Genetic studies, social structure, and some inconsistencies

[reboun]

Before I began to read about genetic studies about Turkish people, I used to think that the researchers were picking samples from all inhabitants of Turkey randomly, without considering those people’s immigration background. However, I guess my assumption was not true at all. The researchers only picked certain samples. There are lots of people in Turkey who identify as Turkish and of Arabian, Bosnian, Kurdish, Circassian descent. According to genetic researchers, those people are neither Anatolian nor Turkish, although they are both Turkish and Anatolian. Despite the fact that genetics is a very specialised topic, I don’t find is correct that the researchers excluded Turkish people who have different immigration backgrounds. Turkish people of different immigration backgrounds are also Turkish, Anatolian, part of Turkish society, if they identify as such.

Do you also think that genetic studies should be consistent with the social structure of the country whose people are being studied?

[RatCat]

We are talking about genetics, not how you identify yourself. You cant change your genetics but you can change how you identify. All of the ethnic groups you listed has different origins and genetic admixture, and the genetic difference between them is obvious.

[princeton90]

Genetics doesn't investigate or study social structure of a nation.

[reboun]

Genetics doesn't investigate or study social structure of a nation.

What you said isn’t relevant at all. I don’t say genetic should investigate social structure but say that genetic researchers should pick samples randomly.

[Korialstrasz]

Yes and no.

In the grand scheme of things; after a significant amount of time, those ethnicities *may* dissipate into the overarching Turkish identity, and may become just extra admixture in the final average. But this is quite the late-Ottoman early-Republic Turkish viewpoint that the Turkish identity is not genetic heritage but rather a social construct. This is quite outdated and has proven to be dysfunctional, as in the case of Kurds. Therefore, it is pretty dangerous to try and perpetuate it in the sake of continuous existence of the mononational Turkish state. Turkey is not homogenous and and it is quite likely that it is never going to feel that way. I for one have always found it difficult to relate myself to fundamentalists, nationalists, Kurds, Arabs and Turanists, whatever. And I am pretty sure the definition we had of the Turkish identity had been diametrically opposed.

At the same time, attributing the identity mostly to genetics is fairly moronic and it gives way to the possibility of a racist understanding of the identity.
Now that we have consumer genetics, it *should be* harder just to come up with a wacky idea that pretty much the entireity of Eurasia is Turkish. Even those with alleged ethnic Turkish background have received their admixture from god knows where. Genetics should now be taken at face value and nothing more than that. We all have so many ancestors even in a few generations back that it is impossible to base the identity solely on ancestry. Does it even matter? The Turkish identity has much more prominent issues at hand than its genetic make-up.

[Lemminkäinen]

Before I began to read about genetic studies about Turkish people, I used to think that the researchers were picking samples from all inhabitants of Turkey randomly, without considering those people’s immigration background. However, I guess my assumption was not true at all. The researchers only picked certain samples. There are lots of people in Turkey who identify as Turkish and of Arabian, Bosnian, Kurdish, Circassian descent. According to genetic researchers, those people are neither Anatolian nor Turkish, although they are both Turkish and Anatolian. Despite the fact that genetics is a very specialised topic, I don’t find is correct that the researchers excluded Turkish people who have different immigration backgrounds. Turkish people of different immigration backgrounds are also Turkish, Anatolian, part of Turkish society, if they identify as such.

Do you also think that genetic studies should be consistent with the social structure of the country whose people are being studied?

Researchers select samples they assume to represent best each population. They follow their bonafide beliefs. Sometimes it is an isolated circumpolar village behind 700 km backwoods representing 0.2 % of the labeled population and world's most respected scientific magazines publish results.

[princeton90]

What you said isn’t relevant at all. I don’t say genetic should investigate social structure but say that genetic researchers should pick samples randomly.

Genetic researchers are searching for best representatives of certain ethnicity. This is the reason why they eliminate results which seem to have a “different immigration background”.

My personal opinion: You are over-thinking this issue since you joined the forum and maybe even mistaken that DNA topics discussed here are an important part of social life although they are not.

