw in the public.

I was talking about white, Northern peoples. I don't think central Europeans count as this.

[Arne]

You can find "Northern looking People" not only in the Northern Part of Germany..
Some are darker haired as me even in the North.
The Average is slightly more Northern looking there but if they would speak english i couldn´t really distinguish them from Anglo Saxons..

[Wulfhere]

You can find "Northern looking People" not only in the Northern Part of Germany..
Some are darker haired as me even in the North.
The Average is slightly more Northern looking there but if they would speak english i couldn´t really distinguish them from Anglo Saxons..

Scandinavians and Dutch look like Anglo-Saxons, but quite a lot of Germans don't. Especially the more southern ones.

[Ibericus]

So, according to you, there are hundreds of races in the world ?

[Wulfhere]

So, according to you, there are hundreds of races in the world ?

Eh? There's the white race, and then there are degrees of separation from it.

[Arne]

brittain is a mix of many ethnicities

these are some bavarians
http://blogs.abc.net.au/nsw/images/2009/03/05/andy_baumgartner_reinhard_lohr_mark.jpg

and look here .. some scotts..

http://images.theage.com.au/2008/08/02/172413/majVBbavarian-420x0.jpg

this guy on the left is also very nordic for a south german
http://besttravelblogevar.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/lederhosen.jpg

this guy on the right could also fit as english
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/68/218660790_9e99e6e9f5.jpg

[Wulfhere]

brittain is a mix of many ethnicities

these are some bavarians
http://blogs.abc.net.au/nsw/images/2009/03/05/andy_baumgartner_reinhard_lohr_mark.jpg

and look here .. some scotts..

http://images.theage.com.au/2008/08/02/172413/majVBbavarian-420x0.jpg

this guy on the left is also very nordic for a south german
http://besttravelblogevar.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/lederhosen.jpg

this guy on the right could also fit as english
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/68/218660790_9e99e6e9f5.jpg

No, they all look foreign I'm afraid.

[Arne]

No, they all look foreign I'm afraid.
If they would speak english you would have no doubts about them ;)

[Stefan]

You guys must realize, that this "White Race" Wulfhere talks about isn't scientific. Because of that, it is in direct conflict with the idea of "biological race". Basically it is all subjective of what his idea of "White" is rather than what biologically separates people.

[Ibericus]

Eh? There's the white race, and then there are degrees of separation from it.

And what race are this "degrees of separation" according to you ?
So, you are basically saying Austrians are a race on their own, and Italians are another race, almost one race for each country..

[Wulfhere]

If they would speak english you would have no doubts about them ;)

Most of them look a bit swarthy.

[Ibericus]

You guys must realize, that this "White Race" Wulfhere talks about isn't scientific. Because of that, it is in direct conflict with the idea of "biological race". Basically it is all subjective of what his idea of "White" is rather than what biologically separates people.

I know :thumb001:

[Wulfhere]

And what race are this "degrees of separation" according to you ?
So, you are basically saying Austrians are a race on their own, and Italians are another race, almost one race for each country..

No - I think Austrians, Bavarians, and Northern Italians all look the same.

[Comte Arnau]

I suggest a thread split: Europe is only North-West Europe, or any other serious title.

[Arne]

just look how "swarthy" these Childs appear
http://www.bavariansoccerclub.com/images/2009%20State%20Cup%20finals%20238%20200905.jpg

[Treffie]

Eh? There's the white race, and then there are degrees of separation from it.

So would you include some Welsh as part of your `white race?`:rolleyes:

http://www.mrproducer.co.uk/g_images/large/1210321839-richard-mylan-never-forget-take-that-musical-pre.jpg

[Wulfhere]

I suggest a thread split: Europe is only North-West Europe, or any other serious title.

That's why I specifically said White, because obviously Europe includes all sorts.

[Wulfhere]

just look how "swarthy" these Childs appear
http://www.bavariansoccerclub.com/images/2009%20State%20Cup%20finals%20238%20200905.jpg

Well, some of them do.

[Ibericus]

No - I think Austrians, Bavarians, and Northern Italians all look the same.

So, what is their race ?

[Arne]

Well, some of them do.

Some of them aren´t really German...

[Ibericus]

According to you, this guy is white :

http://jk666.webng.com/underground/jokela/naturalselector8cc5.png

[Comte Arnau]

That's why I specifically said White, because obviously Europe includes all sorts.

