Turkey to allow Kurdish language to be used in court

[Bugarash 1893]

Btw I heard stories that above the door of turkish prison facilities there is a writing that says: ''From here on Allah doesnt exist''

Is that tue?:D

Oh,and stop the persecution of Kurds in Turkey!
Give them freedom!
Freedom for Kurdistan!



Turkey to allow Kurdish language to be used in court

(Reuters) - Kurdish militants appear to have achieved their aim of being able to speak in their own language in court after the Turkish government said it would soon submit a bill to parliament on the subject.

Courts' refusal to allow defendants who speak Turkish to use Kurdish in their defence has been a source of controversy in ongoing court cases against hundreds of defendants accused of links to the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) militant group and resolving the issue has been one of several key Kurdish demands.

Some 700 Kurdish inmates in dozens of prisons are refusing solid food to try to exert pressure on Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan's government to grant greater Kurdish minority rights and better conditions for a jailed militant leader.

Turkey's main medical association has warned that some of the hunger strikers may die if they continue their protest.

The government said its decision to change the law had nothing to do with the hunger strike.

"A person will be able to defend themselves in court in the language in which they can best express themselves," Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc told reporters late on Monday after a cabinet meeting where the issue was discussed.

"The prime minister has given the order to our justice minister to develop this and send it rapidly to parliament to become law," he said.

Arinc said the ruling AK Party had pledged the reform in a booklet distributed at its congress in September, seeking to dispel the idea it was acting in response to the hunger strike.

Erdogan's government has boosted Kurdish cultural and language rights since taking power a decade ago, but Kurdish politicians are seeking greater political reform, including steps towards autonomy for mainly Kurdish southeastern Turkey.

The leader of the main pro-Kurdish party welcomed the move.

"But we don't have another 56 days ahead us to sort this out. There are only a few days. These statements must be acted on," BDP leader Selahattin Demirtas told a party meeting.

Fifty six is the number of days the militants have been on hunger strike for.

"DON'T UPSET US"

Arinc called on the inmates to end their protest.

"Don't upset us and our nation," he said. "Please end these strikes in the knowledge that there is a democratic atmosphere in Turkey where your demands can be discussed."

Erdogan has taken a hard line, describing the protest as blackmail and a "show". The head of the Turkish Medical Association has warned that such comments risked hardening the inmates' resolve.

The protesters' main demand is for PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan, who is imprisoned on an island in the Marmara Sea south of Istanbul, to have access to his lawyers after 15 months of no contact. Most of the inmates are either convicted PKK members or accused of links to the outlawed group.

A PKK statement said it believed the hunger strike could end if the protesters' "reasonable demands" were met.

The protests follow a surge in violence between Turkey and the PKK, which took up arms in 1984 with the aim of carving out an independent Kurdish state. Turkish Kurds now number around 15 million, or around one fifth of the population.

The PKK has staged some of its bloodiest attacks in more than a decade this year as tensions grow between Turkey and its neighbour Syria, which Ankara has accused of arming the PKK.

More than 40,000 people have been killed in the conflict between the Turkish state and the PKK, designated a terrorist group by Ankara, the United States and the European Union.

[Kemalisté]

Where did you hear that story ? some years ago there was a similar case, where a woman wanted to participate in a trial but was not allowed and the judge told her '' Your God and his rules do not pass here ''. Well, although being a harsh explanation, it's true since the judiciary should keep its secularity based on laws.

As for the news, I agree that the people who are unable to speak Turkish properly should be allowed to speak in their native language, but the Turkish Republic is a nation-state with one national identity and language. Would you advocate the same thing for Turks in Bulgaria ? I doubt it. And you're being silly with your teenager rhetoric.

[Queen B]

Its isn't used already ?
So if someone doesn't speak Turkish, how he goes through trial?

[Bugarash 1893]

Where did you hear that story ? some years ago there was a similar case, where a woman wanted to participate in a trial but was not allowed and the judge told her '' Your God and his rules do not pass here ''. Well, although being a harsh explanation, it's true since the judiciary should keep its secularity based on laws.


On several occasions,one of them was when my highschool teacher was telling us how to act while we were getting ready to go on a school trip to Istanbul.

The prison story just got into conversation.:D

[ChildOfTheJin]

Its isn't used already ?
So if someone doesn't speak Turkish, how he goes through trial?

Kurdish language is banned in parliament and you can only study kurdish 2 hours a weak. Leyla Zana, a Kurdish politician, got jailed for speaking kurdish in parliament.

[Queen B]

Kurdish language is banned in parliament and you can only study kurdish 2 hours a weak. Leyla Zana, a Kurdish politician, got jailed for speaking kurdish in parliament.

I am not talking about parliament, but in court. It isn't used in courts?

[Partizan]

Oh,and stop the persecution of Kurds in Turkey!
Give them freedom!
Freedom for Kurdistan!

After you'll give Pirin to Macedonia and give Turks of Bulgaria their freedom, mmmmaaaaayyyybbbeee :)


Its isn't used already ?
So if someone doesn't speak Turkish, how he goes through trial?

Dear, only language in Turkey is Turkish, period. We are a Unitary state and we have our rules here. Only nation in Turkey is Turk, only language is Turkish.

[ChildOfTheJin]

I am not talking about parliament, but in court. It isn't used in courts?

Oh, no before it wasn't allowed. Luckily, it will be in a few weeks time. But since the Turkish election is coming soon, Erdogan wants kurdish votes and this is one of his methods to try and get them

[Annihilus]

This is ridiculous, everybody in Turkey speaks turkish. Only exception that can be made is for foreigners that do not speak Turkish.

Fucking traitors.

[Partizan]

I am not talking about parliament, but in court. It isn't used in courts?

As far as I know AKP had some attempts to do it but they failed. If it is case of a tourist or something like that, I guess a translator helps.

[ChildOfTheJin]

Dear, only language in Turkey is Turkish, period. We are a Unitary state and we have our rules here. Only nation in Turkey is Turk, only language is Turkish.

Yes I agree! East and south east Anatolia is not part of turkey! Thanks for agreeing with me. You are the first Turk on here to say this. Thanks man:thumb001:

:)

[Partizan]

Oh, no before it wasn't allowed. Luckily, it will be in a few weeks time. But since the Turkish election is coming soon, Erdogan wants kurdish votes and this is one of his methods to try and get them

His policy is changed, he used to flatter Kurds until one year ago but now even Erdogan understood that giving compensations isn't the solution. That's why he appointed a nationalist, İdris Naim Şahin to domestic affairs ministry. I'm against AKP but I like how they put KCK terrorists to jail in last year :) I hope Erdogan will go on being harsh against Kıros.

[Bugarash 1893]

After you'll give Pirin to Macedonia and give Turks of Bulgaria their freedom, mmmmaaaaayyyybbbeee :)


Two important reasons:

Turks have their own country.
Every bulgarian of turkish origin is free to go to Turkey and ask Turkey to give him freedom.

And macedonians dont exist.

So...

It is fair to give the kurds their own country.
They are tens of million of people and dont have their own country!
They have bee fighting so long for it,being tricked so many times,went through so much suffering...

[ChildOfTheJin]

This is ridiculous, everybody in Turkey speaks turkish. Only exception that can be made is for foreigners that do not speak Turkish.

Fucking traitors.

Of course, I am a Turk that went into the mountains and forgot my Turkish identity!:picard1:

[Annihilus]

I believe you are not a Turkish citizen so you have no say in this.

[Partizan]

Yes I agree! East and south east Anatolia is not part of turkey! Thanks for agreeing with me. You are the first Turk on here to say this. Thanks man:thumb001:

:)

Only in your dreams barzo. From Hakkari to Edirne, whole motherland is land of Turks, nobody else.

[ChildOfTheJin]

His policy is changed, he used to flatter Kurds until one year ago but now even Erdogan understood that giving compensations isn't the solution. That's why he appointed a nationalist, İdris Naim Şahin to domestic affairs ministry. I'm against AKP but I like how they put KCK terrorists to jail in last year :) I hope Erdogan will go on being harsh against Kıros.

Yes and look at those prisoners now. They are hunger strikers now. Almost day 60, how do you feel that they will die in a few days? You feel proud? So you admit you want the Kurds to be tortured? Remember what tuan Belanda said in the past? I agree with him


They are a fugly race of goatfuckers but even then they would probably be more similar to Germans then they are to the goatfucker occupiers of Anatolia that should be kicked back to the steps of Central Asia to join their brother in Turkmenistan.

[Cannabis Sativa]

After you'll give Pirin to Macedonia and give Turks of Bulgaria their freedom, mmmmaaaaayyyybbbeee :)

Nice, perhaps it's already time to visit OMO Ilinden Pirin and provide some financial support for their goals. :thumb001:

[ChildOfTheJin]

I believe you are not a Turkish citizen so you have no say in this.

No I'm a mountain Turk :picard1:

[Partizan]

Two important reasons:
Turks have their own country.

So let us annex Turkish inhabited areas.


And macedonians dont exist.

Neither Kurds do. Just a fake ethnicity who have no language/culture connection between each other. If there weren't pseudo-historians like Minorsky and Charmoy now they wouldn't even exist.


So...

It is fair to give the kurds their own country.
They are tens of million of people and dont have their own country!
They have bee fighting so long for it,being tricked so many times,went through so much suffering...

Take them to Bulgaria if you love them.

[ChildOfTheJin]

So let us annex Turkish inhabited areas.



Neither Kurds do. Just a fake ethnicity who have no language/culture connection between each other. If there weren't pseudo-historians like Minorsky and Charmoy now they wouldn't even exist.



Take them to Bulgaria if you love them.

Here we go with this bullshit again...

[Partizan]

Yes and look at those prisoners now. They are hunger strikers now. Almost day 60, how do you feel that they will die in a few days? You feel proud? So you admit you want the Kurds to be tortured?

I support this hunger strike, our stupid laws don't allow us to execute those terrorists but I hope they won't return from that and kill themselves from starving. No mercy to terrorists!


Remember what tuan Belanda said in the past? I agree with him

What is it's relevance to this topic, kıro?

[ChildOfTheJin]

Lol, you are giving the Turks a very good image here. No wonder the Germans love you :picard1:


Neither Kurds do. Just a fake ethnicity who have no language/culture connection between each other. If there weren't pseudo-historians like Minorsky and Charmoy now they wouldn't even exist.

[ChildOfTheJin]

I support this hunger strike, our stupid laws don't allow us to execute those terrorists but I hope they won't return from that and kill themselves from starving. No mercy to terrorists!



What is it's relevance to this topic, kıro?

*sigh* barbarians...

[Annihilus]

Yes and look at those prisoners now. They are hunger strikers now. Almost day 60, how do you feel that they will die in a few days? You feel proud? So you admit you want the Kurds to be tortured? Remember what tuan Belanda said in the past? I agree with him

Good that's 60 less to deal with.


No I'm a mountain Turk :picard1:

No you are not, like I said you are not a national of Turkey, it is non of your business.

[ChildOfTheJin]

Good that's 60 less to deal with.



No you are not, like I said you are not a national of Turkey, it is non of your business.

Lol there is over a 1000 of them but they are in day 60

No no I am a mountain Turk who went to the mountains and forget my identity! :picard1:

[Partizan]

*sigh* barbarians...

Who throw Molotoves to buses and burn children aren't barbarians, yes. Who attack schools aren't barbarians, yes. To me, there must be a human in front of you for talking about "human rights" and I don't consider those terrorists as humans.

[Bugarash 1893]

So let us annex Turkish inhabited areas.

You dont have the historical or demographical right to those regions.
And those regions arent populated just by turks but are mixed.
So your entire vocabulary is wrong!

You just cant compare that with holding under yoke tens of millions of kurds!


Neither Kurds do. Just a fake ethnicity who have no language/culture connection between each other. If there weren't pseudo-historians like Minorsky and Charmoy now they wouldn't even exist.

The story about a macedonian nation is clear.
It was created by the communists.
You even have the birth date when the macedonian nation was created August 2,1945.

I doubt that some hystorians could create a kurdish nation.


Take them to Bulgaria if you love them.

Why take them anywhere?
Just give them part of todays Turkey so they can have their long wanted statehood.

I mean what use you have from the current situation?

Southeast Turkey is a military zone.
Everyday clashes.
Just let them go.

[ChildOfTheJin]

Who throw Molotoves to buses and burn children aren't barbarians, yes. Who attack schools aren't barbarians, yes. To me, there must be a human in front of you for talking about "human rights" and I don't consider those terrorists as humans.

Yes and Bozkurt doesn't do this. So still as ignorant as before? How many times do I have to tell you that TAK does this and they barely number 1000. They represent 40 million Kurds right?

[Cannabis Sativa]

I support their hungar strike btw. I hope they will all be like I-rish R-etarded A-ssholes member Bobby Sands.

[ChildOfTheJin]

I support their hungar strike btw. I hope they will all be like I-rish R-etarded A-ssholes member Bobby Sands.

Thanks for supporting your mountain Turkish brothers! :picard1:

[Queen B]

As far as I know AKP had some attempts to do it but they failed. If it is case of a tourist or something like that, I guess a translator helps.

That's what I am talking about. Parliament is parliament, they have to use the official language.
But in courts, I think is unacceptable to expect someone to use Turkish only.
We have translators in such cases.

[ChildOfTheJin]

That's what I am talking about. Parliament is parliament, they have to use the official language.
But in courts, I think is unacceptable to expect someone to use Turkish only.
We have translators in such cases.

You don't understand, the Kurds are sick of Turkish rule. They want to split because they have been discriminated against for nearly a century. If the Turks want us to be part of their country, they need to recognise the Kurds as a people instead of calling them mountain turks.

Kurdish language must be official if they want us to stay.

[Queen B]

You don't understand, the Kurds are sick of Turkish rule. They want to split because they have been discriminated against for nearly a century. If the Turks want us to be part of their country, they need to recognise the Kurds as a people instead of calling them mountain turks.
As I said in another thread, I am in favor of Turkey recognizing the Kurds as a minority officially.
But that's not the case of this thread now.

[Hayalet]

But in courts, I think is unacceptable to expect someone to use Turkish only. We have translators in such cases.
So do we. It's amazing that over thirty posts can be made in the thread without mentioning this little detail.


5271 Sayılı Ceza Muhakemeleri Kanunu Madde 202:
“Sanık veya mağdur, meramını anlatabilecek ölçüde Türkçe bilmiyorsa; mahkeme tarafından atanan tercüman aracılığıyla duruşmadaki iddia ve savunmaya ilişkin esaslı noktalar tercüme edilir.”

6100 Sayılı Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu Madde 263:
“Tanık, Türkçe bilmezse tercümanla dinlenir.”

[ChildOfTheJin]

So do we. It's amazing that over thirty posts can be made in this thread without mentioning this little detail.

Translation?

[Partizan]

You dont have the historical or demographical right to those regions.
And those regions arent populated just by turks but are mixed.
So your entire vocabulary is wrong!

You just cant compare that with holding under yoke tens of millions of kurds!

We have right, in Deliorman region Turks even have Bulgar Turkic and Pecheneg Turkic words in their dialect and it seems some of Turks are as ancient as your TataroBulgar ancestors.



The story about a macedonian nation is clear.
It was created by the communists.
You even have the birt date when the macedonian nation was created August 2,1945.

I doubt that some hystorians could create a kurdish nation.

Well, if you look at definition of Kurd(or Arabic plural Ekrad), in medieval times, it never defines an ethnic group but rather a bunch of nomads in East Anatolia/Iran/North Iraq. You can see "Ekrad-ı-Türkmen" for Turks of East Anatolia, since Ekrad/Kurd was term for nomads/shepherds. But after an Italian missionary, Maurizio Garzoni published "Kurdish-Italian" dictionary in 18.th century, imperialists started their attempts to create a Kurdish nation. Still they didn't success, a Kurd from Hakkari can't understand another one from Van :lol:




Why take them anywhere?
Just give them part of todays Turkey so they can have their long wanted statehood.

I mean what use you have from the current situation?

Southeast Turkey is a military zone.
Everyday clashes.
Just let them go.

My dear Tatar, Imperialists and their servants tried what you said and they got failed with victory of Atatürk and Lausanne. Atatürk and our grandparents saved those soils and we are loyal to their legacy.

[ChildOfTheJin]

Well, if you look at definition of Kurd(or Arabic plural Ekrad), in medieval times, it never defines an ethnic group but rather a bunch of nomads in East Anatolia/Iran/North Iraq. You can see "Ekrad-ı-Türkmen" for Turks of East Anatolia, since Ekrad/Kurd was term for nomads/shepherds. But after an Italian missionary, Maurizio Garzoni published "Kurdish-Italian" dictionary in 18.th century, imperialists started their attempts to create a Kurdish nation. Still they didn't success, a Kurd from Hakkari can't understand another one from Van

Not that crap again. You keep on bringing the same old fucking arguments which I have proven you wrong several times. For fucks sake, stop it.

[Hayalet]

Translation?
Can't be bothered to find the correct legal terminology, but they roughly say:


"If either the accused or the victim don't have sufficient knowledge of Turkish to make their case, fundamental points of the indictment and the defense statement are translated by translators appointed by the court."

"Witnesses are heard with the help of an interpreter if they don't speak Turkish."

Erdogan is an opportunist, he vaguely suggested these should be somehow "expanded". Off you go, now.

[Partizan]

Yes and Bozkurt doesn't do this. So still as ignorant as before? How many times do I have to tell you that TAK does this and they barely number 1000. They represent 40 million Kurds right?

I don't think Grey Wolves bombed buses or something like that. Also what they have done in Europe against Kurds weren't more than self-defence for Turks there. Also last school molotoving in Van was done by PKK supporters. I don't believe TAK is different than PKK, PKK just uses TAK as spacegoat. "I didn't do it, TAK did it." sure sure, we know past atrocities of PKK like Başbağlar Massacre.

[evon]

The oppression towards Kurds is one of the last legacy of empire that Turkey needs to deal with, hopefully it will happen soon (full autonomy, or independence), my guess is China will get involved due to Turkeys hypocrisy in dealing with Uygurs who are similarly oppressed in China, and Chinas need for natural resources in that region..

[Partizan]

Not that crap again. You keep on bringing the same old fucking arguments which I have proven you wrong several times. For fucks sake, stop it.