[reboun]

Researchers select samples they assume to represent best each population. They follow their bonafide beliefs. Sometimes it is an isolated circumpolar village behind 700 km backwoods representing 0.2 % of the labeled population and world's most respected scientific magazines publish results.

Such assumptions are wrong, in my opinion.

[reboun]

In the grand scheme of things; after a significant amount of time, those ethnicities *may* dissipate into the overarching Turkish identity, and may become just extra admixture in the final average.

Haven’t they already dissipated?

[reboun]

Genetic researchers are searching for best representatives of certain ethnicity. This is the reason why they eliminate results which seem to have a “different immigration background”.

My personal opinion: You are over-thinking this issue since you joined the forum and maybe even mistaken that DNA topics discussed here are an important part of social life although they are not.

Who are the best representatives of an ethnic group?

[JamesBond007]

Before I began to read about genetic studies about Turkish people, I used to think that the researchers were picking samples from all inhabitants of Turkey randomly, without considering those people’s immigration background. However, I guess my assumption was not true at all. The researchers only picked certain samples. There are lots of people in Turkey who identify as Turkish and of Arabian, Bosnian, Kurdish, Circassian descent. According to genetic researchers, those people are neither Anatolian nor Turkish, although they are both Turkish and Anatolian. Despite the fact that genetics is a very specialised topic, I don’t find is correct that the researchers excluded Turkish people who have different immigration backgrounds. Turkish people of different immigration backgrounds are also Turkish, Anatolian, part of Turkish society, if they identify as such.

Do you also think that genetic studies should be consistent with the social structure of the country whose people are being studied?

No, that is stupid you are talking more about politically correct Sociology have primacy over the natural sciences. You want to know the truth ? It goes like this as ranking :

1.) physics (all true sciences have to obey the laws of physics)

2.)other natural sciences such as biology and chemistry and genetics falls under biology etc...

Bottom of the of the rung : sociology, psychology etc....

You obviously don't understand science

[princeton90]

Who are the best representatives of an ethnic group?

The ones who have the least foreign admixture.

[Leto]

Well, it should be a no-brainer that testing a bunch of immigrants or minorities in a certain country is a not good idea when you need an accurate picture of the country's main or indigenous or traditional (whatever you call it) ethnic group. It doesn't really matter where one was born and what kind of nationality they have.

[reboun]

No, that is stupid you are talking more about politically correct Sociology have primacy over the natural sciences.

I never claimed such thing.

[reboun]

Well, it should be a no-brainer that testing a bunch of immigrants or minorities in a certain country is a not good idea when you need an accurate picture of the country's main or indigenous or traditional (whatever you call it) ethnic group. It doesn't really matter where one was born and what kind of nationality they have.

There are lots of Turkish people who have different immigration and ancestral backgrounds. In my opinion, it wouldn't be correct to exclude their results.

[Mejgusu]

What you said isn’t relevant at all. I don’t say genetic should investigate social structure but say that genetic researchers should pick samples randomly.

Your approach is not scientific, genetics are not social sciences.


There are lots of Turkish people who have different immigration and ancestral backgrounds. In my opinion, it wouldn't be correct to exclude their results.

What? I really dont understand your problem and it becomes ridiculous. If we talk about ethnic Turkish genetics it wouldnt make sense to include non-Turkish samples into any research. We already differentiate between Balkan, Anatolian, Iranian etc. Turks regarding genetics, if we would count for example a Turkish citizen with Assyrian or Albanian origin as Turk that would enormously distort works about this topic.

Genetics are a part of biology, your thoughts dont make sense here. Politically, socially and nationalistically there are no any difference between all Turks, regardless your ancestry and yes even as someone with non-Turkish origin. Connecting this with genetics is racism.

[reboun]

Edited.

[Mejgusu]

I am not a racist person. I couldn't understand what made you think that way.

I did not say YOU are racist, i said that connecting social sciences with genetics is racism.

[reboun]

I did not say YOU are racist, i said that connecting social sciences with genetics is racism.

Oh, I am sorry.

[reboun]

No, that is stupid you are talking more about politically correct Sociology have primacy over the natural sciences. You want to know the truth ? It goes like this as ranking :

1.) physics (all true sciences have to obey the laws of physics)

2.)other natural sciences such as biology and chemistry and genetics falls under biology etc...