This is a forum about European preservation, or so it says. There are already many fora out there where that scientific American conception of whiteness is highly praised and you'd be sincerely happier. Unless you're happier by trolling, which seems to be the case.

[Arne]

@wulfhere If southern Italians are northern then Bavarians are swarthy according to your theory ?


No - I think Austrians, Bavarians, and Northern Italians all look the same.
The Average Northern Italian is significant darker haired then a Bavarian.
Were you ever been there ?

[Comte Arnau]

So would you include some Welsh as part of your `white race?`:rolleyes:

http://www.mrproducer.co.uk/g_images/large/1210321839-richard-mylan-never-forget-take-that-musical-pre.jpg

Aww, the Welsh, those swarthy hobbits who dare share the same island with the English elven. Let's hide them in the burrow-hills of the Shire. :D

[Ibericus]

Do you think these are White :

http://www.freewebs.com/vivachristiania/hljelp.jpg

[Stefan]

Alright you guys, should settle down with the pictures. I don't think we need another thread like this.

[Ibericus]

We are just having fun :D

[Arne]

Scandinavians and Dutch look like Anglo-Saxons, but quite a lot of Germans don't. Especially the more southern ones.

Dutch are too pale and tall to possibly fit as anglosaxons..

[Zyklop]

If they would speak english you would have no doubts about them ;)Please stop begging for Wulfhere's approval. It's embarrassing to watch.

[Freomæg]

They are ruled out linguistically, Turanic languages aren't IE
Wouldn't that rule out the Finns too?


Scandinavians and Dutch look like Anglo-Saxons, but quite a lot of Germans don't. Especially the more southern ones.
"Look like Anglo-Saxons"! Your problem is that you are almost entirely concerned with how someone looks, rather than what their ancestry or culture is. The idiocy if this can be expressed by the following anecdote: my girlfriend has brown eyes and brown hair (a good match for me, incidentally). Her brother and sister are both blonde-haired and blue-eyed. According to Nordicists like you, my girlfriend is less worthy of England and northern Europe than her brother and sister are - despite sharing identical ancestry.

Your hatred for all things southern might partially explain your pointless promotion of a sovereign Mercia.

Wulfhere is a superficial Nordicist. There are several Nordicists here, and that's fine. But do not give them the satisfaction of treating their approval as though it should be sought. It matters not whether Wulfhere alone considers someone German, English or European.

[Monolith]

Wouldn't that rule out the Finns too?

As well as Hungarians, Estonians, Basques and Maltese. Oh, and Sami.

[Ibericus]

I wanted him to see, his flawed theory. I posted a picture of norwegians (without saying it) and he said they are not white. :lightbul:

[Lulletje Rozewater]

Lol. I have no particular military expertise. I know how to delegate authority. :)

:D:D:DFrom the toilet to the septic tank

[Óttar]

Wouldn't that rule out the Finns too?
The primary problem is not linguistic. Caucasoids also came from Central Asia, and similar non-IE Turkic population groups exist in Russia. The primary problem is the persistence of fundamentalist Islam despite Ataturk's reforms. Recent news says that the influence of political Islam is on the rise in Turkey. Even before this most recent surge, half of Turkey's constituents backed Islamism. Let us not forget also the genocidal campaigns against the Armenians and Kurds. I don't even have a problem with Turkey's unique brand of traditional folk "Islam" which is really just shamanist ritual song and dance under a superficial "Islamic" veneer.

A centralised exoteric religion wedded to politics has no place in modern Europe. We have already seen the awful effects such a scenario has had on America.

[Monolith]

A centralised exoteric religion wedded to politics has no place in modern Europe.
You're American, aren't you?

[Poltergeist]

Curiously, René Guénon put Turks and so-called Levantines in general into the category of Westerners, not into that of the traditional Islamic culture. He thought they had the same "Western" mentality and aspirations, only that they were less successful in attaining their goals in the period of modernity.

And such qualifications, when coming from Guénon, were hardly a compliment.

[Chocolate_Hound]

Turks being "Orientals" as nothing to do with Europe is about as convincing as the case that is made for Hungary. They are also non-European in origin (linguistically). The only difference with Turkey is that most of its current land is in Asia unlike the former.

I think what matters more is Turkey's modern-day place. They are a mix of Balkan-Middle Eastern culture and are a transcontinental country.

[Roy]

I don't find Turkey a European country.