You showed sources from only one book about you being Safavid mercanaries but I even showed that, Izady agrees "Zaza" and "Goran" were different Iranic peoples who later got "Kurdified". Even biggest Kurdicist agrees that :rolleyes:

[ChildOfTheJin]

I don't think Grey Wolves bombed buses or something like that. Also what they have done in Europe against Kurds weren't more than self-defence for Turks there. Also last school molotoving in Van was done by PKK supporters. I don't believe TAK is different than PKK, PKK just uses TAK as spacegoat. "I didn't do it, TAK did it." sure sure, we know past atrocities of PKK like Başbağlar Massacre.

Lol the Kurds in Europe were focusing on education. But when Bozkurt was formed, they got these Kurds angry and so they started making major mafias like Baybassid.

TAK is seeking the destruction of the Turkish people, basically genocide. PKK is seeking freedom for Kurds. Difference.

Bringing up massacres ey? Two can play at that game. Heard of dersim massacre? Or the roboski massacre?

[ChildOfTheJin]

You showed sources from only one book about you being Safavid mercanaries but I even showed that, Izady agrees "Zaza" and "Goran" were different Iranic peoples who later got "Kurdified". Even biggest Kurdicist agrees that :rolleyes:

I showed you several sources, and one of them was that book. Zazas and Goranis consider themselves Kurds. That is fine by me. And who was responsible for that kurdification? Lmao, a Turk talking about kurdification :picard1:

[Yalquzaq]

Safavid what? Sunni Kurds were one of the biggest enemies of Safavids, a major part of Kurdish presence in Iraqi and Anatolia are the result that they got kicked out from their Zagros mountains by Safavids, the reason why there are Kurds in Khorasan are also that they got their arses kicked after the battle of dim-dim.

Iskandar Beg Turkmen quoting Shah Abbas after easy battle of dim-dim: These Kurds are not worth my time!

[ChildOfTheJin]

Safavid what? Sunni Kurds were one of the biggest enemies of Safavids, a major part of Kurdish presence in Iraqi and Anatolia are the result that they got kicked out from their Zagros mountains by Safavids, the reason why there are Kurds in Khorasan are also that they got their arses kicked after the battle of dim-dim.

Iskandar Beg Turkmen quoting Shah Abbas after easy battle of dim-dim: These Kurds are not worth my time!

Edit

[ChildOfTheJin]

There are well documented historical accounts of a long battle from 1609 to 1610 between Kurds and the Safavid Empire. The rebels were at a disadvantage numerically and technologically. After a siege lasting almost a year, Safavid Grand Visier Harem Beg captured the fort and massacred the Kurdish garrison

Who would you expect to win?

[Yalquzaq]

Whatever, but FYI Kurds were allied to Ottomans and fought alongside Ottomans against Safavids.

In contrast, Shia-Alavi Turks in Anatolia itself were allied to Safavids and fought Ottomans. The reason why Eastern Anatlia became so de-populated of Turks was exactly that, after all of Anatolia fell to Ottomans following Chaldiran battle.

[ChildOfTheJin]

Whatever, but FYI Kurds were allied to Ottomans and fought alongside them against Safavids.

In contrast, non-Sunni Turks in Anatolia itself were allied to Safavids and fought Ottomans. The reason why Eastern Anatlia became so de-populated of Turks was exactly that.

I know there was a Kurdish ottoman alliance.

Eastern Anatolia became de populated of Armenians. Armenians lived North of Lake Van and Kurds lived south of Lake Van. But all that changed

[Sultan Suleiman]

Dear, only language in Turkey is Turkish, period. We are a Unitary state and we have our rules here. Only nation in Turkey is Turk, only language is Turkish.

Now I am starting to understand Kurdish predicament...

[Partizan]

Lol the Kurds in Europe were focusing on education. But when Bozkurt was formed, they got these Kurds angry and so they started making major mafias like Baybassid.

Since one of my close friends' father was a Grey Wolf leader in Netherlands, I know what they were fighting against. Kurds in Europe were smuggling drugs and financially funding PKK, Gray Wolves fought against them.


TAK is seeking the destruction of the Turkish people, basically genocide. PKK is seeking freedom for Kurds. Difference.


TAK is in cities, PKK is in mountains, only difference is that. Also PKK always had several parts like KCK for example. TAK is just trying for frustrating Turks and breaking their courage.


Bringing up massacres ey? Two can play at that game. Heard of dersim massacre? Or the roboski massacre?

In Dersim(Today Tunceli actually), there was a rebellion and it was crushed. However, it is known some tribes of Tunceli sided with Turkish army and they didn't even get harmed. Or even some people from Haydaran tribe, who were one of tribes who started the rebellion, surrendered to Turkish army and they didn't even get harmed.

Roboski? I didn't know Russians also killed Kurds :D It sounds like somewhere from Russia. I guess some Kurds confuse Uludere with some Russian town :D In Uludere, firstly those were smugglers who were feeding PKK. Secondly, it is still blurry about Turkish army was misinformed about this bombing.


I showed you several sources, and one of them was that book. Zazas and Goranis consider themselves Kurds. That is fine by me. And who was responsible for that kurdification? Lmao, a Turk talking about kurdification :picard1:

They consider themselves as Kurds but it is all because of Western Imperialism's attempts to create a Kurdish nation. Otherwise, both so-called Kurdish ethnic groups(Kirmanch, Zaza, Soran, Goran) are unrelated to each other. Again, probably in his The Kurds: A Concise Handbook book, even the greatest Kurd propagandist Izady states, Kurdish "dialects" are far away to each other just like French and Romanian are... Those can't be counted as same language as you know :)

[Sophie]

Whatever, but FYI Kurds were allied to Ottomans and fought alongside Ottomans against Safavids.

In contrast, Shia-Alavi Turks in Anatolia itself were allied to Safavids and fought Ottomans. The reason why Eastern Anatlia became so de-populated of Turks was exactly that, after all of Anatolia fell to Ottomans following Chaldiran battle.


Do you know what your saying here again ? :rolleyes:

A good portion of Kurds are Shia and a smaller minority are even Alevis. Especially in Iran, where majority of Kurds are Shia

[Kemalisté]

Do you know what your saying here again ? :rolleyes:

A good portion of Kurds are Shia and a smaller minority are even Alevis

royal Safavids line was of Shia/Alevi Kurdish origin

Ottoman Empire paved the way for the Kurdification of the Eastern Anatolia by massacring thousands of Anatolian Alevis there collaborating with Sunni Kurds.

[ChildOfTheJin]

Since one of my close friends' father was a Grey Wolf leader in Netherlands, I know what they were fighting against. Kurds in Europe were smuggling drugs and financially funding PKK, Gray Wolves fought against them.


Grey wolves are considered terrorists by Turkey too. Did you know that? :thumb001:

from wiki:


The Idealist Youth (Turkish: Ülkücü Gençlik), commonly known as Grey Wolves (Turkish: Bozkurtlar), is an ultra-nationalist[2] neo-fascist[3][4][5][6][7][8][9] youth organization. It is the youth wing of the National Democratic Party.[10]The Grey Wolves have been accused of terrorism.[3][5][6] According to Turkish authorities, the organization carried out 694 murders between 1974–1980.[11]

So they are full of youths. How old was your fathers friend? I remember in the Netherlands they attacked Kurdish centers in the netherlands. Yes, that seemed like fighting the PKK :picard1:

http://vladtepesblog.com/?p=39361


TAK is in cities, PKK is in mountains, only difference is that. Also PKK always had several parts like KCK for example. TAK is just trying for frustrating Turks and breaking their courage.


The only similarity is they are pro Kurdish. Everything else, their tactics and goals are different. KCK is linked with the PKK but it is diffferent. God, you need to stop reading Zaman, they spread bullshit. The TAK are also in the mountains, in Qandil. TAK is the Kurdish version of the Turkish revenge brigade. Both are targeting the opposite race.


In Dersim(Today Tunceli actually), there was a rebellion and it was crushed. However, it is known some tribes of Tunceli sided with Turkish army and they didn't even get harmed. Or even some people from Haydaran tribe, who were one of tribes who started the rebellion, surrendered to Turkish army and they didn't even get harmed.

Roboski? I didn't know Russians also killed Kurds It sounds like somewhere from Russia. I guess some Kurds confuse Uludere with some Russian town In Uludere, firstly those were smugglers who were feeding PKK. Secondly, it is still blurry about Turkish army was misinformed about this bombing.

There was a rebellion, im not talking about that. Im talking about the Dersim massacre.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dersim_Massacre

The Turkish government massacred Alevi and Zaza Kurds.

Roboski is a mountain village. They were Kurdish citizens of Turkey, nothing to do with the PKK. Erdogan even apologized for this massacre. If they were aiding the PKK he wouldn't have done that. Anyway, the Turks have done nothing but apologize and visit this area. We demand those Turkish soldiers get arrested for these actions.


They consider themselves as Kurds but it is all because of Western Imperialism's attempts to create a Kurdish nation. Otherwise, both so-called Kurdish ethnic groups(Kirmanch, Zaza, Soran, Goran) are unrelated to each other. Again, probably in his The Kurds: A Concise Handbook book, even the greatest Kurd propagandist Izady states, Kurdish "dialects" are far away to each other just like French and Romanian are... Those can't be counted as same language as you know

Lol so its the fault of the western world? You forgot all the other major Kurdish groups. Sorani is Kurdish is 90% similar to Kurmanji. You know nothing of the Kurdish languages, don't talk as if you are a expert.

All these languages are North Western Iranian languages so of course they are all related.

Show me the source that Izady says this.

The Kurmanji language has been split into 3 different languages.

Northern Kurmanji (Kurmanji) (spoken in all parts of Kurdistan and spoken by 80% of all Kurds.)

Central Kurmanji (Sorani) (spoken in Iraq and Iran and by me)

Southern Kurmanji (Kermanshahi) Spoken mainly by the Feili Kurds in Iraq and Iran.

The most ancient of all Kurdish languages are the Talysh (the closest to the ancient Mede language and they are most likely pred Medes) and Hewrami.

All these speakers identify themselves as Kurds and we are all related to eachother one way or another.

Next time, do not talk as if you are a expert on the Kurdish language because you are not. Turks are trying to split us up but don't worry, Barzani is working on a unified language for all Kurds.

[evon]

Now I am starting to understand Kurdish predicament...

The main problem is nationalism, it has turned Turks into victors who behave as victims..sadly at the cost of themselves and minorities such as Kurds...but i am sure this will change one time..

[ChildOfTheJin]

Ottoman Empire paved the way for the Kurdification of the Eastern Anatolia by massacring thousands of Anatolian Alevis there collaborating with Sunni Kurds.

Many Alevis are Kurds. What are you trying to say? Eastern Anatolia is the homeland of Armenians (north of Lake van) and Kurds (South of Lake van) but because of Turkish and Kurdish bandits it is now all population by Kurds. Alevism is a Islamic sect, not a ethnic group. Don't get religion involved. It has fucked the minds of the Kurds.

[Yalquzaq]

Do you know what your saying here again ? :rolleyes:

A good portion of Kurds are Shia and a smaller minority are even Alevis. Especially in Iran, where majority of Kurds are Shia

I guess you can hardly explain something to someone who thinks Gokturks were Iranians.

Majority of Kurds in Iran are not Shia, but those from Kermanshah. However it was result of conversions, the concept of Shiism is alien and minority among Kurds, just like there are minority of Sunni Azeri Turks.

You are the one who do not know what your saying as in all matters, as its a basic fact known to everyone that your beloved Kurds allied with Ottomans against Safavids.

[Yalquzaq]

Many Alevis are Kurds. What are you trying to say? Eastern Anatolia is the homeland of Armenians (north of Lake van) and Kurds (South of Lake van) but because of Turkish and Kurdish bandits it is now all population by Kurds. Alevism is a Islamic sect, not a ethnic group. Don't get religion involved. It has fucked the minds of the Kurds.

:picard2:

Eastern Anatolia were known as Turkomania during middle-ages. There were huge Turkic population there, but most of those Turkoman tribes were forced to migrate to Azerbaijan and Iran following Chaldiran battle.

Eastern Anatolia alongside Azerbaijan was the military powerhouse of Safavids (before Chaldiran battle of course), among the first seven tribes which supported Shah Ismail in his first military campaign, three came from Anatolia.

[ChildOfTheJin]

:picard2:

Eastern Anatolia were known as Turkomania during middle-ages. There were huge Turkic population there, but most of those Turkoman tribes were forced to migrate to Azerbaijan and Iran following Chaldiran battle.

Eastern Anatolia alongside Azerbaijan was military powerhouse of Safavids, among the seven tribes which joined Shah Ismail in his first military campaign, 3 were from Anatolia.

Who called eastern Anatolia as Turkomania? I think you made that up

From wiki about the chaldiran battle:

The loss of Iraq, as well as Kurdish and Armenian eastern Anatolia, however, became permanent.

[Yalquzaq]

No I didn't make that up, thats what old maps show us.

http://www.swaen.com/os/Lgimg/18741.jpg

What a evidence, I'm speechless. That is nothing else than a personal interpretation. :D

[ChildOfTheJin]

No I didn't make that up, thats what old maps show us.

http://www.swaen.com/os/Lgimg/18741.jpg

What a evidence, I'm speechless. That is nothing else than a personal interpretation. :D

Lol that map shows Van in the North east of Anatolia :picard1: who made this map anyway and at what time?


Edit: I found it, it was supposed to be the imagination of Tirion Isaac of what he imagined the ME as. It also includes Iraq and Syria which didn't exist at that time. The map is now in Israel. It also shows a area called Kurdistan. The Ottomans didn't name any region Kurdistan. The map is a troll

[Partizan]

Grey wolves are considered terrorists by Turkey too. Did you know that? :thumb001:

from wiki:

Were considered, since after 1980 coup d'etat, both leftist and rightist political paramilitary wings were crushed, they all became inactive. So, today's MHP youth has nothing to do with Grey Wolves, except the name. To me, both rightists like Grey Wolves and leftists like THKO were fighting for their motherland, so bad they fought against each other.




So they are full of youths. How old was your fathers friend? I remember in the Netherlands they attacked Kurdish centers in the netherlands. Yes, that seemed like fighting the PKK :picard1:

http://vladtepesblog.com/?p=39361

My friend's father WAS a Grey Wolf leader in Netherlands, between late 70's and early 80's. He is around 60 years now.


The only similarity is they are pro Kurdish. Everything else, their tactics and goals are different. KCK is linked with the PKK but it is diffferent. God, you need to stop reading Zaman, they spread bullshit. The TAK are also in the mountains, in Qandil. TAK is the Kurdish version of the Turkish revenge brigade. Both are targeting the opposite race.


Zaman? Dude can't you read that I'm a Kemalist from my profile? I read TürkSolu, sometimes Sözcü and Yeniçağ instead :) TAK is just acting for the same thing, but with a different way.


There was a rebellion, im not talking about that. Im talking about the Dersim massacre.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dersim_Massacre

The Turkish government massacred Alevi and Zaza Kurds.


Well, this massacre thing is over-exaggerated. For example Kurdicists say 13.806 were killed, 11.683 were exiled. But according to 1935 census, there were only 107.723 persons in Tunceli :)


Roboski is a mountain village. They were Kurdish citizens of Turkey, nothing to do with the PKK. Erdogan even apologized for this massacre. If they were aiding the PKK he wouldn't have done that. Anyway, the Turks have done nothing but apologize and visit this area. We demand those Turkish soldiers get arrested for these actions.


Well, Erdoğan is not the "best Turkish leader ever", despite he became harsh against Kurds in last times, still he is not a nationalist, instead an islamist who would see Kurds as brothers. However, İdris Naim Şahin, some AKP minister with guts said "we have nothing to abologise for those terrorists." :thumb001: It is known PKK gets a part of it's income with border smuggling.



Lol so its the fault of the western world? You forgot all the other major Kurdish groups. Sorani is Kurdish is 90% similar to Kurmanji. You know nothing of the Kurdish languages, don't talk as if you are a expert.

All these languages are North Western Iranian languages so of course they are all related.

Show me the source that Izady says this.

The Kurmanji language has been split into 3 different languages.

Northern Kurmanji (Kurmanji) (spoken in all parts of Kurdistan and spoken by 80% of all Kurds.)

Central Kurmanji (Sorani) (spoken in Iraq and Iran and by me)

Southern Kurmanji (Kermanshahi) Spoken mainly by the Feili Kurds in Iraq and Iran.

The most ancient of all Kurdish languages are the Talysh (the closest to the ancient Mede language and they are most likely pred Medes) and Hewrami.

All these speakers identify themselves as Kurds and we are all related to eachother one way or another.

Next time, do not talk as if you are a expert on the Kurdish language because you are not. Turks are trying to split us up but don't worry, Barzani is working on a unified language for all Kurds.

Well, Izady says it in the book I mentioned before. If you don't believe, buy it and check :)

By another Kurdolog, Martin van Bruinessen:

"A lot of Kurdish nationalists try to ignore that Zaza and Gorani are different languages and they try to reduce differences between them." from his book, "Kurdishness, Turkishness, Alevism".

By the way, we can't reach "historical sources" about Kurdish language. For example, what we have from Ahmedi Hani's "Mem-u-Zin" is a 19.th century handwriting, not original one. Just like Sharafname, the original one is not founded, we all know it from translation of François Charmoy, with an introduction from Charmoy which denounces "Barbarian Turks-Mongols" and glorifies Kurdish Aryans.

As Miralla Galletti from Paris Kurdish Institute states:

"Kurdish literature's origin is unknown and blurry. For some writers, determination of history is difficult. About their pre-Islamic culture, nothing is known."

Anyway, good night to all :)

[ChildOfTheJin]

... Fuck this, you Turks won't accept what I'm saying. Why the fuck will I bother...

[alanr]

My Personal theory.