Bottom of the of the rung : sociology, psychology etc....

You obviously don't understand science

I understand science but seems like ancestral genetics is not my cup of tea.

[princeton90]

I understand science but seems like ancestral genetics is not my cup of tea.

Genetics is actually a very interesting topic but cannot be 100% politically correct like you expected. Labeling Bosnians who live in Turkey as “Turkish” on genetic researchers would create some misconceptions and errors. Simply, most of the NW Balkans would be genetically modeled as part Turkish, even though those people have no ancestral connection with Turkish people.

[reboun]

Labeling Bosnians who live in Turkey as “Turkish” on genetic researchers would create some misconceptions and errors. Simply, most of the NW Balkans would be genetically modeled as part Turkish, even though those people have no ancestral connection with Turkish people.

Why would it create such an error?

[princeton90]

Why would it create such an error?

It is obvious that Bosnians who live in Turkey are much closer to native Bosnians, Serbians, Croatians than they are to Anatolian Turks. If you label Bosnians from Turkey as "Turkish" or "Anatolian" then most Serbians, Croatians, Bosnians would be very close to "Turkish cluster" and it might create a wrong image as if natives of NW Balkans are ancestrally very close to Turks or Anatolians, which is very misleading and not correct at all.

[reboun]

It is obvious that Bosnians who live in Turkey are much closer to native Bosnians, Serbians, Croatians than they are to Anatolian Turks. If you label Bosnians from Turkey as "Turkish" or "Anatolian" then most Serbians, Croatians, Bosnians would be very close to "Turkish cluster" and it might create a wrong image as if natives of NW Balkans are ancestrally very close to Turks or Anatolians, which is very misleading and not correct at all.

Thank you, but I still think like what I wrote in the OP.

[Flashball]

Yes and no.

In the grand scheme of things; after a significant amount of time, those ethnicities *may* dissipate into the overarching Turkish identity, and may become just extra admixture in the final average. But this is quite the late-Ottoman early-Republic Turkish viewpoint that the Turkish identity is not genetic heritage but rather a social construct. This is quite outdated and has proven to be dysfunctional, as in the case of Kurds. Therefore, it is pretty dangerous to try and perpetuate it in the sake of continuous existence of the mononational Turkish state. Turkey is not homogenous and and it is quite likely that it is never going to feel that way. I for one have always found it difficult to relate myself to fundamentalists, nationalists, Kurds, Arabs and Turanists, whatever. And I am pretty sure the definition we had of the Turkish identity had been diametrically opposed.

At the same time, attributing the identity mostly to genetics is fairly moronic and it gives way to the possibility of a racist understanding of the identity.
Now that we have consumer genetics, it *should be* harder just to come up with a wacky idea that pretty much the entireity of Eurasia is Turkish. Even those with alleged ethnic Turkish background have received their admixture from god knows where. Genetics should now be taken at face value and nothing more than that. We all have so many ancestors even in a few generations back that it is impossible to base the identity solely on ancestry. Does it even matter? The Turkish identity has much more prominent issues at hand than its genetic make-up.

A nigger can't become French, he is not;
A nigger can't become Chinese, he isn't
A nigger can't become Pole, he isn't

Etc

Identity is basic racist, it is so, it is nature, either we accept it or we are anti-racist (denial of reality). Racism is a natural thing in every population of the world.

[reboun]

A nigger can't become French, he is not;
A nigger can't become Chinese, he isn't
A nigger can't become Pole, he isn't

Etc

Identity is basic racist, it is so, it is nature, either we accept it or we are anti-racist (denial of reality). Racism is a natural thing in every population of the world.

No. Racism is not normal. At least, not in civil life.

[Flashball]

No. Racism is not normal. At least, not in civil life.

Racism is a natural thing in all civilizations: people prefer not to mix and stay with people of the same race. Among the pygmies, there is racism, in Japan there is, in China, etc. It is natural to prefer your own people to other peoples. And it's natural not to want to live in a multiracial society

Multiracial is the erasure of all racial differences, since the "multiracial world" according to antiracists (like you) would become a mixed world where there would be interbreeding everywhere and where there would be no more interest in traveling.