So, it is Kurmaan that should be the subject of study, not Kurmaanj. It is good to remember that by 1850s, the name Kurmanj had almost totally replaced "Kurd" It is amazing the term Kurd was revived, because very few, and then only in extreme south, called themselves Kurds by 1850s. From Anatolia to Caucasus, from Garmiyan to Khurasan, they all called themselves Kurmanj! Kurd was almost history. Only the Kurds in extreme southern Kurdistan--the old heartland of Media, still called themselves Kurds! It is interesting to note that Bitlisi, although he considers the "Kurmanj" as one of the four subdivisions of the Kurd, he nearly lumps four-fifths of the Kurds under the Kurmanj rubric when he lists the other three as being, the Guran, the Kalhur and Lur/Lak--all of whom being concentrated in district of May/Mah--the old heartland of Media, in the Hamadan-Kirmanshah-Khanaqin axes. All others were put under the rubric "Kurmanj" by him in 1597!

The term Kurd came back from near death only because of the events in 1848 and 1867 in Ottomania and Persia (destruction of Kurdish independence and/or autonomy) that awakened the 'Kurdish' intelligentsia to the dire state of their nation and the need for its preservation and revival. The poetic/academic term "Kurd" was fully revived and oddly, replaced "Kurmaanj" in all literature. It is the term Kurmaanj that now needs to struggle for survival as the term "Kurd" is marching on to replace it and all other designators for the unifying 'Kurdish Nation'.

No, there is no relationship between Kirman and Kirmanshah. They are just homophones (meaning, they sound the same, but are not related). Carmania (Kirman) was around by the same name at the time of the Achaemenids.

I am slowly being convinced that Kurmaanj is a parallel to Turkmaan, with the element "maan" being the same in both, derived from Persian (and Kurdish), standing for "quasi-" "-like." When the Turkmaan showed up in southwest Asia, they had the culture and behavior of the "Turk", but no quite. So, they were called quasi-Turk (or Turk+maan) by the Iranics. The Kurmanj, when they burst out of the Hakkari Heights, may just have resembled Kurds in their mountain habitats and their habits, but not totally, whence the same compound: Kurd+man, i.e., "quasi-Kurd," "Kurd-like". The terminal j in the name is superfluous addition, common to this part of the world. Logically, it also makes sense, because at the time of their inception, the Kurd+maan/ Kurmanj were hardly referred to as Kurds. In fact, until the 20th century, they refused calling themselves Kurds, while the outsiders did. The Turkmens of modern Turkmenistan call the Kurdish regions of Khurasan as "Kurdistan"! That is fascinating. But what is more fascinating, is that no one in that Khurasani "Kurdistan" called themselves Kurds, but only "Kurmanj." The voluminous works of Safi-zadah Buraka'i on the Kurds of Khurasan are good sources to consult on this.

It would settle this issue once and for all, if we were to find a written record of this people being called Kurdman (with the medial "d" still preserved), then it will be solved. Until such time, however, this should remain just a theory.

"Kurdish" in itself is a way of describing a group of people that are very similar both culturally and linguistics wise. Zazaki is a Kurdish dialect as much as Sorani, they may be different that however doesn't make it a different language it is still a dialect of Kurdish. There is no Kurdish language as there are several dialects.

[Sophie]

I guess you can hardly explain something to someone who thinks Gokturks were Iranians.

Majority of Kurds in Iran are not Shia, but those from Kermanshah. However it was result of conversions, the concept of Shiism is alien and minority among Kurds, just like there are minority of Sunni Azeri Turks.

You are the one who do not know what your saying as in all matters, as its a basic fact known to everyone that your beloved Kurds allied with Ottomans against Safavids.


Most Muslims are results of conversions. A significant portion of Kurds have always been Shias, and were vassals of the Safavids. And according to some sources even, the Safavids themselves were originally Kurds.

[Yalquzaq]

Most Muslims are results of conversions. A significant portion of Kurds have always been Shias, and were vassals of the Safavids. And according to some sources even, the Safavids themselves were originally Kurds.

Kurds of Kermanshah and other Shia Kurds were (forcefully) converted pretty late during Safavid era. As I said, Kurds as a nation sided with Ottomans against Safavids, so don't make up stories here.

Your zero knowledge on the matters of history is really laughable. The Safaviyya order switched to Shiism during Shaykh Junayd, grandfather of Shah Ismail. So Safaviyya order was not a Shia one when it was establishd.

And that has been proven to not be the case here many times, but your zero knowledge on everything you talk about doesn't even allow you to understand that what you say doesn't even matter as you certainly do not know the history of Safavids and their relationship to Shiism.

[mysticism]

Turkey must stay united, it is one compact country in which Turks are indigenous to every square-foot. Bulgaria should give 10% of the current territory to the native Roma populations who are enslaved and deserve independence.

Serbia, FYROM and Turkey will recognize them.

[ChildOfTheJin]

Turkey must stay united, it is one compact country in which Turks are indigenous to every square-foot. Bulgaria should give 10% of the current territory to the native Roma populations who are enslaved and deserve independence.

Serbia, FYROM and Turkey will recognize them.

What, and Kurds are not indigenous? Turks are Turkic right? Where did the Turkic people originate? Modern day Mongolia. That is no where near Anatolia!

[bluesky]

[/QUOTE] They consider themselves as Kurds but it is all because of Western Imperialism's attempts to create a Kurdish nation. Otherwise, both so-called Kurdish ethnic groups(Kirmanch, Zaza, Soran, Goran) are unrelated to each other. Again, probably in his The Kurds: A Concise Handbook book, even the greatest Kurd propagandist Izady states, Kurdish "dialects" are far away to each other just like French and Romanian are... Those can't be counted as same language as you know :)[/QUOTE]

Not that I support kurds or something, but actually Zazas and Gorans are Kurds. They are in the same cluster group genetically.

[evon]

What, and Kurds are not indigenous? Turks are Turkic right? Where did the Turkic people originate? Modern day Mongolia. That is no where near Anatolia!

Both Turks and Kurds are indigenous to Anatolia/southern Caucasus, at least genetically, while Turkish belong to a North Asian linguistic group..

[ChildOfTheJin]

Both Turks and Kurds are indigenous to Anatolia/southern Caucasus, at least genetically, while Turkish belong to a North Asian linguistic group..

Maybe they do have some native blood. But they are a Turkic people, strangers to Anatolia. The Turks have an ancient history, just like the Kurds, but their history starts in Central/East Asia.

From wiki:


The victory of the Seljuk Turks at the Battle of Manzikert over the Byzantine Empire in 1071 allowed Turcoman tribesmen from Central Asia to push westward and settle in Anatolia.

Simple, the Turks starting settling in 1071. How does this make them indigenous?

This is the Anatolid and most Turks do not look like this:

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTjhEKBmNXgzvh-QFPbGkII3hEi753293nepkR2gSf8gCFnyuY4

[Su]

Maybe they do have some native blood. But they are a Turkic people, strangers to Anatolia. The Turks have an ancient history, just like the Kurds, but their history starts in Central/East Asia.

From wiki:



Simple, the Turks starting settling in 1071. How does this make them indigenous?

This is the Anatolid/Armenoid type and most Turks do not look like this:

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTjhEKBmNXgzvh-QFPbGkII3hEi753293nepkR2gSf8gCFnyuY4

Even on the picture it says, Iran, so this guy is from Iran and it's an armenoid type, or did I misread the sentence there? If yes, correct me.

[ChildOfTheJin]

Even on the picture it says, Iran, so this guy is from Iran and it's an armenoid type, or did I misread the sentence there? If yes, correct me.

He is a med + armenoid type which = Anatolid.

[evon]

Maybe they do have some native blood. But they are a Turkic people, strangers to Anatolia. The Turks have an ancient history, just like the Kurds, but their history starts in Central/East Asia.

From wiki:


Simple, the Turks starting settling in 1071. How does this make them indigenous?

This is the Anatolid type and most Turks do not look like this:

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTjhEKBmNXgzvh-QFPbGkII3hEi753293nepkR2gSf8gCFnyuY4

This is the history fanatic nationalist Turks like to project, but its just nonsense, they do have some minority ancestry (very small part indeed) that seem to go back to Central Asia (Seems to be mostly Turkmens, not so much Uzbeks ect), that is irrespective of their linguistic status.
From DNA they and Kurds are very similar, they are both very close to Armenians, Georgians, and to a little lesser degree Iranians and Greeks, so they do belong there, and also the religions affinity match the surroundings, even the mainstream Turkish culture is fully compatible with other regional cultures, but they do not speak a native language.

I should also point out that many Kurds also have ancestry from outside Anatolia, but this is much less then Turks, and seem to be a good mix of Central and South Asian in origin, i have not looked into these ties yet, but my guess its related to another migration event in history, not Turkic speaking though..

But DNA is worthless in a political debate, because people on both sides will see what they want to see, their vision of the world is not actual, its political...

[Su]

He is a med + armenoid type which = Anatolid.

It says just Armenoid on that picture and it also says Iran.

By the way you kind of look like him but your nose is a bit shorter than his. And of course you're younger than him.

[Partizan]

What, and Kurds are not indigenous? Turks are Turkic right? Where did the Turkic people originate? Modern day Mongolia. That is no where near Anatolia!

My dear kıro, unfortunately there are tons of proofs about that, Turks were there even before 1071. Let alone Paleolithic Continuity Theory of Prof.Mario Alinei or Sumerian-Uralo Altaic connection theory by Prof.Simo Parpola, many sources show that several Turkic tribes raided Anatolia and neighboring places(Balkans, Caucasus) before Seljuk empire was formed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns


In 395 the Huns began their first large-scale attack on the East Roman Empire.[16] Huns attacked in Thrace, overran Armenia, and pillaged Cappadocia. They entered parts of Syria, threatened Antioch, and swarmed through the province of Euphratesia. The forces of Emperor Theodosius were fully committed in the West so the Huns moved unopposed until the end of 398 when the eunuch Eutropius gathered together a force composed of Romans and Goths and succeeded in restoring peace. It is uncertain though, whether or not Eutropius' forces defeated the Huns or whether the Huns left on their own. There is no record of a notable victory by Eutropius and there is evidence that the Hunnish forces were already leaving the area by the time he gathered his forces.[25]:184


Moreover, there were many Turkic mercenaries serving in Byzantine army, including Cumans and Pechenegs. They changed side in Manzikert and that's one of the factors which caused Seljuk victory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Manzikert

Furthermore, interestingly there were/are one Turkish speaking Orthodox community called Karamanides. From Byzantine historian Speros Vyrnos:
"The origins of the Karamanlides have long been disputed, there being two basic theories on the subject. According to one, they are the remnants of the Greek-speaking Byzantine population which, though it remained Orthodox, was linguistically Turkified. The second theory holds that they were originally Turkish soldiers which the Byzantine emperors had settled in Anatolia in large numbers and who retained their language and Christian religion after the Turkish conquests..."

One should not forget, Avars, Pechenegs, Bulgars and Cumans even sieged Constantinople before 1071. So, 1071 is not the first date when Turks came Anatolia. Even in the so-called Armenian Church, Akdamar, there are really Turkic looking artworks. For example:

http://www.turksolu.org/300/foto/ok-atan-adam-akdamar.jpg

I never heard that, Armenians were horseback archers :rolleyes:

It seems Kipchaks who were absorved into Armenian and Georgian community had a great impact:


According to Mahmud Kashgari the Kimeks and the Oghuz differed from the rest of the Turkic nations by the mutation of initial y to j (dj). Some Kipchaks & Cumans are also known to have converted to Christianity, around the 11th century, at the suggestion of the Georgians as they allied in their conflicts against the Muslims. A great number were baptized at the request of the Georgian king David IV who also married a daughter of the Kipchak khan Otrok. From 1120, there was a Kipchak national Christian church and an important clergy.[6] Following the Mongol conquest, Islam rose in popularity among the Kipchaks of the Golden Horde.[7]

When members of the Armenian diaspora moved from the Crimean peninsula to the Polish-Ukrainian borderland in the end of the thirteenth century, they brought Kipchak, their adopted Middle Turkic language with them.[8]

During the 16th and 17th centuries the Turkic language among the Armenian communities of the Kipchak people was Armeno-Kipchak. They were settled in the Lviv and Kamianets-Podilskyi area of what is now Ukraine.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kipchaks

Also it seems, I might have some Cuman heritage from my father's side since I am half Ahıska Turk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kipchaks_in_Georgia


According to modern Turkish scholars, the traces of the Cuman-Kipchak presence in Georgia can be found in the Turkish–Georgian borderlands, particularly in the Rize Province. They relate some of the existing local family names to the Cuman-Kipchak clans who had once served to Georgia. The Kumbasars, the purported descendants of the above mentioned Qubasar (Kubasar), are an example.[3] The Meskhetian Turks, a large Muslim community deported from Georgia under the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin in 1944, also claim sometimes that the medieval Cumans-Kipchaks of Georgia may have been one of their possible ancestors.[4]

It seems our presence in North-Eastern Turkey and Southern Georgia is not that recent :thumbs
Turkic existence in Balkans, Anatolia and Caucasus is way older than just 1000 years.



Not that I support kurds or something,

You actually do, you even voted "Yes" for Do you support PKK poll.


but actually Zazas and Gorans are Kurds.

Even Kurdologists like Bruinessen and Izady don't agree with that.


This is the history fanatic nationalist Turks like to project, but its just nonsense, they do have some minority ancestry (very small part indeed) that seem to go back to Central Asia (Seems to be mostly Turkmens, not so much Uzbeks ect), that is irrespective of their linguistic status.

Very small part?

http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/07_03/ancient.shtml


The researchers found that interbreeding between Europeans and Asians occurred much earlier than previously thought. They also found DNA sequences similar to those in present-day Turks, supporting the idea that some of the Turkish people originated in Mongolia.


Skeletons from the most recent graves also contained DNA sequences similar to those in people from present-day Turkey. This supports other studies indicating that Turkish tribes originated at least in part in Mongolia at the end of the Xiongnu period.

The most of genetic studies which show Turks of Turkey as "non-Turkic", assume "Turkic" as pure North East Asian. However genetically, culturally and phenotypally, Uzbeks, Uyghurs and Turkmens are quite far away from Nenets or Inuits.

[ChildOfTheJin]

My dear kıro, unfortunately there are tons of proofs about that, Turks were there even before 1071. Let alone Paleolithic Continuity Theory of Prof.Mario Alinei or Sumerian-Uralo Altaic connection theory by Prof.Simo Parpola, many sources show that several Turkic tribes raided Anatolia and neighboring places(Balkans, Caucasus) before Seljuk empire was formed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns



Keyword : Raided, not settled.

Stop calling me a Kiro, I could easily say you are a Turd from Turgay but I don't say this.

Sumerians were not connected to Uralo Altaics or whatever. They were probably Negroes or had black hair according to this:


The Sumerians referred to themselves as ùĝ saĝ gíg-ga (cuneiform: 𒌦 𒊕 𒈪 𒂵), phonetically uŋ saŋ giga, literally meaning "the black-headed people

And Since im a Sorani, what if Sorani is the Kurdish version of Sumerian? Not that I believe this, it could be possible

And their headgear for women are similar to the Kurdish ones:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/Reconstructed_sumerian_headgear_necklaces_british_ museum.JPG/220px-Reconstructed_sumerian_headgear_necklaces_british_ museum.JPG

http://i42.tinypic.com/a1ib93.jpg

I still do not believe that they influenced Kurds and they definetely did not influence Turkic or Altaic people!


Moreover, there were many Turkic mercenaries serving in Byzantine army, including Cumans and Pechenegs. They changed side in Manzikert and that's one of the factors which caused Seljuk victory:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Manzikert

Furthermore, interestingly there were/are one Turkish speaking Orthodox community called Karamanides. From Byzantine historian Speros Vyrnos:

There was a Kurdish general in the Byzantine army, so what? Byzantines were defeated by the Seljuks in 1071. so lets say they arrived 71 years before that. Whats the big difference?

None of the sources you mentioned actually say when the Turks settled but they just raided and plundered (piracy :thumb001:). So for now, they arrived in the year 1000 :)


I never heard that, Armenians were horseback archers

It seems Kipchaks who were absorved into Armenian and Georgian community had a great impact:

Mounted archery was not only used by Turkic people. It was used by the Sassanids and Indians too. They aren't Turkic. It was also used by native Americans.

So yes, Sassanids ruled over the Armenians for a period of time and thats where they got it from.

[ChildOfTheJin]

According to this the Turks came 1310 years ago (7th century) and they were from Mongolia, North China and Sibera: http://ottomanempire.info/arrive.htm

[Partizan]

Keyword : Raided, not settled.

So? It still shows Turkic presence in Anatolia is not only 1000 years old.


Stop calling me a Kiro, I could easily say you are a Turd from Turgay but I don't say this.


Well, Kurds here even call each other as Kıro, I don't think you Kurds have problem with this word :) I think it has a meaning in Kurmanch, must be either "guy" or "little boy".


Sumerians were not connected to Uralo Altaics or whatever. They were probably Negroes or had black hair according to this:


Their language was agglunative, neither like Semites, nor like African Bantu or Indo-Europeans.


And Since im a Sorani, what if Sorani is the Kurdish version of Sumerian? Not that I believe this, it could be possible

And their headgear for women are similar to the Kurdish ones:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/57/Reconstructed_sumerian_headgear_necklaces_british_ museum.JPG/220px-Reconstructed_sumerian_headgear_necklaces_british_ museum.JPG

http://i42.tinypic.com/a1ib93.jpg

I still do not believe that they influenced Kurds and they definetely did not influence Turkic or Altaic people!

There is no linguistical similarity between Sorani and Sumerian but Turkic and Sumerian grammar is similar. Suffix+Agglunative. BTW even the person who explored Sumerian scripts, Henry Rawlinson classified this language as Turkic. Dingir.


There was a Kurdish general in the Byzantine army, so what? Byzantines were defeated by the Seljuks in 1071. so lets say they arrived 71 years before that. Whats the big difference?

There was not any Kurdish general in Manzikert, it is all illusions of Kurdicists. They claim "Mervanids" were Kurds but no, they were just an Arab dynasty.


None of the sources you mentioned actually say when the Turks settled but they just raided and plundered (piracy :thumb001:). So for now, they arrived in the year 1000 :)

Well, the "Kipchaks" I mentioned were well settled to Caucasus.



Mounted archery was not only used by Turkic people. It was used by the Sassanids and Indians too. They aren't Turkic. It was also used by native Americans.

So yes, Sassanids ruled over the Armenians for a period of time and thats where they got it from.

Probably Sassanids had it from Steppic Scythians.

[Partizan]

According to this the Turks came 1310 years ago (7th century) and they were from Mongolia, North China and Sibera: http://ottomanempire.info/arrive.htm

It only mentions Oghuz Seljuks. What about Kipchaks, Avars, Bulgars, Pechenegs etc.?

[ChildOfTheJin]

So? It still shows Turkic presence in Anatolia is not only 1000 years old.


It's a little bit older:

According to this the Turks came 1310 years ago (7th century) and they were from Mongolia, North China and Sibera: http://ottomanempire.info/arrive.htm



Well, Kurds here even call each other as Kıro, I don't think you Kurds have problem with this word

I don't call anyone a Kiro, I call the Kurds here "brother".


Their language was agglunative, neither like Semites, nor like African Bantu or Indo-Europeans.

I never said it was.


There is no linguistical similarity between Sorani and Sumerian but Turkic and Sumerian grammar is similar. Suffix+Agglunative. BTW even the person who explored Sumerian scripts, Henry Rawlinson classified this language as Turkic. Dingir.

Sumerian is a language Isolate... The relation to the Uralic languages is proposed so there isn't any solid evidence. It could very well be a Hurro-Urartian language or a Dravidian language but there is no solid evidence.

Words in two languages that may sound alike today are more likely to be unrelated than related.


There was not any Kurdish general in Manzikert, it is all illusions of Kurdicists. They claim "Mervanids" were Kurds but no, they were just an Arab dynasty.

Theophobos was a Kurdish commander in the Byzantine empire. Originally his name is originally Nasir the Kurd, Nasr, or Nusayr.

Lol, the Marwanids were Islamic Kurds. The Marwanids even had battles with the Arabs. I think you are getting it confused with the Arab Bekr tribe. The founder of the dynasty was a Kurdish shepherd, Abu Shujā Bādh bin Dustak.



Well, the "Kipchaks" I mentioned were well settled to Caucasus.

Im not talking about the Caucasus, im talking about Anatolia.



Probably Sassanids had it from Steppic Scythians.

And the Indians or South Americans? They got it from the Scythians too!

[ChildOfTheJin]

It only mentions Oghuz Seljuks. What about Kipchaks, Avars, Bulgars, Pechenegs etc.?

Lol, all these groups came a little over 1000 years ago. Thats not native at all :picard1:

Avars are a Caucasian people. Pechenegs, Kipchacks and Bulgaris didn't even enter Anatolia (but Pechengs had relations with Byzantines)

Bulgars were Turkicized Sarmatians

[Partizan]

An interesting theory by Prof.Dr Mario Alinei, Magyar-Turkic-Etruscan connection:


Etruscan words such as mi (I), eca/ita (this), maθ (honey), tin (day) and tur (give) have long persuaded many scholars that Etruscan is a Eurasiatic language, perhaps even an Anatolian language (Bomhard) that split from a common Indo-European stem at a very early stage. The precise nature of its affiliations nevertheless remain obscure. In what is probably the most interesting account of recent years, the Italian dialectologist, Mario Alinei, suggests in his new book that Etruscan is nothing more than an archaic form of Hungarian with extensive Türkic borrowings.

This linguistic proposition rests on two historical/archaeological propositions – an uncontroversial one that the Etruscans came from the Carpathian basin, and a highly controversial one that identifies them as a proto-Hungarian/Uralic people.

The first of these had already been demonstrated by the late 1960s by archaeologists such as Hugh Hencken, who highlighted the cultural continuities between the Urnfeld cultures of Central Europe and the proto-Villanovan cultures of Northern and Central Italy, suggesting that the former culture had introduced a series of innovations to the latter, such as hydraulic engineering, the horse, the sword. Hencken also pointed out that the Urnfelders had probably left their signature among the Sea Peoples who attacked Mycenae and the Egypt of Ramesses III towards the end of the second millennium B.C., in the form of ships with prows in the form of horned birds’ heads, as well as a name cited by Egyptian sources, the Tursha which agrees with the Greek name for the Etruscans, the Tyrsenoi, and as Alinei tentatively suggests, with Türk.

Lawrence Barfield noted that Central Europe was the ‘industrial heartland’ of Bronze Age Europe, whose inhabitants developed their metalworking skills and by extension, the military technology that would have allowed them to become a colonial elite, capable of seeking mineral resources elsewhere and subjugating other less technologically advanced peoples. In this sense, their exploitation of Central Italy’s mineral wealth during the Bronze Age is hardly surprising. Alinei nevertheless believes that this process of gradual infiltration and scouring Europe for high quality mines may have begun as early as the middle of the 3rdmillennium, accelerating during the Polada culture. While the rule seems to have been peaceful coexistence between these Central Europeans and the Italic locals of the Palafitte/Terramare cultures, it appears that around 1250 B.C., migration from the Carpathian basin led to conflict and the overthrow of these local cultures, after which the proto-Etruscans moved into Central Italy and eventually carved out their own state that became the locus of the Villanovan culture.
Page 2

While the above sequence of events does not necessarily place a Hungarian label on these Bronze Age Urnfeld peoples, it follows from Alinei’s continuity theory (see my review of Origini delle Lingue d’Europa) that Italic speakers are the original occupants of Italy and the Western Mediterranean. Hence, the Etruscans could only be an intrusive presence, despite the claims to the contrary by the classical historian, Dionysius of Halicarnassus.

What has hidden the Uralic affiliations of Etruscan is its highly variable spelling, although Alinei assures us that its latitude is no worse than in Mediaeval Florentine or Venetian texts. If the Etruscans were a warrior aristocracy that was gradually absorbed by its subjects, then it presumably recruited its scribes from its Italic-speaking subjects, who wrote in a vowel-poor alphabet of Semitic origin, thus obscuring the open syllable, agglutinative nature of a Uralic language with extensive vowel harmony.

These links nevertheless become clear when we consider the Etruscan vocabulary for its offices of state. Writing in the 10th century, the Arab historian, Ibn Rusta, noted that Hungarian tribes split their leadership between a warlord wielding de facto executive power, the gyula, and a largely ceremonial but revered king, the kende. Alinei finds that the main offices of the Etruscan state included the ZILA/ZILAΘ/ZILCI/ZILI/ZILX, identifiedby Greek sources as the military commander, and the CANΘE/CAMΘI/CANΘCE, the princes civitatis or leader of the Etruscan community. Then there is the knight, LUCUMO (Hung. ló (horse) + Komi. kom (man)), the two-headed axe, PURΘ (Hung. balta (axe), Chuvash purte), and the land surveyor, MARUNU (Hung. mérő (measure)), to cite but a few examples.

Once one overcomes this hurdle, the relationships become much clearer, the main phonological differences being Etr. θ > Hung. t, Etr. c > Hung. k/h, Etr. z > Hung. gy/cs.

I have chosen the following examples from among the hundreds that Alinei provides togive a flavour of his proposed correspondences, which demonstrate the phonological conservatism of the Uralic languages. (NB Hung. = Hungarian, M. = Manty):

Etr. atranes > Hung. arany (gold) [Alinei points out that this was probably a general FUg borrowing tharana, from Iranian saraña]; Etr. avil > Hung. év (year); Etr. calu > Hung. hal (die); Etr. caθ/cat/caθinum/caθna > M. kot (sun); Etr. elśsi > Hung. első (first); Etr. fulu (smith) > Hung. fűlő (stoker of fire); Etr. hus > Hung. hős (young); Etr. ilacve > Hung. elégvé/eléggé (sufficient); Etr. iθal > Hung. ital (beverage); Etr. laukh/lux > Hung. ló (horse); Etr. mar- (measure) > Hung. mér-(measure); Etr. nac/nacna > Hung. nagy (big); Etr. parliu (to cook) > Hung. párol (to boil/steam);Etr. rasna (territory, region, country) > Old Hung. resz (region, territory) [from FUg räc3(piece, part)]; Etr. tes/tez > Hung. tesz (do); Etr. uru (Sir, lord) > Hung. úr (landowner, lord); Etr.zilacal (stars) > Hung. csillag (star).

Indeed, with such a key, the Etruscan phrase zilaθ mexl rasnal/s can be read as ‘magistrateof the Etruscan country’. The word rasna which Dionysus of Halicarnassus misread as the Etruscans’ name for themselves is merely the word for country, while Alinei identifies mex as an archaic world for people, similar to magyar.
Page 3

The origin of the Hungarian nation is traditionally dated to the conquest of its national territory in the Carpathian basin by Arpad in 895 A.D. This view evidently obliges the Hungarians to mill around on the steppes of Central Asia for millennia before they receive a European ‘visa’, and may at first sight be reinforced by the fact that within the Uralic family, Hungarian’s closest relatives are the Obugric languages, Mansi and Khanty, that occupy lands around the upper Ob and Irtush rivers in Western Siberia.

What is highly suspect about this ban is that it does not apply to other Uralic peoples, such as the Finns, Lapps, and Komi, who are thought to have spent the Ice Age in a watery refuge in the Ukraine and Southern Russia before moving North to exploit the new hunting opportunities provided by the retreating glaciers.

In addition, contemporary Arab sources from the 10thcentury onwards, most notably al-Garnarti, writing around 1080, speak of two groups of Hungarians, one living on the Danube and another 2000 km to the East in what is now the Bashkir republic, whose aristocracy was bilingual in Turkish and Hungarian, and which shared the gyula/kende model of kingship with the Khazars. Indeed, it is highly significant these words are of Turkic origin, with Hung. gyula reflecting Bashk. yulaj and kende Tatar [reverence, profound respect].

Archaeological evidence (e.g. from cemeteries) has confirmed the cultural continuities between the two groups. Furthermore, the Hungarian king, Géza I (1074-77) received a crown from the Byzantine emperor inscribed with the legend ‘to Geza, the faithful king of the Turks’. Indeed, the heavily Turkicized character of the Hungarians, as is apparent from their music and mythology, makes it most likely that less discerning classical sources would have labeled them with the hold-all description of Scythes.

On this point, the linguistic evidence is illuminating, in that Hungarian shares a vocabularywith Mansi and Khanty for horses and wagons that is borrowed from Turkic (e.g. Hung. ló, M. low [horse]; PUg. närk3, M. näwrä, Hung. nyerëg [saddle]); PUg. päkka, Kh. päk, Hung. fék [bridle, rein]; PUg. säk3r3, Kh. iker, Hung. szekér [vehicle], but is unique among the Uralic languages in also borrowing its agricultural vocabulary from Turkic (e.g. Hung. eke [plough], Hung. árpa [barley], Hung. búza [wheat], Hung. sajt [cheese], Hung. tinó [ox]).

This suggests that the proto-Hungarians were still united with the Mansi and Khanty at a stage when they were pre-agricultural nomadic pastoralists involved with horse breeding, but that the proto-Hungarians subsequently split away and were introduced to agriculture by another Turkic people. We may also conclude that the Hungarians were not present in Europe at the time they acquired their knowledge of agriculture, since if they had been, we would expect them to have borrowed an Indo-European agricultural vocabulary.

Assuming that by the Neolithic, they were more or less located in the Obugric region, a move South and West across the Urals would have brought them into contact with the Sredny Stog culture, well known as the precursor to the Kurgan culture, which intruded from the steppes into Europe, firstly into Eastern Hungary and Romania where its bearers encountered the Bodrogkeresztúr culture towards the end of the 4th millennium, and later, in greater numbers into the Carpathian basin itself, at the time of the Baden culture (around 2600 B.C.), which Alinei identifies as originally Slavic in origin, explaining the Slavic toponomy of the area. Hence, far from announcing the proto-Balts of Gimbutas’ theory, the Kurgans are actually a manifestation of a Hungarian invasion.
Page 4

Alinei readily admits that there are areas of Etruscan that have not been explained by his theory, such as its words for numbers. His main point about the Turkic origins of Etruscan vocabulary for offices of state is nevertheless a powerful one. His theory also has the distinct virtue of generating testable hypotheses, most notably regarding the separation of the Hungarians from the Obugric group. If one accepts these, one is obliged to accept a causal chain of events that projects the Hungarians back to a Bronze Age presence in the Carpathian Basin, and by extension, to the Kurgan peoples. Alinei’s linguistic conclusions may thus be as important for Uralic studies as Ventris’ decipherment of Linear B was for Greek.

*Bomhard notes that various Russian scholars have tried to establish links between Etruscan and the North Caucasian languages. Intriguingly, Starostin cites (Diakonoff-Starostin, 1986/46) Hurrian ki- in ki-ži (thirty) – which matches Etr. ci (three) closely).


It seems, Etruscans also had ties with Anatolia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_origins


In Greco-Roman mythology, Aeneas (Greek: Αἰνείας, Aineías) was a Trojan hero, the son of prince Anchises and the goddess Venus. His father was also the second cousin of King Priam of Troy. The journey of Aeneas from Troy, (led by Venus, his mother) which led to the founding of the city of Rome, is recounted in Virgil's Aeneid. Aeneas is a character in Homer's Iliad and Quintus Smyrnaeus' Posthomerica. He is considered an important figure both in Greek and Roman legend and history.

Romulus and Remus, appearing in Roman mythology as the traditional founders of Rome, were of Eastern origin: their grandfather Numitor and his brother Amulius were descendants of fugitives from Troy.

Herodotus records the legend that the Etruscans (known to the Greeks as Tyrrhenians) came from Lydia in Asia Minor, modern Turkey[10] :


This is their story: [...] their king divided the people into two groups, and made them draw lots, so that the one group should remain and the other leave the country; he himself was to be the head of those who drew the lot to remain there, and his son, whose name was Tyrrhenus, of those who departed. [...] they came to the Ombrici, where they founded cities and have lived ever since. They no longer called themselves Lydians, but Tyrrhenians, after the name of the king's son who had led them there.

Furthermore, Romus and Romulus' "she wolf mother" story is similar to the one in Turkic mythology:

http://www.haberhurriyeti.com/UserFiles/Image/romus-romulus.JPG

Only difference is, in Turkic one, she wolf gave birth to Turks and in Etruscan one, she wolf fed Romus and Romulus :)

[ChildOfTheJin]

^^ What has all that got to do with this?

[Anatolian Eagle]

Avars are a Caucasian people. Pechenegs, Kipchacks and Bulgaris didn't even enter Anatolia (but Pechengs had relations with Byzantines)

He wasn't talking about modern-day Avars. He was talking about ancient Avars (unreleated to those in Caucasus) which was a Turkic civilization established a khaganate in center of Europe of which you obviously never heard about.


Bulgars were Turkicized Sarmatians

Not really.

[Partizan]

It's a little bit older:

According to this the Turks came 1310 years ago (7th century) and they were from Mongolia, North China and Sibera: http://ottomanempire.info/arrive.htm

Only Oghuzes. Besides, not all scholars agree that Turks came from Mongolia.




I don't call anyone a Kiro, I call the Kurds here "brother".

Kurds in Turkey have no problem for calling each other as "kıro" :)



Sumerian is a language Isolate... The relation to the Uralic languages is proposed so there isn't any solid evidence. It could very well be a Hurro-Urartian language or a Dravidian language but there is no solid evidence.

Before Sumerian was considered as language isolate, it was considered as Ural-Altaic. However after the British and French politics contrasted Turkish/Ottoman ones, of course Westerner historians changed their opinion.



Theophobos was a Kurdish commander in the Byzantine empire. Originally his name is originally Nasir the Kurd, Nasr, or Nusayr.


Only two sources confirm that he was a Kurd, probably he was a Persian.


Lol, the Marwanids were Islamic Kurds. The Marwanids even had battles with the Arabs. I think you are getting it confused with the Arab Bekr tribe. The founder of the dynasty was a Kurdish shepherd, Abu Shujā Bādh bin Dustak.


It seems there wasn't even a Marwanid state. According to Ibn Kathir's Al-Bidaya wa'l-Nihaya, Abu Nasr al Marwan was appointed as a governor to region however Nasr al-Dawla Ahmad ibn Marwan is shown as fourth Marwanid ruler by Wikipedia. It seems there is a historical twisting.


Im not talking about the Caucasus, im talking about Anatolia.


Southern Georgia and North-East Anatolia aren't that far away. Some sources confirm that, we Ahiska(Meskhetian) Turks have Cuman/Kipchak heritage from Kipchak mercanaries in Georgia.


And the Indians or South Americans? They got it from the Scythians too!

I don't know about Indians but in Southern America, there was not horse riding culture as I remember. Spaniards brought their horses from Iberia because of this region.


Lol, all these groups came a little over 1000 years ago. Thats not native at all :picard1:

Avars are a Caucasian people. Pechenegs, Kipchacks and Bulgaris didn't even enter Anatolia (but Pechengs had relations with Byzantines)

Bulgars were Turkicized Sarmatians

I mean Eurasian Avars. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Avars). Kipchaks even got assimilated in Armenian community. And all of those counted tribes were mercanaries in Byzantine army and it is documented, Byzantines settled them to Anatolia as "Skythoi" and "Turcopole" mercanary soldiers. Perhaps that is why a tribe(Karamanlides) with Orthodox religion but Turkish language exist(ed).

About Bulgars, the real Bulgar language is today's Turkic Chuvash dialect as it's documented.

[Partizan]

^^ What has all that got to do with this?

Etruscans being related to Turkic people=Turkic people are not aliens in Anatolia and around Med Sea.

[ChildOfTheJin]

Etruscans being related to Turkic people=Turkic people are not aliens in Anatolia and around Med Sea.

Etruscans were present in Italy and there is evidence that they spoke a semetic language. I doubt they were either.

[evon]

Very small part?

http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/07_03/ancient.shtml


The most of genetic studies which show Turks of Turkey as "non-Turkic", assume "Turkic" as pure North East Asian. However genetically, culturally and phenotypally, Uzbeks, Uyghurs and Turkmens are quite far away from Nenets or Inuits.

Yes, from what i can tell we are talking about less then 10% in the average Turkish person (it varies according to surveys, this is my personal opinion based on the data i have seen, that is what i would call a small part), but the new Ancestry painting that 23andme will issue one of the following weeks will probably clarify this further, this obsolete article you gave me is from 2003, thats very early days in the genetic research business, and today its as obsolete as tracing singular lines such as direct maternal and paternal lines in order to understand a populations ancestry, because as we know, you are not just direct lines, in fact you are mostly not direct lines.