Multiracialism leads to a conflictual society, it suffices to look at Brazil and all the multiracial societies in the world to perceive the unreliability of such a project.

And do not give me the Sumero-Akkadian society as an example: this multiracial and multicultural society ended with a replacement of the Sumerian populations by the Akkadians.

In a multiracial society, either the indigenous people are replaced by miscegenation or genocide, in the case of the Sumerians their "multiracial" society lasted a short time, before the Akkadians completely replaced the Sumerians in genetic and cultural terms (we can see that Akkadian culture completely had dominated, especially in terms of customs, since the Sumerians had different customs from Akkadians, Semitic people)

[reboun]

Racism is a natural thing in all civilizations: people prefer not to mix and stay with people of the same race. Among the pygmies, there is racism, in Japan there is, in China, etc. It is natural to prefer your own people to other peoples. And it's natural not to want to live in a multiracial society

Multiracial is the erasure of all racial differences, since the "multiracial world" according to antiracists (like you) would become a mixed world where there would be interbreeding everywhere and where there would be no more interest in traveling.

Multiracialism leads to a conflictual society, it suffices to look at Brazil and all the multiracial societies in the world to perceive the unreliability of such a project.

And do not give me the Sumero-Akkadian society as an example: this multiracial and multicultural society ended with a replacement of the Sumerian populations by the Akkadians.

In a multiracial society, either the indigenous people are replaced by miscegenation or genocide, in the case of the Sumerians their "multiracial" society lasted a short time, before the Akkadians completely replaced the Sumerians in genetic and cultural terms (we can see that Akkadian culture completely had dominated, especially in terms of customs, since the Sumerians had different customs from Akkadians, Semitic people)

Assuming that you are a native French. You are predominantly Neolithic Farmer with significant European Hunter-Gatherer and Ancient North Eurasian in you. Therefore, you are also “mixed” like the other French, Italian, Turkish, German people and etc.

By the way, Neolithic Farmers, Ancient North Eurasians and European Hunter-Gatherers were three different races because they did not have any genetic overlap and the genetic distances between them were significantly high.

[Leto]

Multiculturalism is doomed to fail or rather, it was never meant to succeed to begin with. In my opinion you can have a "multiracial" (I'm not talking necessarily black and white) society ONLY with a common culture, especially/particularly religion. Other than that, it's gonna be a bloody mess unless it's forcefully contained by an authoritarian government.

[Leto]

Assuming that you are a native French. You are predominantly Neolithic Farmer with significant European Hunter-Gatherer and Ancient North Eurasian in you. Therefore, you are also “mixed” like the other French, Italian, Turkish, German people and etc.

By the way, Neolithic Farmers, Ancient North Eurasians and European Hunter-Gatherers were three different races because they did not have any genetic overlap and the genetic distances between them were significantly high.
Yeah, and that was a genocide or racial/ethnic replacement. Not peaceful but violent. Also it lasted for many, many generations unlike today when a million migrants can move in just in one single year.

[reboun]

I have to admit, probably I was too sensitive since the genetic researchers didn’t include Turks with different migration routes in their Turkish samples. Now I think this is like a “game” for fun.

[Noble Cuman]

Natives of Turkey are Thrace Turks, Anatolia Turks and in eastern Anatolia Kurds,Arabs,Lazes and other little minorities. All of them have different genetics. Genetic researchers only consider natives of a population that living in a place for centuries to represent a population. Lets say native Turks of Bursa or Giresun are Manav Yörüks and Chepnis. They would choose these populations for city average. Bosniaks, Albanians, Balkan Turks, Tatar and other immigrants arrived in these places later. They have their own genetics, customs and traditions.

[reboun]

Natives of Turkey are Thrace Turks, Anatolia Turks and in eastern Anatolia Kurds,Arabs,Lazes and other little minorities. All of them have different genetics. Genetic researchers only consider natives of a population that living in a place for centuries to represent a population. Lets say native Turks of Bursa or Giresun are Manav Yörüks and Chepnis. They would choose these populations for city average. Bosniaks, Albanians, Balkan Turks, Tatar and other immigrants arrived in these places later. They have their own genetics, customs and traditions.