The other aprox 90% is a mixture of Anatolian, Arabic, Persian, Jewish and European ancestry, in time wise the closest links (looking at matching segments in other populations, also called IBD/IBS and Relative/Ancestryfinder) are to Anatolian populations (Armenians, Kurds and Georgians ect), Arabic countries, Europe, Persia and lastly Central Asia ect.

Uzbeks, Kygyz, Kazahks ect are very different from Turkmens, and hence also from Turks, Turkmen seem to be the fitting population if one is to look for a fitting source based on matching segments and matching admixture profiles, Uzbeks and the others are far more East/North Asian then Turkmens, and of course lots more so then Turks again.

So watch out for the next Ancestry painting (admixture profile) release from 23andme.com which should be out within a week or two at max, it will probably give a very good picture.. if you cant wait that long i suggest you start looking into data at the eurogenes project, i can post some of them here if you are interested?

[Cannabis Sativa]

Uzbeks and the others are far more East/North Asian then Turkmens, and of course lots more so then Turks again.

Vikingboy, i have Uzbek admixture from my paternal side. Uzbeks are not more North Asian. Perhaps they have the least Mongolian admixture in Central Asia. Their Caucasoid, Pamirid admixture is more than Kyrgyz and many other Turkic communities. Last thing we wish here is some Viking talking about Uzbeks.

[evon]

Vikingboy, i have Uzbek admixture from my paternal side. Uzbeks are not more North Asian. Perhaps they have the least Mongolian admixture in Central Asia. Their Caucasoid, Pamirid admixture is more than Kyrgyz and many other Turkic communities. Last thing we wish here is some Viking talking about Uzbeks.

Viking is a verb, you cant be it, its something you do :picard1:

Yes there is a clear divide, Turkmens are closer to Tadjiks, using any of the lastest admixture runs will confirm this, we can use this as an example:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ato3EYTdM8lQdGQ1R0N0TDREMDNZMTQ2cDVFRUJlY 0E#gid=0

Scroll down for Turkmen and UZ respectively, and look for north Eurasian and East Asian values, you will note a clear difference, about 8-10% difference on average seems about right for Both values..and now look at Tadjiks, they are closer to Turkmen, which fits geographical placement..if you want you can also look at Turks, though i dont know if they are included in the first or second Spreadsheet (http://bga101.blogspot.no/2012/03/eurogenes-hunter-gatherer-vs-farmer.html)?

How do you know you have Uzbek admixture? if its not via DNA i can assure you i have heard it all before.

And again, trust me, i know my stuff, i am not doing this due to any pro-Kurdish agenda (given the thread topic), the data is out there for anyone to see..

[ChildOfTheJin]

Only Oghuzes. Besides, not all scholars agree that Turks came from Mongolia.


Ok, so where do you think Turks came from?


Kurds in Turkey have no problem for calling each other as "kıro"

Kurds in Turkey call each other "heval" which means comrade.


Before Sumerian was considered as language isolate, it was considered as Ural-Altaic. However after the British and French politics contrasted Turkish/Ottoman ones, of course Westerner historians changed their opinion.


Actually, the person who proposed this was Simo Parlola who was born in 1943.


Only two sources confirm that he was a Kurd, probably he was a Persian.

He was either a Kurd or Persian.


It seems there wasn't even a Marwanid state. According to Ibn Kathir's Al-Bidaya wa'l-Nihaya, Abu Nasr al Marwan was appointed as a governor to region however Nasr al-Dawla Ahmad ibn Marwan is shown as fourth Marwanid ruler by Wikipedia. It seems there is a historical twisting.

Wikipedia shows Sharwin ibn Muhammad as the fourth ruler of the Marwanids.


I mean Eurasian Avars.. Kipchaks even got assimilated in Armenian community. And all of those counted tribes were mercanaries in Byzantine army and it is documented, Byzantines settled them to Anatolia as "Skythoi" and "Turcopole" mercanary soldiers. Perhaps that is why a tribe(Karamanlides) with Orthodox religion but Turkish language exist(ed).

About Bulgars, the real Bulgar language is today's Turkic Chuvash dialect as it's documented.

Ok let's get straight to the point, when did all these groups come to their regions?

[Pecheneg]

Last thing we wish here is some Viking talking about Uzbeks.
Just ignore the Altaic-wannabe norwegian guy.

[evon]

Just ignore the Altaic-wannabe norwegian guy.

Yes, just keep closing your eyes and pretend the world evolves Turkeys political ideologies adopted from extreme European ideologies from the early 20's.. :thumb001:

Ah, and of course anyone who disagrees is a wannabe Turk, talk about disillusion of grandeur...

[Partizan]

Etruscans were present in Italy and there is evidence that they spoke a semetic language. I doubt they were either.

Well, evidences about language rather shows that their language was just like some kind of pre-Hungarian. Check Prof. Alinei's works about that. His Paleolithic Continuity Theory explains it well.

Moreover, in both Etruscan and Greek mythology, there are evidences for Etruscans being Trojans who escaped from Anatolia.


Yes, from what i can tell we are talking about less then 10% in the average Turkish person (it varies according to surveys, this is my personal opinion based on the data i have seen, that is what i would call a small part), but the new Ancestry painting that 23andme will issue one of the following weeks will probably clarify this further, this obsolete article you gave me is from 2003, thats very early days in the genetic research business, and today its as obsolete as tracing singular lines such as direct maternal and paternal lines in order to understand a populations ancestry, because as we know, you are not just direct lines, in fact you are mostly not direct lines.

The other aprox 90% is a mixture of Anatolian, Arabic, Persian, Jewish and European ancestry, in time wise the closest links (looking at matching segments in other populations, also called IBD/IBS and Relative/Ancestryfinder) are to Anatolian populations (Armenians, Kurds and Georgians ect), Arabic countries, Europe, Persia and lastly Central Asia ect.

Uzbeks, Kygyz, Kazahks ect are very different from Turkmens, and hence also from Turks, Turkmen seem to be the fitting population if one is to look for a fitting source based on matching segments and matching admixture profiles, Uzbeks and the others are far more East/North Asian then Turkmens, and of course lots more so then Turks again.

So watch out for the next Ancestry painting (admixture profile) release from 23andme.com which should be out within a week or two at max, it will probably give a very good picture.. if you cant wait that long i suggest you start looking into data at the eurogenes project, i can post some of them here if you are interested?

Well, as I know Turkish user Pecheneg posted some evidences from dodecad and also with some historical feedback:


Memobekes;
are you historian?
are you linguist?
are you geneticist?

it is very popular in these days to judge the Turkish idendity. Only few years ago, there was a propaganda " filthy mongol turks, turn back to mongolian steppe".
but now, many people see that Turkic/Altaic/Mongolian culture/lifestlye is not bad as they expected. Now, they begin to claim that "Turks are turkified native anatolians".
according to many historians, at least 1,5-2 million Oghuz Turks migrated to anatolia in between 11th and 13th centuries. also some Mongol and Uighur tribes settled in anatolia during the Mongol/İlkhanid invasion. some people claims that "anatolia's population was 7-8 million during the byzantine times (11th century) ",
NO its a LIE..!
Even in the beginning of the 19th century, there were only 5 million people live in anatolia !
check this website / population of anatolia by year. http://www.populstat.info/Asia/turkeyc.htm (its also includes balkan/thrace region)
so the anatolia's population was not more than 2 million in the 11th century. (before the arrival of the Seljuk Turks)

now the question is; What did the Seljuks look like?
location of the Oghuz Turks in 9th-10th centuries
http://i45.tinypic.com/2dlln46.jpg http://i47.tinypic.com/7239kx.png

The Oghuz Turks were neigbour to Kypchaks and Khazars and even the "Seljuk beg", the founder of the Seljuk realm was general in the Khazar army. Western Turkic clans were always described as heavily caucasoids with asian influences. Such as the Kypchaks, Pechenegs, Oghuz, Khazars and the others...the Oghuz Turks
and the western Turkic people of central asia were already intermarried with the ancient Sycthians and other caucasoid nomads.
after they converted to islam, the Oghuz Turks conquered/moved to khorasan and transoxania and intermarried/socialized with local people.
"ablak yüzleri tacik'e dönüştü, lehçeleri de revanlaştı.". those words are belong to a historian -ashikpashazade-.. it means "their chubby faces turned into tajik"...it is clear that they already intermarried with caucasoids before they migrated to anatolia.
http://i47.tinypic.com/t5259g.jpg

in 11th&12th centuries, the Seljuk Turks were maximum 15-20% mongoloid and they were looking like these guys (modern Turkmens of Turkmenistan)
http://i48.tinypic.com/2u7r687.jpg

I've read many articles about Turks. The scientist always compare the North East asians and Turks and now they are claiming that there are only 15% Turkics in anatolia. Its nonsense, since we left the siberia/north east asia thousands of years ago and associated/intermarried with many different clans/peoples. Steppe peoples were not racists, they mixed with all the people on their way.

Seljuk Turks were not eskimos from the north pole!
http://i49.tinypic.com/2le5m2r.jpg

i love eskimos and also north-eastern asian but Oghuz/Seljuk Turks were came from khorasan to anatolia.
this is where the Seljuks came from.
http://i50.tinypic.com/2a0m3c0.png

Turkmens/Yoruks of anatolia always say that "we came from khorasan", not from directly siberian tundras or north pole!

North east asia is NOT central asia.

now here is the comparison of the Turkmens and Turks

Turks/Turkmens_Y/

East_European 6.9%/7%
West_European 7%/9.7%
Mediterranean 28.5%/14%
Neo_African 0.1%/0%
West_Asian 40.5%/34%
South_Asian 3.5%/11.8%
Northeast_Asian 3.9%/7.7%
Southeast_Asian 3.5%/8.6%
East African 0.2%/0.1%
Southwest_Asian 8.9%/6.9%
Northwest_African 0.4%/0.1%
Paelo_African 0%/0.1%

Turks are 7-8% mongoloid
Turkmens are 15-16% mongoloid

so we can easily say that Turks are genetically 40-50% Turkmenistan Turkmens.

and MEMOBEKES;
check the Ottoman archival data about the anatolia's ethnicity
there were 655.800 nomadic families in anatolia in between 15th-16th centuries. here is the names and numbers of those tribes. http://www.anadoluasiretleri.com/Page.php?pid=26

THESE NOMADIC TURKOMAN FAMILIES&CLANS OF THE ANATOLIA AND THEIR NUMBERS - (source=Ottoman archival data)
http://i47.tinypic.com/zurb.png
http://i49.tinypic.com/357pr3r.png
http://i46.tinypic.com/vgiem1.png
http://i49.tinypic.com/11l75nn.png
http://i46.tinypic.com/25uscqq.png
655.800 nomadic Turkoman family which means at least 3-3.5 million people...

and note that many Turks were already became settled during the Ottoman era. "Turks are native anatolians bla bla bla"...? so where are the descendants of those Turkoman nomads of anatolia?
and most Turks in anatolia came from different regions to anatolia, just like the caucasus, balkans, syria(halep Turkmens), etc...

i will not claim that Turks of anatolia are genetically 100% central asians. but i think Turkic(Turkmen) impact to anatolia is much bigger than most people think.

someone tell me why don't they compare us with Turkmens of Turkmenistan? we are both Oghuz Turks! we are both descendants of Seljuks, our languages are very similar.

IMO, present day Turks are descendants of 40% Turkic-Turkmen nomads and people like ancient native anatolians (hittites, galatians, cappadocians etc), some balkan and caucasus people. (there were huge migrations from balkans and caucasus to anatolia in the 20th century)

SOME GENETIC RESEARCHES ABOUT TURKS OF ANATOLIA;

1-) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11385601

(larger article / pdf format) http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fweb.unife.it%2Fprogetti%2Fgenetic a%2FGiorgio%2FPDFfiles%2Fajpa2001.pdf&ei=5luXT5nKOKaWiQfQksyACg&usg=AFQjCNGWW0u5iFb7MkRXzjb9ZVU5hMZMrw&sig2=M1W33uyV_f6HPOoIkPD-1Q



2-) Genetic link between modern Turks and ancient Huns (xiongn-nu)
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/07_03/ancient.shtml



3-) genetic link between pazyryk/Hunnic/Xiong-nu and modern Turks (again)
http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/60_Genetics/EasternHunGeneticsEn.htm



4-) http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/HG_2004_v114_p127-148.pdf


5-) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1180365/?tool=pubmed



so IMO, present day Turks are CENTRAL ASIAN + ANATOLIAN ( anatolian= middle eastern + european).
Seljuks Turks were not NAZIS! they did not massacred the native anatolian population, but intermarried with them just like the all nomads. even genetically Turks are half Turkmenistan Turkmens

Turks are 7-8% mongoloid with west asian, european and south asian admixture.
Turkmens 15-16% mongoloid with west asian, european and south asian admixture.

here is the some Altaic-Uralic people and their mongoloid admixture;

Hungarian 1%
Finnish 5.5%
Turks 7.3%- 8%
Gagauz 2%- 4%
Tatars 10.3%
Azeri 7.1%
Chuvash 9.1% - 12%
Bashkirs 38.3%
Kazakhs 56.4%
Mongols 86.4%

its clear that eastern Turks/ or eurasians (kazakhs, mongols etc) are more mongoloid, while western Turks/ or eurasians ( crimean tatars, turks, karachay, kumuk, gagauz) are less mongoloid.

nomadic Turkmen tribes of anatolia / maps
(where they lived)
http://www.anadoluasiretleri.com/Page.php?pid=10
Check this.

http://i45.tinypic.com/2ihtd7n.png


and an Avshar Turkish village in anatolia...
-) At an Afshar Turk village whose oral stories tell they come from Central Asia they found that 57% come from haplogroup L, 13% from haplogroup Q, 3% from haplogroup N thus indicating that the L haplogroups in Turkey are of Central Asian heritage rather than Indian, although these Central Asians would have gotten the L markers from the Indians from the beginning. These Asian groups add up to 73% in this village. Furthermore 10% of these Afshars were E3a and E3b.

and here are the photos of the Avshar Turks...They are typical anatolian Turks with their appearance...but their dna is almost completely central asian.
http://i49.tinypic.com/33ypc1d.jpg
http://i48.tinypic.com/2efss8z.jpg

so, MEMOBEKES and other anti-Turkic users;
the Oghuz Turks of central asia moved to anatolia with their men, women, children, herds, horses, yurts, traditions, language, etc...Oghuz nation is now live in Turkey with their less mongoloid appearance...
today; the sons of the Seljuks & Turkoman tribal warriors are live in Turkey.

As you can see, Turkmens are just %16 Mongoloid, except Kazakhs almost all Central Asian Turkic tribes are pre-dominantly Caucasoid genetically. If Seljuks would be pure blooded Mongols, than saying that Turkey is just %8-10 Turkic/Seljuk would be reasonable. However, they were not.

About supporting Kurds, you showed your face here:


The oppression towards Kurds is one of the last legacy of empire that Turkey needs to deal with, hopefully it will happen soon (full autonomy, or independence), my guess is China will get involved due to Turkeys hypocrisy in dealing with Uygurs who are similarly oppressed in China, and Chinas need for natural resources in that region..

I agree with Turkish guys here(Cannabis Sativa and Pecheneg), you pretend to know a lot about Turkey but you are mostly superficial and subjective/Eurocentrist.


Ok, so where do you think Turks came from?

Well, I am sure about Etruscan-Sumerian-Uralic-Altaic connection, however I am not sure if source is Mesopotamia or Carpathian Basin since Vinca script seems like an archaic form of Turkic, Etruscan and Magyar script.




Kurds in Turkey call each other "heval" which means comrade.

Only PKK/BDP/KCK and similar political wings. In real life, "Kıro" is rather used.




Actually, the person who proposed this was Simo Parlola who was born in 1943.


Before him, Oppert, Rawlinson, Sayce and Lenormand claimed similar things:


It is very significant that the name Dentumoger can be analyzed in the Sumerian language because this indicates a close connection between the Magyars and the Sumerians. Jules Oppert was the first linguist to categorize the Sumerian language into the Ural-Altaic group.[10] A.J. Sayce, Colonel Rawlinson and Francois Lenormand supported Oppert's opinion. Rawlinson called the Sumerian language "Scythic".[11]


http://www.magtudin.org/Homeland%2010.htm

Parpola is not the first historian/linguist who claimed that. Ural-Altaic origin of Sumerians was one of the first theories about them.




Wikipedia shows Sharwin ibn Muhammad as the fourth ruler of the Marwanids.


Not Medieval Arab sources unfortunately.



Ok let's get straight to the point, when did all these groups come to their regions?

As I showed, civilizations around Anatolia like Etruscans and Sumerians already had ties to Turkic people. However, if even we will let it alone, Kipchaks and Pechenegs were settled in Anatolia since 9.th century and Huns arrived Anatolia in 4.th century. Also interestingly, Georgian Chronicles tell about "Bun-Turks" and "Kipchaks", even in Alexander the Great's era.


In "Mok'c'evay K'art'lisay" and The Life of the Kings, we have the description of the invasion of Georgia by Alexander the Great who saw there horrible barbarians, established on the Kura river (Mtkvari - in Georgian) and along its northern tributaries (flowing down from the mountains of the Great Caucasian Ridge), people who were called by Georgians "Bun-Turks and Kipchaks".[96] Alexander was astonished because no other people acted in such a disgusting way as they did. But they had strong towns and were fearless warriors. In Georgian annals the characterization of these barbarians is picturesquely expressed, though by the words of the chronicier: "the description of their way of life is inexpressible".[97]

It seems that the Bun-Turks, whose name is usually explained as original, fundamental, real Turks or as "Hun-Turks" and whom Alexander supposedly met in Central Transcaucasia, must have represented the population of northern provenance, broken through the south of the Caucasian mountains. This fact is in a certain degree confirmed by the information in The Life of the Kings, namely that Bun-Turks, surrounded by Alexander's forces in the stronghold of Sarkine, slipped through the hole in the rock and took shelter in the Caucasian mountains: "He (Alexander - G.K.) caused much hardship for the Sarkinelians, because he attacked them for eleven months. Secretly they began to hew out the rock and to drill through the cliff, which was soft and easily cut. The Sarkinelians escaped through the hole by night and fled to the Caucasus; they left the city empty. Alexander conquered all K'art'li" (I, 18).[98]

http://kavtaradze.wetpaint.com/page/Georgian+Chronicles+and+the+raison+d'%C3%AAtre+of+ the+Iberian+Kingdom

Interestingly today's mainstream history hypothesis claim that Kipchaks appeared in 9.th-10.th century but Georgian chronicles talk about them hundreds of years ago.

In conclusion, Seljuks weren't conquerors of Anatolia, they re-took their ancestral land.


Yes, just keep closing your eyes and pretend the world evolves Turkeys political ideologies adopted from extreme European ideologies from the early 20's.. :thumb001:

Ah, and of course anyone who disagrees is a wannabe Turk, talk about disillusion of grandeur...

As a person who studies history, I know many of Atatürk's close friends like Falih Rıfkı Atay stated that Atatürk was vomited Hitler and Mussolini and disliked Stalin(if you refer to Kemalism in your sentence). Kemalism(I mean as Atatürk's pure ideology, not the one which changed a lot after 1938) is a left-wing nationalist ideology which is rather unique for Turks. Of course it had influences from French Revolution and to an extent, Ferdinand Lassalle's "State Socialism". However just like Titoism, Nasserism, Peronism or Bolivarism; Kemalism is a local synthesis of it's nation, not an imitated ideology.

[ChildOfTheJin]

Well, evidences about language rather shows that their language was just like some kind of pre-Hungarian. Check Prof. Alinei's works about that. His Paleolithic Continuity Theory explains it well.

Moreover, in both Etruscan and Greek mythology, there are evidences for Etruscans being Trojans who escaped from Anatolia.


Etruscan is a Tyrsenian language which is a isolate family. The closest to the Tyrsenian languages are the Indo European languages but not by a lot. Myths are not a reliable source. I don't think swasticas were a Turkic thing. This pic is a Etruscan pendant covered with swasticas:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e8/Etruscan_pendant_with_swastika_symbols_Bolsena_Ita ly_700_BCE_to_650_BCE.jpg/220px-Etruscan_pendant_with_swastika_symbols_Bolsena_Ita ly_700_BCE_to_650_BCE.jpg

If you look at Etruscan architecture, it was very similar to Greek architecture at the time.

They might very well have been Trojan immigrants.

Giuliano and Larissa Bonfante (Bonfante 2002) speculate that Etruscan houses seemed like towers to the simple Latins. It is true that the Etruscans preferred to build hill towns on high precipices enhanced by walls. On the other hand, if the Tyrrhenian name came from an incursion of sea peoples or later migrants, then it might well be related to the name of Troy, the city of towers in that case.

But if that is the case, the Trojans were not a Ural-Altaic people and therefore the Etruscans weren't either. The Trojans spoke Homeric Greek during the Trojan war.



Well, I am sure about Etruscan-Sumerian-Uralic-Altaic connection, however I am not sure if source is Mesopotamia or Carpathian Basin since Vinca script seems like an archaic form of Turkic, Etruscan and Magyar script.

You can't be sure about the Sumerians or Etruscan because we do not know about their origins.

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/sumer.htm

"The origin of the Sumerians is uncertain. They apparently came from the south through the Persian Gulf. Their literature speaks of their homeland being Dilmun, which could have been one of the islands in the Persian Gulf such as Bahrain. But no ruins comparable in age and complexity to those of Sumer have been found in the proposed locations of Dilmun. However the balance of the evidence is that Dilmun was the island of Bahrain. "

"The Sumerian language is of no help in identifying their origins because it appears to be unrelated to any other language in the world"

This is something very interesting about the Sumerian people and it seems it is right: http://history-world.org/sumeria.htm


Now, I swear by the sun god Utu on this very day -- and my younger brothers shall be witness of it in foreign lands where the sons of Sumer are not known, where people do not have the use of paved roads, where they have no access to the written word -- that I, the firstborn son, am a fashioner of words, a composer of songs, a composer of words, and that they will recite my songs as heavenly writings, and that they will bow down before my words......

King Shulgi (c. 2100 BC) on the future of Sumerian literature.


Only PKK/BDP/KCK and similar political wings. In real life, "Kıro" is rather used.

Kiro is not even a word, it doesn't mean anything in Kurdish. The closest I can think of is "Kura" (pronounced Koora) which means boy. The word Heval is used by many Kurds. I can even show you some Kurdish songs that say Heval or have the title Heval and they are not a part of the PKK.


Parpola is not the first historian/linguist who claimed that. Ural-Altaic origin of Sumerians was one of the first theories about them.


Exactly, it is just a theory that is not accepted, how can you be so sure that they have ties to Ural-Altaic people if there is no solid evidence?


In conclusion, Seljuks weren't conquerors of Anatolia, they re-took their ancestral land.


Seems not. From wiki:


"
The Seljuqs originated from the Qynyk branch of Oghuz Turks[6][7][8][9] who in the 9th century lived on the periphery of the Muslim world, north of the Caspian and Aral seas in their Yabghu Khaganate of the Oghuz confederacy,[10] in the Kazakh Steppe of Turkestan"

[iNird]

Kurdish language is banned in parliament and you can only study kurdish 2 hours a weak. Leyla Zana, a Kurdish politician, got jailed for speaking kurdish in parliament.

Jailed for speaking Kurdish? Wow. Hello stone ages.

[Partizan]

Etruscan is a Tyrsenian language which is a isolate family. The closest to the Tyrsenian languages are the Indo European languages but not by a lot.

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/34Etruscans/EtruskTextsEn.htm


The article by F.R. Latypov can be looked at as one of these “crank” attempts. The lexical base, fluid and changeable with time, is superimposed over more permanent properties of the language, the properties that define the attribution to the groups of languages. For Türkic languages, these defining properties, which distinguish the Ural-Altaic languages from the Indo-European and other groups of languages are:

Agglutinative.

Verbs come at the end of the sentence.

No gender.

Vowel harmony.


1. By all means learn about an examined word, in what other texts this word is met, and with which words it is surrounded. This can be helped by the volume I of the Volf and Fauler manual, and a review of the last issues of the magazine ‘Studi Etruschi’, and other monographs on Etruscan language.

2. The key feature of Etruscan words in comparison with the modern Turkic words consists that they do not have prosthetic sounds, accumulated later in Turkic languages, and sounds themselves, according to already determined frequentative dependences, considerably differ from the modern Turkic... Therefore never discard a consideration that in the beginning of the word could be prosthetic sounds. Their complete list is given in my articles [Latypov F.R.., 1991; 1992 а, 1992b]. Of frequentative transitions most important are с > š, č; р > q, k, g, h; m > р > b; s > =< z, ś > =< s. For example, in the analysis of a word pa from the text TLE 2 were explored such probable combinations:

а) This word is not met anywhere, except for this text;

b) If in front of the word later has grown a prosthetic sound, this word could turn into apa or aga (р > g), that with etymological association gives in contemporary Kazakh-Turkic the ‘senior sister’ oraga + g (possible) ‘if’'. However neither variation appeared acceptable. The Ancient Turkic Dictionary (ATD), and the word following in the text after pa: cušnaši ‘teacher’ helped make the final identification of the examined word, i.e. pa: cušnaši ‘senior teacher’.

3. Do not forget to look in ATD: the Etruscan forms are closest to the forms of words in ATD. Compare: pa ‘senior’ -ара, clan 'son' -oγlan, huviθun ‘dead body’ -hθvitoη, lurs ‘magic wand with diamonds for scaring of malicious spirits’ -lurz etc. Μy article [Latypov F.R., 1992b] is listing some words with a match in ATD.

4. Filter out the words of the Semitic roots. The Etruscan language comes from the territory of Syria and contains a significant amount of ancient Eastern Semitic borrowings [Latypov F.R., 1994a].

5. Using nostratic matches, search for clones of the translated word in Roman and Slavic languages. For example: Etr. epl ‘attaching', touching' ~ French. ’applique’ 'applied ', Etr. cepen ‘ready’ - French. eciper ‘prepare, equip’, hum ‘well’, tucu Slavic tugo ‘tough’, zl Slavic zelo ‘zeal’, etc. 'is good', etc.

6. Precisely understand what type of text you are translating: epitaph, inscription on a dish, on a statue or on an altar. It will help at combinatorial analysis.

7. On epitaphs and inscriptions on altars frequently are used abbreviations аθ ‘help!’ (аθumicś 'help'), lθ ‘bless!’ (lursθ), МММ (mlax mulsle munθen ‘beneficent, merciful, Omnipresent'), ССС (in eCs Calusce Cletram ’in heavens (eternal) basking Creator '), V (vin 'religion'), R (ril 'age') etc.

8. Pay attention to the first word of the text, on repetitions of the grammar forms in the text (word endings), on separating punctuation between words, on morphological indicators of the word, its precise classification as part of sentence. The information on adjectives, verbs, pronouns and numerals you can find in my articles [Latypov F.R., 1992c, 1994b, 1994d].




Myths are not a reliable source.

They mostly summarise mindset and experiences of people.


I don't think swasticas were a Turkic thing. This pic is a Etruscan pendant covered with swasticas:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e8/Etruscan_pendant_with_swastika_symbols_Bolsena_Ita ly_700_BCE_to_650_BCE.jpg/220px-Etruscan_pendant_with_swastika_symbols_Bolsena_Ita ly_700_BCE_to_650_BCE.jpg


Some designs from Ahmet Yesevi's tomb in Kazakhstan:

http://uqusturk.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/kadirparlak_1469995380.jpg

Furthermore, there are many Turkic carpets with Swastika-like designs:

http://onturk.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/kilim.jpg



They might very well have been Trojan immigrants.

Giuliano and Larissa Bonfante (Bonfante 2002) speculate that Etruscan houses seemed like towers to the simple Latins. It is true that the Etruscans preferred to build hill towns on high precipices enhanced by walls. On the other hand, if the Tyrrhenian name came from an incursion of sea peoples or later migrants, then it might well be related to the name of Troy, the city of towers in that case.

But if that is the case, the Trojans were not a Ural-Altaic people and therefore the Etruscans weren't either. The Trojans spoke Homeric Greek during the Trojan war.

We don't know what Trojans spoke, since they didn't leave scripts. However, Etruscans give a clue about their language.


You can't be sure about the Sumerians or Etruscan because we do not know about their origins.

There are tons of evidences for their relation with Turkic people, the problem is the science circles are monopolised by Eurocentrist, Semitocentrist and Afrocentrist ideologies, whose insistently exclude Ural-Altai people from pre-history.


http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/sumer.htm

"The origin of the Sumerians is uncertain. They apparently came from the south through the Persian Gulf. Their literature speaks of their homeland being Dilmun, which could have been one of the islands in the Persian Gulf such as Bahrain. But no ruins comparable in age and complexity to those of Sumer have been found in the proposed locations of Dilmun. However the balance of the evidence is that Dilmun was the island of Bahrain. "

"The Sumerian language is of no help in identifying their origins because it appears to be unrelated to any other language in the world"

This is something very interesting about the Sumerian people and it seems it is right: http://history-world.org/sumeria.htm


Exactly, it is just a theory that is not accepted, how can you be so sure that they have ties to Ural-Altaic people if there is no solid evidence?


Parpola has something to say:


Attempts to connect Sumerian with other languages have not been successful, however, and after 157 years, Sumerian still remains linguistically isolated. This being so, there is every reason to take another look at the old Ural-Altaic -hypothesis, for it has never been properly investigated. In the 19th century, Sumerian grammar and lexicon were as yet too imperfectly known to be successfully compared with any languages, while all more recent comparisons suffer from the lack of Assyriological or linguistic expertise and are hence for the most part worthless.

http://users.cwnet.com/millenia/Sumerian-Parpola.htm


Kiro is not even a word, it doesn't mean anything in Kurdish. The closest I can think of is "Kura" (pronounced Koora) which means boy. The word Heval is used by many Kurds. I can even show you some Kurdish songs that say Heval or have the title Heval and they are not a part of the PKK.


Perhaps it is Kıro in some Kurmanji dialects. Because I know that, many Kurds call each other as that. Also keko/keke is another common word as I observed.



Seems not. From wiki:

You genius :rolleyes:

What I meant was, Turkic presence in Anatolia and around Anatolia(especially Southern Caucasus and to an extent Balkans) was very strong even before Seljuks and Seljuks aren't the first Turkic tribe in Anatolia. Furthermore, the Sumerian connection and old Kipchak presence in Georgia(Just North-East neighbour of Anatolia) show that Turkic people were already natives of Anatolia. As a Turkic people, Seljuks weren't invaders but some kind of re-gainers since before Oghuz/Seljuk expansion there were Turkic people in Anatolia. Manzikert proves it, Pechenegs(long-settlers of North-West neighbour of Anatolia) and Kipchaks(people who existed in North-East neighbour of Anatolia even in time of Alexander according to the Georgian chronicles I posted) greeted their Turkic brothers and joined their side. Not to forget, the Byzantines couldn't never success Helenifying Anatolia(the Galatian riot proves that (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roussel_de_Bailleul)) but Seljuks (re)Turkified Anatolia really fast. The existence of Karamanlides(Turkish speaking Orthodox people in Anatolia) could be an evidence for that, pre-Seljuk Turkic people were already settled to Anatolia but just became Christians. However after Seljuks came, Anatolia was re-taken by her real owners and real natives.

[Su]

OMG, you all are posting soooo long posts, I am just wondering if you guys honestly read each others posts properly :laugh:

[ChildOfTheJin]

http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/34Etruscans/EtruskTextsEn.htm


And can you explain all that?


Some designs from Ahmet Yesevi's tomb in Kazakhstan:



Furthermore, there are many Turkic carpets with Swastika-like designs:

Guess they were common in many cultures then.


We don't know what Trojans spoke, since they didn't leave scripts. However, Etruscans give a clue about their language.

My point was, if the Etruscans were Trojans that escaped, then they were Trojans and not Ural-Altaic. Like I said, the Trojans spoke Homeric Greek and maybe the Etruscans spoke that too, or they spoke something similar.


Parpola has something to say:

That doesn't say much, it doesn't prove anything. It just says that comparing Sumerian with Ural-Altaic has never been investigated properly.


Perhaps it is Kıro in some Kurmanji dialects. Because I know that, many Kurds call each other as that. Also keko/keke is another common word as I observed.

Kaka is usually said to a boy that is older than you. It's respect to call someone Kaka.


You genius

What I meant was, Turkic presence in Anatolia and around Anatolia(especially Southern Caucasus and to an extent Balkans) was very strong even before Seljuks and Seljuks aren't the first Turkic tribe in Anatolia. Furthermore, the Sumerian connection and old Kipchak presence in Georgia(Just North-East neighbour of Anatolia) show that Turkic people were already natives of Anatolia. As a Turkic people, Seljuks weren't invaders but some kind of re-gainers since before Oghuz/Seljuk expansion there were Turkic people in Anatolia. Manzikert proves it, Pechenegs(long-settlers of North-West neighbour of Anatolia) and Kipchaks(people who existed in North-East neighbour of Anatolia even in time of Alexander according to the Georgian chronicles I posted) greeted their Turkic brothers and joined their side. Not to forget, the Byzantines couldn't never success Helenifying Anatolia(the Galatian riot proves that) but Seljuks (re)Turkified Anatolia really fast. The existence of Karamanlides(Turkish speaking Orthodox people in Anatolia) could be an evidence for that, pre-Seljuk Turkic people were already settled to Anatolia but just became Christians. However after Seljuks came, Anatolia was re-taken by her real owners and real natives.

Look, Turkic people are not native of Anatolia. The natives are, Hittites, Hurrians, Lydians, Carians, Isaurians,Pisidians, Palaics, Phamplyians, Mysians, Lycians, Lutescans, Luwians and Lycaonians and some other sub groups of these peoples. And none of these ancient people were Turkic.


Ancient Anatolians were a group of distinct Indo-European peoples who spoke the Anatolian languages. They shared cultural traits and traditional religion. The Anatolian languages were one branch of the larger Indo-European language family.


BUT, modern Turks today have some native anatolian blood that they got from some of these peoples.

This map is quite accurate:

http://www.ancient.eu.com/uploads/images/253.png

[evon]

Well, as I know Turkish user Pecheneg posted some evidences from dodecad and also with some historical feedback:

As you can see, Turkmens are just %16 Mongoloid, except Kazakhs almost all Central Asian Turkic tribes are pre-dominantly Caucasoid genetically. If Seljuks would be pure blooded Mongols, than saying that Turkey is just %8-10 Turkic/Seljuk would be reasonable. However, they were not.


First off, Dodecad has shown itself to be very biased in the past on the subject of Turks and Greeks (he is a Greek guy with clear hostilities towards Turkey it seems), that is why its best to use two projects when comparing admixture runs, now maybe i too should have posted two runs to demonstrate the reality of this problem, but also the need for two "similar" runs in order to verify any claims in the department of admixture.

Now responding to the various links posted, i looked at them, they are all too old to be compared to modern genetics, they date; 1993, 2001, 2003, 2004, now to put this into perspective, in 2008 the 23andme ancestry painting was released, which used 3 ancestral population and is today seen as a dinosaur, so sorry mate, but such old papers are useless, they are toilet paper for modern day genetics..

Here are the latest runs by Dodecad (Mediterranean centric), Harappan (Asian centric), and Eurogenes (Eurocentric), and they all show that Turks are mostly native to Anatolia with minor central Asian ancestry:

By date:

2011:

Fine scale analysis of Eurogenes' Anatolian & European Turks:

http://bga101.blogspot.no/2011/03/fine-scale-analysis-of-eurogenes.html

2012:

Dodecad 'K12b' and 'K7b' calculators :

http://dodecad.blogspot.no/2012/01/k12b-and-k7b-calculators.html

Eurogense ADMIXTURE analysis of West Eurasia - K=13 run:

http://bga101.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/admixture-analysis-of-west-eurasia-k13.html

Eurogenes hunter gatherer vs. farmer ADMIXTURE test:

http://bga101.blogspot.no/2012/03/eurogenes-hunter-gatherer-vs-farmer.html


Harappan Eurasian ChromoPainter Chunk Counts (very good segment analysis):

http://www.harappadna.org/2012/08/eurasian-chromopainter-chunk-counts/

Harappan admixture spreadsheet:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AuW3R0Ys-P4HdDhib1M5OE1wWENNb2haUFFWZzNBMEE#gid=0

Globe13 Dodecad:

http://dodecad.blogspot.no/2012/10/globe13-calculator.html

The most "East" and "North" Asian Turkic speaking peoples in central Asia are in descending order from last Harappan (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AuW3R0Ys-P4HdDhib1M5OE1wWENNb2haUFFWZzNBMEE#gid=0), which is very Asian Centric:

Kyrgyz (62+), Kazahks (60+), Uzbeks (37+) and last Turkmen(15+).