I think, definition of “native” in such context is a little complicated. How many years and generations must pass in other for a genetic group to be native?

[namelessuser]

Assuming that you are a native French. You are predominantly Neolithic Farmer with significant European Hunter-Gatherer and Ancient North Eurasian in you. Therefore, you are also “mixed” like the other French, Italian, Turkish, German people and etc.

By the way, Neolithic Farmers, Ancient North Eurasians and European Hunter-Gatherers were three different races because they did not have any genetic overlap and the genetic distances between them were significantly high.

WHG, EHG, ENF are of the same origin and White.

[Leto]

I think, definition of “native” in such context is a little complicated. How many years and generations must pass in other for a genetic group to be native?
He means they are either separate ethnic/linguistic/cultural groups or just more recent arrivals in the region. You do understand what assimilation means. Complete cultural assimilation implies the complete abandonment of previous ethnic and linguistic ties in favor of new ones. I don't know much about Turkey specifically, I believe there were some assimilationist policies over there in the past century but if for example Kurds or Arabs still identify as such and practice some forms of Kurdish/Arab culture, they are not assimilated completely (only partially). On the other hand, if an entire village identifies as Turkish and claims their ancestry is also Turkish, you really cannot exclude them.

[reboun]

WHG, EHG, ENF are of the same origin and White.

Take a look at the distances:

Distance to: WHG
79.62763339 Europe_EN
111.86429278 EHG

Distance to: Europe_EN
79.62763339 WHG
98.70086119 EHG

Distance to: EHG
98.70086119 Europe_EN
111.86429278 WHG

They are simply 3 different races.

[princeton90]

On the other hand, if an entire village identifies as Turkish and claims their ancestry is also Turkish, you really cannot exclude them.

Can't they be excluded even if they are genetically very far from rest of the population?

[reboun]

Can't they be excluded even if they are genetically very far from rest of the population?

They shouldn't be excluded.

[Thracian]

Can't they be excluded even if they are genetically very far from rest of the population?

All outliers must be excluded or re-grouped. Science works different than words. For example, let us say all Kyrgyz, Uzbeks, Turkmens, Georgians, Slav Russians, Tatars, Fins and Armenians accept themselves as ethnic Russians. That would be horrific mistake if you label all of them as Russians. According to this scenario, an Uyghur can cluster with Russians.

The same goes for France if you add all immigrants into French that makes a chaos.

[reboun]

All outliers must be excluded or re-grouped. Science works different than words. For example, let us say all Kyrgyz, Uzbeks, Turkmens, Georgians, Slav Russians, Tatars, Fins and Armenians accept themselves as ethnic Russians. That would be horrific mistake if you label all of them as Russians. According to this scenario, an Uyghur can cluster with Russians.

The same goes for France if you add all immigrants into French that makes a chaos.

But in real life, culture is more important than genetics, right?

[Thracian]

But in real life, culture is more important than genetics, right?

In real life, no one cares about DNA or taxonomy.

I would say common values are more important. I am not sure about culture. I see every man as my follow citizen if they are loyal to our country no matter their ethnicity, religion, mother tongue and so on.

[reboun]

In real life, no one cares about DNA or taxonomy.

I would say common values are more important. I am not sure about culture. I see every man as my follow citizen if they are loyal to our country no matter their ethnicity, religion, mother tongue and so on.

The inconsistency in my mind: Obviously, my closest DNA relatives are Turkish citizens, live in Turkey, and are culturally Turkish. However, if I a take DNA test then most probably, the test will say that I am zero or very little Turkish. This seems inconsistent to me.

[princeton90]

The inconsistency in my mind: Obviously, my closest DNA relatives are Turkish citizens, live in Turkey, and are culturally Turkish. However, if I a take DNA test then most probably, the test will say that I am zero or very little Turkish. This seems inconsistent to me.

Those tests are not mandatory. If you believe they are inconsistent and if it is obvious that your closest DNA relatives are Turkish in those aspects, you may not take a test.

[Thracian]

The inconsistency in my mind: Obviously, my closest DNA relatives are Turkish citizens, live in Turkey, and are culturally Turkish. However, if I a take DNA test then most probably, the test will say that I am zero or very little Turkish. This seems inconsistent to me.

This is not inconsistency. Biology and human-made societies are different things.

Your closest matches will not be fully Turks, Arabs, Kurds, Albanians, Circassians from different regions of Turkey. They will be Bosniaks. Other Balkan Slavs from Western Balkans will be following those Bosniaks who live in Turkey. This is not a coincidence but intersection of genetic science and history.

[reboun]

This is not inconsistency. Biology and human-made societies are different things.

Your closest matches will not be fully Turks, Arabs, Kurds, Albanians, Circassians from different regions of Turkey. They will be Bosniaks. Other Balkan Slavs from Western Balkans will be following those Bosniaks who live in Turkey. This is not a coincidence but intersection of genetic science and history.

Almost all of my family relatives identify themselves as Turkish and are culturally Turkish. This is why I said “my closest DNA relatives are Turkish citizens, live in Turkey, and are culturally Turkish”.

[Kaspias]

Almost all of my family relatives identify themselves as Turkish and are culturally Turkish. This is why I said “my closest DNA relatives are Turkish citizens, live in Turkey, and are culturally Turkish”.

My maternal line identifies Turkish as well, but they were not speaking Turkish like 100 years ago, or at least let's say they were bilingual. Were your ancestors? They probably were not even bilingual. Ethnic Turks always spoke Turkish and did not learn any other language in the native degree. This makes the difference. In your case, you know that your ancestors come from Bosnia and were Bosniaks, but when you ask the same question to ethnic Turks you will not able to get any other answer except for "we are Turk, we speak Turkish."

Bosniaks are an important part of Turkish culture and society, but this is coming from the imperial heritage that continued during the nation-state. Being non-Turk in ethnic meaning does not make you less Turkish, or does not make ethnic Turks superior to you. This is just not how genetics works. Your DNA relatives will be ethnic Bosniaks no matter what you identify and what you think and you will show no relativity to the ethnic Turks, while the Turk ethnicity among themselves match with each other. In this sense, it is apparent that you and ethnic Turks, or let's include some others such as Circassians or Albanians, are separate ethnicities that live under the Turkish cultural sphere. So, you're Turkish/Turk as long as you want to identify as such, but you will not be an ethnic Turk in racial meaning. And if you're not Turkish in terms of genetics, you can not be labeled as Turkish. You can be Bosniak_Turkey at maximum, but this doesn't change anything as there are plenty of Bosniaks who came from different regions.

One more thing is ethnic Turks are not diverse under their own ethnic groups(Anatolian, Balkan.) Turkey is diverse. You should make this separation as well.


Relativity drawing of some ethnic groups living in Turkey, based on genetic correlation:

https://i.ibb.co/ZmQJnh6/1.png

Anatolian Turks, Balkan Turks, Albanians, Pomaks match among themselves. Georgians from Turkey and Ahiska Turks match with each other as well as Kurds and Zaza.

With the lower threshold:

https://i.ibb.co/RQ2nP2W/2.png

Three major clusters:

1- Anatolian Turks and Azerbaijani Turks -> Merged with Cretan Turks, Kurdish, Zaza -> Eventually merged with the Caucasian group as well as Turk_East and Nusayri.
2- Balkan Turks -> Merged with Pomaks and Albanians.
3- Caucasians -> The actual correlation is between Armenian_West, Turk_East_Black_Sea, Turk_Ahiska, and Georgian_Turkey. The rest seem to be still outliers although merged with the main cluster. This group also connected with the Anatolian group thanks to the Azerbaijani bridge.



Bosnians are still isolated together with Steppe Tatars.

[Thracian]

Almost all of my family relatives identify themselves as Turkish and are culturally Turkish. This is why I said “my closest DNA relatives are Turkish citizens, live in Turkey, and are culturally Turkish”.

A Kenyan man who raised in Germany feels like a German and adopted German culture is a German?

A Slav Russian who raised in Korea and identifies himself as a Korean is a Korean?