I think the general feeling on the issue of immigration to Turkey during the post-Manzikert period is one of a minority population versus the original inhabitants, at what rate i doubt any one will be able to tell for at least 10 more years of DNA research, as it can be done, you just need to devout enough time and resources to check the data.

Looking at the data there can be no doubt, only a blinded person would reject the obvious...historical data is useless in the face of DNA data (iknow i am an historian, and even i dont dear confuse the two kinds of evidence), to make some examples, ive looked at the profiles of at least two people whom claim recent Turkmen ancestry in Turkey, when looking at their data i could right way tell that this was not the case, in fact one of them was much closer to Balkans then even most average Turkish persons ive looked at, this is sad in a way though as this person has created their identity on the idea of being highly Turkmen versus average Turks, so when the DNA data starts to mount they find themselves in a dilemma, they can move on and grow with the new reality, or they can cling onto the old one in total denial, its actually quite similar to the identity crisis found in many Americans who are dead sure of native American ancestry, until the DNA data say otherwise, i dont envy them, but they do have a great opportunity to open their minds and embrace the "new" them..There is no doubt that most Turkish members on these forums are more extreme then the average Turk, and that many of them are highly influenced by early European ideals of race and superiority, i blame ataturk for this, it is a side effect of forging a national based on ethnic identity as he did, but unlike most of Europe, Turkey still lingers in the nationalist bubble, my own country has too been there, we gained our independence just before Turkey was formed, but perhaps since Turkey was forged in war it made it harder for the powers that be to let go of the nationalism, The army was after all its protector..even though i am totally opposed to any form of Islamism, i think Turkey needs it in order to move beyond nationalism, so lucky for me AKP is doing well and is slowly de-fragmenting these radical ideals..so i think there is hope :)



About supporting Kurds, you showed your face here:

I agree with Turkish guys here(Cannabis Sativa and Pecheneg), you pretend to know a lot about Turkey but you are mostly superficial and subjective/Eurocentrist.


I am not supportive of Kurds, far from it, but as a former country under the sway of a colonial power, i proclaim national self determination for all who wants it, and Kurds have suffered enough, ee know they are not mountain Turks, and we know they want a nation, and lastly, Turkey would be far better off ceding South East Turkey to a Kurdish nation, it would create a economic boom in Turkey, the political climate would stabilize and the army could relax...

I dont know allot about Turkey, but i have studied allot of Turkish history and political climate, from the Seljuks to the AKP...i dont care about Turkey as such, but i care passionately what is true ad not true in an academic sense, especially history and DNA.. And i am certainly not Eurocentric ;) To prove that point the reason i got started on Turks in this regard is that i was expecting to find a clear biological link between all Turkic speakers when i started looking at Eurasian, when i found this not to be the case i started questioning the earlier assumptions, thats when i started arguing with Turks online, as they just could not get passed the ideology and look at the data, so i started getting annoyed and now i must admit i hold many prejudice towards online Turks, for being extreme and ignorant..but i sense just as much prejudice among Turks towards Europe, so, who cares at the end of the day..

[Pecheneg]

Looking at the data there can be no doubt, only a blinded person would reject the obvious...historical data is useless in the face of DNA data (iknow i am an historian, and even i dont dear confuse the two kinds of evidence), to make some examples, ive looked at the profiles of at least two people whom claim recent Turkmen ancestry in Turkey, when looking at their data i could right way tell that this was not the case, in fact one of them was much closer to Balkans then even most average Turkish persons ive looked at,
Have you ever heard of mixing? Do you really expect them to have "pure Turkmen dna"? Are you that stupid?
There are hundreds of thousands of people in balkans who are descendants of Turkic peoples like Kypchaqs, Pechenegs, Avars, Oghuz(from anatolia)... but i guarantee none of them have central asian appearance / autosomal dna.





so when the DNA data starts to mount they find themselves in a dilemma,
No they don't, they are Turks of anatolia (or balkans) and also their dna says so.
None of us expect to cluster with Kazakhs, Yakuts, Kyrgyz, Uyghurs etc. We are Turks of anatolia, a branch of "huge Turkic tree", which is based on language.






they can move on and grow with the new reality
like what? What's your fantesies about my nation? Why don't you care non-indo european origins of indo-european speaking europeans instead??? why??? Why don't you give them advices about adopting new identities?? They should embrace their meso-neo-paleolithic (pre-indo-european identities)...right?





or they can cling onto the old one in total denial
Hmmm, we are all fascists, racists, deniers because we identify ourselves as "Turks" right?
I see that you are so fucking proud of your 0-1% east asian admixture in you, even you mention "east/central asia" in your ancestry section just because of this 0-1%east asian admixture....BUT, you can't even stand the Turkic identity of anatolian Turks who score "7% mongoloid" which is almost half the Turkmen average (~15%).
for the hundredth time; We don't expect to have pure Turkmen dna.





its actually quite similar to the identity crisis found in many Americans who are dead sure of native American ancestry, until the DNA data say otherwise, i dont envy them, but they do have a great opportunity to open their minds and embrace the "new" them..
ok what is "new" us? What do you suggest us to do? Hittite republic? Phyrigian?? What's your dream??







There is no doubt that most Turkish members on these forums are more extreme then the average Turk
Yea we are all fucking extremists because we are defending our "Turkish identity".
tell me you sick-minded idiot, what do yo expect us to do?






and that many of them are highly influenced by early European ideals of race and superiority,
lol look who says this... :rolleyes:





i blame ataturk for this,
Yea nobody was considering himself "Turk" before Atatürk..sure :picard2:




Do i have to see your nose in every Turkic-related thread..?




Go embrace your non-indo-european / non- ar1an roots and remove "eurasian" from your profile first. Then perhaps you can give us advice.

[Pecheneg]

As you can see, Turkmens are just %16 Mongoloid, except Kazakhs almost all Central Asian Turkic tribes are pre-dominantly Caucasoid genetically. If Seljuks would be pure blooded Mongols, than saying that Turkey is just %8-10 Turkic/Seljuk would be reasonable. However, they were not.
.
Ashıkpasha-zade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%C5%9F%C4%B1kpa%C5%9Fazade), a historian of 15th century described migrating-Oghuz/Seljuk Turks as "Tajik looking people", which gives us some clues about their appearance.

[Partizan]

And can you explain all that?

Well, this research prove that Etruscan has similarities to the Ural-Altaic ones than any language family. Vovel harmony, no gender in language, similar words, suffixes etc. those can't be found in a Semitic or Indo-European language.


My point was, if the Etruscans were Trojans that escaped, then they were Trojans and not Ural-Altaic. Like I said, the Trojans spoke Homeric Greek and maybe the Etruscans spoke that too, or they spoke something similar.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_language

Only Iliad supports that theory. However this language is still unclassified. Furthermore, there are more evidences about an Etruscan language than about a Trojan one. So, if we can draw conclusion about Trojan, Etruscan CAN be the source, not the subject.



That doesn't say much, it doesn't prove anything. It just says that comparing Sumerian with Ural-Altaic has never been investigated properly.


Yup, it also says instead of looking around for other theories, backing to one of the first theory is a good idea. He explains why he has an opinion like that, in the rest of his work, with strong evidences.


Kaka is usually said to a boy that is older than you. It's respect to call someone Kaka.


Perhaps it is Keko in local dialects here. But when a Turk says it, it turns to an ethnic slur :picard1: :tongue


Look, Turkic people are not native of Anatolia. The natives are, Hittites, Hurrians, Lydians, Carians, Isaurians,Pisidians, Palaics, Phamplyians, Mysians, Lycians, Lutescans, Luwians and Lycaonians and some other sub groups of these peoples. And none of these ancient people were Turkic.


What about Sumerians, who had strong connections to Ural-Altai people? What about Trojans who are probably predecessors of Ural-Altai alike language speaking Etruscans? What about Kipchaks of Georgia(just North-East neighbour of Anatolia) who lived there for more than 2000 years? Or above all, as I stated before how Seljuks fastly Turkified(IMO reTurkified) Anatolia whereas Byzantines couldn't "Hellenise" it for hundreds of years?



First off, Dodecad has shown itself to be very biased in the past on the subject of Turks and Greeks (he is a Greek guy with clear hostilities towards Turkey it seems), that is why its best to use two projects when comparing admixture runs, now maybe i too should have posted two runs to demonstrate the reality of this problem, but also the need for two "similar" runs in order to verify any claims in the department of admixture.

Now responding to the various links posted, i looked at them, they are all too old to be compared to modern genetics, they date; 1993, 2001, 2003, 2004, now to put this into perspective, in 2008 the 23andme ancestry painting was released, which used 3 ancestral population and is today seen as a dinosaur, so sorry mate, but such old papers are useless, they are toilet paper for modern day genetics..

Here are the latest runs by Dodecad (Mediterranean centric), Harappan (Asian centric), and Eurogenes (Eurocentric), and they all show that Turks are mostly native to Anatolia with minor central Asian ancestry:

By date:

2011:

Fine scale analysis of Eurogenes' Anatolian & European Turks:

http://bga101.blogspot.no/2011/03/fine-scale-analysis-of-eurogenes.html

2012:

Dodecad 'K12b' and 'K7b' calculators :

http://dodecad.blogspot.no/2012/01/k12b-and-k7b-calculators.html

Eurogense ADMIXTURE analysis of West Eurasia - K=13 run:

http://bga101.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/admixture-analysis-of-west-eurasia-k13.html

Eurogenes hunter gatherer vs. farmer ADMIXTURE test:

http://bga101.blogspot.no/2012/03/eurogenes-hunter-gatherer-vs-farmer.html


Harappan Eurasian ChromoPainter Chunk Counts (very good segment analysis):

http://www.harappadna.org/2012/08/eurasian-chromopainter-chunk-counts/

Harappan admixture spreadsheet:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AuW3R0Ys-P4HdDhib1M5OE1wWENNb2haUFFWZzNBMEE#gid=0

Globe13 Dodecad:

http://dodecad.blogspot.no/2012/10/globe13-calculator.html

The most "East" and "North" Asian Turkic speaking peoples in central Asia are in descending order from last Harappan (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AuW3R0Ys-P4HdDhib1M5OE1wWENNb2haUFFWZzNBMEE#gid=0), which is very Asian Centric:

Kyrgyz (62+), Kazahks (60+), Uzbeks (37+) and last Turkmen(15+).

I think the general feeling on the issue of immigration to Turkey during the post-Manzikert period is one of a minority population versus the original inhabitants, at what rate i doubt any one will be able to tell for at least 10 more years of DNA research, as it can be done, you just need to devout enough time and resources to check the data.



There are two problems...

Firstly, in most of links there, there is a comparison of either Turks and other Asians or Turks with other Europeans. A comparison between Turks-Turkmens-Greeks-Iranians-Armenians would be better. Secondly, as I already stated, Seljuks were not Eskimos from Siberia.



There is no doubt that most Turkish members on these forums are more extreme then the average Turk, and that many of them are highly influenced by early European ideals of race and superiority, i blame ataturk for this, it is a side effect of forging a national based on ethnic identity as he did, but unlike most of Europe, Turkey still lingers in the nationalist bubble, my own country has too been there, we gained our independence just before Turkey was formed, but perhaps since Turkey was forged in war it made it harder for the powers that be to let go of the nationalism, The army was after all its protector..even though i am totally opposed to any form of Islamism, i think Turkey needs it in order to move beyond nationalism, so lucky for me AKP is doing well and is slowly de-fragmenting these radical ideals..so i think there is hope :)


Firstly, Atatürk's ideology has nothing to do with European ideals of race and superiority. He was rather a left-wing nationalist than "far-right" European leaders. Secondly, in Turkey it is not only "extreme racist,fascist,genocider,nazi.... Turks" who proud with Central Asian origins, let's check this poem of Nazım Hikmet(a famous Turkish communist):


Galloping from Far Asia and jutting out
into the Mediterranean like a mare's head
this country is ours.


Sure, he was an extreme, racist Turk :rolleyes:

About AKP, I think you are really superficial and you proved your lack of knowledge about Turkey. Firstly, despite Erdoğan tried that, in last two years he became rather nationalist. Many members of his parliement like Ahmet Davutoğlu and İdris Naim Şahin(I like both two of them, despite they are AKP members) are nationalists, Erdoğan adressed to Manzikert in one of his speeches, AKP started to consider Iraqi and Syrian Turkmens, Azerbaijani Turks of Iran etc. in their foreign politic agenda. I know, AKP never matches with Kemalism's quasi-ethnic, quasi-civic nationalism since they are rather under influence of Pan-Islamism but hoping that Turkey will cut her ties with Central Asia and stop nationalism is just hilarious. You Westerners are either really superficial about Turkish affairs, or you guys know that Turkish nationalism caused the greatest anti-imperialist independence war in the World and you guys are just afraid of that ;)


I am not supportive of Kurds, far from it, but as a former country under the sway of a colonial power, i proclaim national self determination for all who wants it, and Kurds have suffered enough, ee know they are not mountain Turks, and we know they want a nation, and lastly, Turkey would be far better off ceding South East Turkey to a Kurdish nation, it would create a economic boom in Turkey, the political climate would stabilize and the army could relax...


Well, Kurds are not an ethnicity either. Despite historians and linguists with imperialist aims(Minorsky, Lazarev, Izady, Charmoy, Nikitine, Jaba, Soane etc.) tried to create one Kurdish language and ethnicity, they all failed. Still a Kurd from Hakkari can't understand a Kurd from Şırnak.

By the way, cut the pseudo-pragmatist nonsense about "Turkey would benefit it etc. etc.". You are not only historian here, despite being just a student yet, I know how to look back to history and how to taking lessons from historical experiences. We gave freedom to Bulgaria with the pressure of Russians, after around 20 years they were walking to İstanbul. We gave freedom to Greece with pressure of England, France and Russia and later we saw that they were walking to Ankara after 100 years. Who can guarantee that, Kurds will content themselves with South-Eastern Anatolia? Even one of the most prominent Kurdicists, Izady says that, after a possible Kurdish independence, Kurds in other parts of Turkey(%60 of Kurds) than South-Eastern Turkey, should stay in their places. I also recall a Kurdish politician saying that, "Why I should abandon my claims on İstanbul, only for a soil in South-Eastern Anatolia?"

What we need is sharp, decided and brutal solutions for that case. Not giving compensations definitely.



I dont know allot about Turkey, but i have studied allot of Turkish history and political climate, from the Seljuks to the AKP...i dont care about Turkey as such, but i care passionately what is true ad not true in an academic sense, especially history and DNA.. And i am certainly not Eurocentric ;) To prove that point the reason i got started on Turks in this regard is that i was expecting to find a clear biological link between all Turkic speakers when i started looking at Eurasian, when i found this not to be the case i started questioning the earlier assumptions, thats when i started arguing with Turks online, as they just could not get passed the ideology and look at the data, so i started getting annoyed and now i must admit i hold many prejudice towards online Turks, for being extreme and ignorant..but i sense just as much prejudice among Turks towards Europe, so, who cares at the end of the day..

Honestly, your academic criteria and your method for history is very Orientalist(I had to use that instead Eurocentrist). You might have been studying a lot, however as I saw the same in your posts about Islam, you judge the "East" with glasses of "West". That's what they taught you and you just can't pass it.

[evon]

Have you ever heard of mixing? Do you really expect them to have "pure Turkmen dna"? Are you that stupid?
There are hundreds of thousands of people in balkans who are descendants of Turkic peoples like Kypchaqs, Pechenegs, Avars, Oghuz(from anatolia)... but i guarantee none of them have central asian appearance / autosomal dna.


Ive never said anything about purity, being pure is equal to inbreeding in my book. But there is a big difference between someone who has actual Turkmen ancestry, and someone who does not in terms of DNA, i could claim Native American ancestry, but that does not make it so, and if a DNA test reveals it to be wrong, then i need to re-evaluate my "world view" (as many americans over at 23andme have learned).. Some Balkan peoples have clear indicators of Eastern ancestry, as do other Europeans, you can clearly see this in DNA, if you want examples just look at those with "recent" DNA segments ties to far flung places, like China ect.. DNA has nothing to do, or at least little to do with phenotype :picard1: Also most of those Turkic speaking peoples you listed came via the Volga Region into Central Europe, Not Anatolia..



No they don't, they are Turks of anatolia (or balkans) and also their dna says so.
None of us expect to cluster with Kazakhs, Yakuts, Kyrgyz, Uyghurs etc. We are Turks of anatolia, a branch of "huge Turkic tree", which is based on language.


Yes, i agree with this, but the dilemma recedes in terms of biology, not in identity as such..





Hmmm, we are all fascists, racists, deniers because we identify ourselves as "Turks" right?
I see that you are so fucking proud of your 0-1% east asian admixture in you, even you mention "east/central asia" in your ancestry section just because of this 0-1%east asian admixture....BUT, you can't even stand the Turkic identity of anatolian Turks who score "7% mongoloid" which is almost half the Turkmen average (~15%).
for the hundredth time; We don't expect to have pure Turkmen dna.


No, i am talking about receiving facts about your biological ancestry and embracing it, like someone who discovers Jewish ancestry and then goes on to embrace it, its just natural..no need for ad hoc attacks please, lets try to keep this civil..