They can claim those ideas, and the society can accept them. But, their DNA will be different than society. A Kenyan man would cluster with other African populations, and Russian guy would cluster with Slavs. Neither Kenyan nor Russian guy would cluster with Germans or Koreans just because they identify themselves as Germans or Koreans. DNA is different than identification. That is why you can not use Kenyan man for German averages or Russian man for Korean averages.

[Leto]

The inconsistency in my mind: Obviously, my closest DNA relatives are Turkish citizens, live in Turkey, and are culturally Turkish. However, if I a take DNA test then most probably, the test will say that I am zero or very little Turkish. This seems inconsistent to me.
Don't project your personal identity issue onto the rest of the people. If you belong to an ethnic minority or have mixed ethnic background, doesn't mean the rest are or should be like you and cannot be considered a distinct nation beyond common citizenship. Most Turks are not Bosniaks, period.

[reboun]

My maternal line identifies Turkish as well, but they were not speaking Turkish like 100 years ago, or at least let's say they were bilingual. Were your ancestors? They probably were not even bilingual. Ethnic Turks always spoke Turkish and did not learn any other language in the native degree. This makes the difference. In your case, you know that your ancestors come from Bosnia and were Bosniaks, but when you ask the same question to ethnic Turks you will not able to get any other answer except for "we are Turk, we speak Turkish."

Bosniaks are an important part of Turkish culture and society, but this is coming from the imperial heritage that continued during the nation-state. Being non-Turk in ethnic meaning does not make you less Turkish, or does not make ethnic Turks superior to you. This is just not how genetics works. Your DNA relatives will be ethnic Bosniaks no matter what you identify and what you think and you will show no relativity to the ethnic Turks, while the Turk ethnicity among themselves match with each other. In this sense, it is apparent that you and ethnic Turks, or let's include some others such as Circassians or Albanians, are separate ethnicities that live under the Turkish cultural sphere. So, you're Turkish/Turk as long as you want to identify as such, but you will not be an ethnic Turk in racial meaning. And if you're not Turkish in terms of genetics, you can not be labeled as Turkish. You can be Bosniak_Turkey at maximum, but this doesn't change anything as there are plenty of Bosniaks who came from different regions.

One more thing is ethnic Turks are not diverse under their own ethnic groups(Anatolian, Balkan.) Turkey is diverse. You should make this separation as well.


Relativity drawing of some ethnic groups living in Turkey, based on genetic correlation:

https://i.ibb.co/ZmQJnh6/1.png

Anatolian Turks, Balkan Turks, Albanians, Pomaks match among themselves. Georgians from Turkey and Ahiska Turks match with each other as well as Kurds and Zaza.

With the lower threshold:

https://i.ibb.co/RQ2nP2W/2.png

Three major clusters:

1- Anatolian Turks and Azerbaijani Turks -> Merged with Cretan Turks, Kurdish, Zaza -> Eventually merged with the Caucasian group as well as Turk_East and Nusayri.
2- Balkan Turks -> Merged with Pomaks and Albanians.
3- Caucasians -> The actual correlation is between Armenian_West, Turk_East_Black_Sea, Turk_Ahiska, and Georgian_Turkey. The rest seem to be still outliers although merged with the main cluster. This group also connected with the Anatolian group thanks to the Azerbaijani bridge.



Bosnians are still isolated together with Steppe Tatars.

Thank you. Do you think there should be a Bosniak-Turkey category in GEDMatch? I think, its existence would be better.

[Narration]

There are lots of Turkish people who have different immigration and ancestral backgrounds. In my opinion, it wouldn't be correct to exclude their results.

It is a terrible idea to include people who are genetically different from the main population when calculating ethnicity averages. About 3 months ago, one of my friends and I did an artificial Turkish average which includes all the ethnicities which are present in Turkey. However, Vahaduo tool had shown us this kind of average is quite far from all the other ethnic averages. Therefore, if all Turkish citizens were included in ancestral average of Turks, almost no Turkish citizen would genetically score close to that average.

[Croatian Legend]

I understand science but seems like ancestral genetics is not my cup of tea.

It might not be your cup of tea but it is a fact. You for example are no Turk genetically speaking. You my friend belong to the genetic cluster ( west balkan or south slav whatever) I asume you are Bosniak that leans towards some Turkish positiv worldview. But genetically speaking you are close to Bonsian/ Croats and such.

Of course you can view yourself Turkish if that is your way of thinking because of religion or history propaganda.... and i won't get into such argument for obvious reasons.
Anyway what you feel or don't feel has nothing to do with facts.

[reboun]

It might not be your cup of tea but it is a fact. You for example are no Turk genetically speaking. You my friend belong to the genetic cluster ( west balkan or south slav whatever) I asume you are Bosniak that leans towards some Turkish positiv worldview. But genetically speaking you are close to Bonsian/ Croats and such.

Of course you can view yourself Turkish if that is your way of thinking because of religion or history propaganda.... and i won't get into such argument for obvious reasons.
Anyway what you feel or don't feel has nothing to do with facts.

In my current opinion, people like me can also be included in Turkish provinces' averages according to my calculations and estimations.

Yes, I might be genetically close to Bosnians and Croats but lots of Turkish people are also genetically close to Bosnians and Croats.

[Narration]

In my current opinion, people like me can also be included in Turkish provinces' averages according to my calculations and estimations.

Yes, I might be genetically close to Bosnians and Croats but lots of Turkish people are also genetically close to Bosnians and Croats.

What has led you towards this idea? I ask, because I have seen a lot of individual GEDmatch results who are labelled as Turkish but never seen one who clusters with Bosnians or Croats.

[Croatian Legend]

In my current opinion, people like me can also be included in Turkish provinces' averages according to my calculations and estimations.

Yes, I might be genetically close to Bosnians and Croats but lots of Turkish people are also genetically close to Bosnians and Croats.

You still don't seem to understand. I really start to think that you are indocrinated by something. Look those Turks that are close to Croats/Bosniaks is rather very simple to understand especially if you know History. Turks took young Croats and send them to Istanbul you still have some descendants there. But that doesn't make them Turkish! Take me for example. I have Croatian and BOSNIAK in my familiy if you will i am the best example. It doesn't matter if chose to be muslim or catholic or a believer of flying spagetti monster. I am Croatian period. Sure i could take a Turkish passport and be on paper a Turk! But no real Turk will see me as a true Turk! Ethnicity is ethnicty / Blood is Blood!

Anyway let's put it in this way your are my Blood brother! I could care less if you are muslim or whatever. I for example am not indoctrinated to view BOSNIAKS/Muslim as Turks like some idiots think! Mulsim or Catholic is just Religion! It is really sad to see what has become of some Bosniaks that even start to view themselves as Turks. But again i won't go into that and talk about History. Just my 2 cents.

Regards!

[Dick]

Autism

[reboun]

You still don't seem to understand. I really start to think that you are indocrinated by something. Look those Turks that are close to Croats/Bosniaks is rather very simple to understand especially if you know History. Turks took young Croats and send them to Istanbul you still have some descendants there. But that doesn't make them Turkish! Take me for example. I have Croatian and BOSNIAK in my familiy if you will i am the best example. It doesn't matter if chose to be muslim or catholic or a believer of flying spagetti monster. I am Croatian period. Sure i could take a Turkish passport and be on paper a Turk! But no real Turk will see me as a true Turk! Ethnicity is ethnicty / Blood is Blood!

Anyway let's put it in this way your are my Blood brother! I could care less if you are muslim or whatever. I for example am not indoctrinated to view BOSNIAKS/Muslim as Turks like some idiots think! Mulsim or Catholic is just Religion! It is really sad to see what has become of some Bosniaks that even start to view themselves as Turks. But again i won't go into that and talk about History. Just my 2 cents.

Regards!

I actually do not claim that Bosniaks are of Turkish origin. It would be like saying "All the Italians are in fact Argentinian because there are a lot of people of Italian origin in Argentina".

I try to say that almost all Bosniaks of Turkish nationality consider and identify themselves as Turkish. Also, I was wrong when I posted the original post. My my recent consideration is: GEDmatch results from Turkiye and Turkish province averages also include the results of people of Turkish nationality but have roots outside Turkiye, as far as the candidates to be included in Turkish averages are Turkish citizens and identify themselves as Turkish.

[reboun]

Autism

Me?