Yea we are all fucking extremists because we are defending our "Turkish identity".
tell me you sick-minded idiot, what do yo expect us to do?

lol look who says this... :rolleyes:


Yea nobody was considering himself "Turk" before Atatürk..sure :picard2:


No, but the majority of Turkish people i have spoke to online are per definition extreme nationalists, its extreme because it is allot like a religion and people get emotional at the first wiff of any form of insult on the matter of national pride. The better alternative is to not take things so bloody seriously and be open to new ideas that can conflict with your idea of national goals ect. Nationalism is not something negative if it stays moderate, but when it becomes extreme it can turn into something very disgusting and vile, like having paranoid ideas about all other nations, and letting it grip you so much you loose perspective on reality and become a mindless drone..

And yes, Nationalism and these ideas of racial unity are all European ideologies, created in the darkest part of our history, when we war at constant war with each other, in my country it raped our minorities for decades until we learned tolerance and moved beyond these out-dated ideals..i hope for your children’s sake this evolution of ideology happens in Turkey too..

Turkish identity as such has nothing to do with ataturk, but he fused it with nationalism as Germany did during Hitler ect, its never a good idea in a multi ethnic country to do this, because the minorities are the first victims, and all non-uniform behaviour ect are all targets for this form of extremism..



Go embrace your non-indo-european / non- ar1an roots and remove "eurasian" from your profile first. Then perhaps you can give us advice.

I am Eurasian:P i have genetic roots going to far flung places such as China and India, just like i have German, Saami, English, ect roots, its a cosmopolitan identity, and i embrace that.. if you ever do a DNA test, i hope you do the same, Turkic speaking or not, its all part of you and they are as important as each other..

[Partizan]

if you ever do a DNA test, i hope you do the same, Turkic speaking or not, its all part of you and they are as important as each other..

As I know, Turkish user Ashina did it and found that she is %10 Mongoloid, it means even more than a half-Turkmen. I will definitely take 23andme but I need to pull in my belt(in fiscal way) for that :)

[evon]

There are two problems...

Firstly, in most of links there, there is a comparison of either Turks and other Asians or Turks with other Europeans. A comparison between Turks-Turkmens-Greeks-Iranians-Armenians would be better. Secondly, as I already stated, Seljuks were not Eskimos from Siberia.


No, you need a full Eurasian spectre to see Turkish DNA in all its diversity, there are allot of ancestry from Eastern Europe (Balkans), ect so you cant just remove it..but of course, a full investigation into Turkish segment matching with other peoples would be great, but i doubt anyone will do it any time soon, i could try and persuade Eurogenes to do it, but i doubt it will happen until after the Ancestry painting v2.0 is released.. but i will ask him anyways...




Firstly, Atatürk's ideology has nothing to do with European ideals of race and superiority. He was rather a left-wing nationalist than "far-right" European leaders. Secondly, in Turkey it is not only "extreme racist,fascist,genocider,nazi.... Turks" who proud with Central Asian origins, let's check this poem of Nazım Hikmet(a famous Turkish communist):


Sure, he was an extreme, racist Turk :rolleyes:

About AKP, I think you are really superficial and you proved your lack of knowledge about Turkey. Firstly, despite Erdoğan tried that, in last two years he became rather nationalist. Many members of his parliement like Ahmet Davutoğlu and İdris Naim Şahin(I like both two of them, despite they are AKP members) are nationalists, Erdoğan adressed to Manzikert in one of his speeches, AKP started to consider Iraqi and Syrian Turkmens, Azerbaijani Turks of Iran etc. in their foreign politic agenda. I know, AKP never matches with Kemalism's quasi-ethnic, quasi-civic nationalism since they are rather under influence of Pan-Islamism but hoping that Turkey will cut her ties with Central Asia and stop nationalism is just hilarious. You Westerners are either really superficial about Turkish affairs, or you guys know that Turkish nationalism caused the greatest anti-imperialist independence war in the World and you guys are just afraid of that ;)


No, by modern standards he was a nationalist who forged the nationalism on ethnic unity, one does not have to be a fascist for that. Stalin also went in that direction, but not as much.. I am not sure if he would be considered racist by the standards of the day, but today for sure, mostly towards Kurds, although allot of the statements might not be his ect..

First of, my country was under colonial rule, so i have no love for imperialism, please try to deal with your own history as Ottoman imperialists before trying to pass blame to Norwegians, as if all European countries had colonies :picard1:

and also, AKP is a islamist party in its most moderate form, it has done so to survive in Turkeys extreme nationalist habitat, the army would have killed it long before it came to power had it not, if you are not aware of that you are truly ignorant about your own county's political past..

Political ties to other Turkic speaking countries in this sence ect has little to do with nationalism, nationalism is the inward bonds you create and maintain, not outward based bonds..

Your ignorance is astonishing for sure, you think all Europe is like one people with one history, so i should start calling you Arab muhammedans? seriously, go back to school..



Well, Kurds are not an ethnicity either. Despite historians and linguists with imperialist aims(Minorsky, Lazarev, Izady, Charmoy, Nikitine, Jaba, Soane etc.) tried to create one Kurdish language and ethnicity, they all failed. Still a Kurd from Hakkari can't understand a Kurd from Şırnak.


You sound just like an Israeli talking about Palestinians, or should i say Arabs? think about that for a moment..



By the way, cut the pseudo-pragmatist nonsense about "Turkey would benefit it etc. etc.". You are not only historian here, despite being just a student yet, I know how to look back to history and how to taking lessons from historical experiences. We gave freedom to Bulgaria with the pressure of Russians, after around 20 years they were walking to İstanbul. We gave freedom to Greece with pressure of England, France and Russia and later we saw that they were walking to Ankara after 100 years. Who can guarantee that, Kurds will content themselves with South-Eastern Anatolia? Even one of the most prominent Kurdicists, Izady says that, after a possible Kurdish independence, Kurds in other parts of Turkey(%60 of Kurds) than South-Eastern Turkey, should stay in their places. I also recall a Kurdish politician saying that, "Why I should abandon my claims on İstanbul, only for a soil in South-Eastern Anatolia?"

What we need is sharp, decided and brutal solutions for that case. Not giving compensations definitely.


This is what i am talking about, this is paranoid nationalism (imperialism) at its worst, you are so afraid to give people their freedom because you have the power to suppress them instead..



Honestly, your academic criteria and your method for history is very Orientalist(I had to use that instead Eurocentrist). You might have been studying a lot, however as I saw the same in your posts about Islam, you judge the "East" with glasses of "West". That's what they taught you and you just can't pass it.


I have studies Orientalist, i am far from Eurocentric, i dont judge Islam by western glasses, it judge it from a descriptive view, there is nothing wrong with that, if we cant be honest then we are failing as academics..

[evon]

As I know, Turkish user Ashina did it and found that she is %10 Mongoloid, it means even more than a half-Turkmen. I will definitely take 23andme but I need to pull in my belt(in fiscal way) for that :)

I am well aware of her scores (the numbers you quote are based on obsolete data though), but let me tell you, she is not the average Turkish DNA sample over at 23andme...i am looking forward to her updated Ancestry painting data though...

[Partizan]

No, you need a full Eurasian spectre to see Turkish DNA in all its diversity, there are allot of ancestry from Eastern Europe (Balkans), ect so you cant just remove it..but of course, a full investigation into Turkish segment matching with other peoples would be great, but i doubt anyone will do it any time soon, i could try and persuade Eurogenes to do it, but i doubt it will happen until after the Ancestry painting v2.0 is released.. but i will ask him anyways...

I just wanted to underline importance of other Central Asian people, especially Turkmens, along with the neighbouring populations of Turkey.



No, by modern standards he was a nationalist who forged the nationalism on ethnic unity, one does not have to be a fascist for that. Stalin also went in that direction, but not as much..

Stalin was not less nationalist than Atatürk(I mean as a Russian nationalist, however like exile of my Ahıska Turkish kinsmen and annexation of Abhkasia and S. Ossetia to Georgian SSR, he didn't forget his Georgian roots as well). He achieved his goals more than Atatürk, since he lived longer... I think Stalin was one of the most nationalist leaders of 20.th century. What I strongly oppose is, you see Atatürk in the same boat with Hitler. However Atatürk's nationalism was more civic and cultural than Hitler's racist ideology.


I am not sure if he would be considered racist by the standards of the day, but today for sure, mostly towards Kurds, although allot of the statements might not be his ect..


Well, he was not a racist but rather a civic nationalist about that. He saw everybody in Turkey's borders as Turks and rightfully, did not recognise a fake ethnicity like Kurds. Lausanne treaty gave him right to do so, since Lausanne only recognised Greeks, Armenians and Jews as minorities. If he would live until 50's, now Turkey would be a better country with less problems. Unfortunately İnönü and Menderes couldn't deal with continuity of progress.


First of, my country was under colonial rule, so i have no love for imperialism, please try to deal with your own history as Ottoman imperialists before trying to pass blame to Norwegians, as if all European countries had colonies :picard1:

Well we know what your state has done against Saami people. Moreover despite being less imperialist than rest of Europe in the past, now your state is one of the greatest gun exporters and you are an influental member of Euro-Atlantic alliance.


and also, AKP is a islamist party in its most moderate form, it has done so to survive in Turkeys extreme nationalist habitat, the army would have killed it long before it came to power had it not, if you are not aware of that you are truly ignorant about your own county's political past..


Well assuming your little knowledge about Turkey, I expect you to don't know that most of AKP members were followers of Necip Fazıl Kısakürek's "Great Eastern Ideology" in 1970's. They are from a tradition, which is mostly Pan-Islamist but also has Nationalist influence. Furthermore, AKP of 2003 is different than today's AKP. If you have read even a little from our liberals(Ahmet Altan, Mehmet Altan, Baskın Oran) in last 12 months, you can see that they also claim, AKP evolved to "An Islamist form of Kemalism".


Political ties to other Turkic speaking countries in this sence ect has little to do with nationalism, nationalism is the inward bonds you create and maintain, not outward based bonds..


Yeah, that's why Pan-Turkism, Pan-Arabism, Pan-Slavism etc. are described as nationalist ideologies. Your intelligence on politics impress(!!!) me! Davutoğlu started to preach pan-Turkism in last decades.


Your ignorance is astonishing for sure, you think all Europe is like one people with one history, so i should start calling you Arab muhammedans? seriously, go back to school..


The comparison you make is really silly. For a Turk, seeing all NW Europe as one part is reasonable since you guys agree well on anti-Turkism(Denmark's, France's and the UK's support for PKK propaganda channels like Med TV, Roj TV; France, Sweden and Germany's hostile towards to Turkey about Armenian issue etc. etc.) I won't recommend you to going back to your school, since you're enough poisoned from Eurocentrist/Orientalist view of history.


You sound just like an Israeli talking about Palestinians, or should i say Arabs? think about that for a moment..


We Turks are here over one millennium(it is at least), unlike some Ashkenazi or Sephardi who came in 1948. Furthermore, Palestinians are fighting against Imperialism in Israel however Kurds know their side well:

http://www.mediakurd.com/rwdx/picture/newspicture/kurdisrael.jpg



This is what i am talking about, this is paranoid nationalism (imperialism) at its worst, you are so afraid to give people their freedom because you have the power to suppress them instead..


Why we should give compensations from our country without any reason? It has nothing to do with imperialism, I am just keeping my land, not seeking other's land on.



I have studies Orientalist, i am far from Eurocentric, i dont judge Islam by western glasses, it judge it from a descriptive view, there is nothing wrong with that, if we cant be honest then we are failing as academics..

That is what you do. You view concept of civilization with Western glasses it seems:


Turkic speaking peoples have no attributes or historical achievements that somehow make me want to be part of that, i value civilizations such as ancient Greece, China and India far higher then i would any nomad society on the fringe of the civilized world,

[Siberian Cold Breeze]

@Evon :Why don't you join next Turan gathering in Hungary for some pony riding and arrow shooting..I am sure Jobbik too welcomes evon a %1 Hun brother :D

[evon]

Stalin was not less nationalist than Atatürk(I mean as a Russian nationalist, however like exile of my Ahıska Turkish kinsmen and annexation of Abhkasia and S. Ossetia to Georgian SSR, he didn't forget his Georgian roots as well). He achieved his goals more than Atatürk, since he lived longer... I think Stalin was one of the most nationalist leaders of 20.th century. What I strongly oppose is, you see Atatürk in the same boat with Hitler. However Atatürk's nationalism was more civic and cultural than Hitler's racist ideology.


Its a matter of small details of course, but Stalin and Ataturk i think we can agree on were similar in ideology and its execution, especially extreme secularization..Hitler used the same ideology as Ataturk in terms of ethnic bond, that odes not mean they were both warmongers and racists, but the reliance on such ethnic bonds for nationalism to function is a dual sword and thats what ive been trying to explain, this is why nationalism is only good is its not based on ethnic unity and is moderate..



Well, he was not a racist but rather a civic nationalist about that. He saw everybody in Turkey's borders as Turks and rightfully, did not recognise a fake ethnicity like Kurds. Lausanne treaty gave him right to do so, since Lausanne only recognised Greeks, Armenians and Jews as minorities. If he would live until 50's, now Turkey would be a better country with less problems. Unfortunately İnönü and Menderes couldn't deal with continuity of progress.


See, this is blatant Racism, no excuse for it, denying a ethnic group, homogeneous or not its own existence like this is what my whole point is, shame on you!



Well we know what your state has done against Saami people. Moreover despite being less imperialist than rest of Europe in the past, now your state is one of the greatest gun exporters and you are an influental member of Euro-Atlantic alliance.



Not just Saami, also local Roma, Kven ect, many minorities we suppressed, luckily today they have regained their rightful place and are not suppressed anymore:)
Less imperialistic, we were a de facto colony for over 400 years :picard1: We are and have always been a minor European state, the only euro-atlantic alliance we are in is the same one Turkey is in, its called NATO :picard1:



Well assuming your little knowledge about Turkey, I expect you to don't know that most of AKP members were followers of Necip Fazıl Kısakürek's "Great Eastern Ideology" in 1970's. They are from a tradition, which is mostly Pan-Islamist but also has Nationalist influence. Furthermore, AKP of 2003 is different than today's AKP. If you have read even a little from our liberals(Ahmet Altan, Mehmet Altan, Baskın Oran) in last 12 months, you can see that they also claim, AKP evolved to "An Islamist form of Kemalism".


Islamist is still Islamist, it can only partly function with any notion of nationalism, but certainly not extreme nationalism, reading writings on te wall will blind you from what they do, AKP has moved Turkey further away from Europe in terms of trade and directed its compass towards the arab states, for you to see this in real politics will probably take a decade or so. also, Islamism does not equal pan-islamist ideas, one can function without the other, but a caliphate is always the utopian dream, but few parties every get the chance to live such wild fantasies..



Yeah, that's why Pan-Turkism, Pan-Arabism, Pan-Slavism etc. are described as nationalist ideologies. Your intelligence on politics impress(!!!) me! Davutoğlu started to preach pan-Turkism in last decades.


Please show me a dictionary where such ideologies are seen as nationalism? i have an inkling what you mean, but its not nationalism as we see it, its move like a movement in multiple states (nationalism is within one state).



The comparison you make is really silly. For a Turk, seeing all NW Europe as one part is reasonable since you guys agree well on anti-Turkism(Denmark's, France's and the UK's support for PKK propaganda channels like Med TV, Roj TV; France, Sweden and Germany's hostile towards to Turkey about Armenian issue etc. etc.) I won't recommend you to going back to your school, since you're enough poisoned from Eurocentrist/Orientalist view of history.



I beg you, quote one sentence where i am Eurocentric and place the dictionary reference next to it, i beg you!



We Turks are here over one millennium(it is at least), unlike some Ashkenazi or Sephardi who came in 1948. Furthermore, Palestinians are fighting against Imperialism in Israel however Kurds know their side well:

http://www.mediakurd.com/rwdx/picture/newspicture/kurdisrael.jpg


Yes, because Turkish suppression of minorities have nothing to do with imperialism in this context :picard1:




Why we should give compensations from our country without any reason? It has nothing to do with imperialism, I am just keeping my land, not seeking other's land on.


Your land, so the Kurds who live there are living on your land? Well, the Palestinians, no excuse me, arabs are living on Jewish land...so of course, these people dont really exist, if i just close my eyes they vanish in a haze of phosphorous smoke..Your lack of respect for the other is astonishing..




That is what you do. You view concept of civilization with Western glasses it seems:


Hahaha, so now you are trying to misquote me out of context to give me a bad name :P seriously, that quote was a response to someone (probably you) saying i must be a wannabe Turk, because i took so much interest in Turkish affairs here on this European preservation cultural forum :picard1: and last i checked, China and India are Asian :P

Orientalism in art really says it all (it started as an artistic "movement"), now if you find any such ideas in my writings i would be happy for you to expose them so i can rid myself of such dinosaurs:

http://www.andrewgrahamdixon.com/article_images/Odalisque%20with%20Slave,%20by%20Jean-Auguste-Dominique%20Ingres.jpg

http://www.southasiamail.com/images/Arti1_2Oct.jpg

Using western glasses, aka Eurocentrism is the idea that i rate everyhting according to European values and norms, i dont do that in dealing with Turkey, i view it through a academic lense, now if you cant accept that and are unable to quote any Eurocentric writings made by me, then its all on you for making an insulting comment without foundation, as you have done so many times already, i guess its what i get for arguing with a teenager, as i am not young enough to know everything..

[evon]

Removed..

[Cannabis Sativa]

@Evon :Why don't you join next Turan gathering in Hungary for some pony riding and arrow shooting..I am sure Jobbik too welcomes evon a %1 Hun brother :D

As i spoke one of the organizators of Kurultaj, next year there will be a Finnish flag in next Kurultaj. We can let him learn Finnish and speak it fluently, so he can pass as a Finnic in the next Kurultaj. :D

[ChildOfTheJin]

Well, this research prove that Etruscan has similarities to the Ural-Altaic ones than any language family. Vovel harmony, no gender in language, similar words, suffixes etc. those can't be found in a Semitic or Indo-European language.




Vovel harmony - Well, me being 1/4 Spanish from Valencia, I know that Valencian has vowel harmony as well and Valencian is not a Ural-Altaic language.

No gender in language- That doesn't prove much, the Kurdish Sorani dialect has no gender as well.

Similar words - can you show me those similar words with Etruscan language? There are similar words with Kurdish and Sumerian too. For example, in Sumerian A means water and Kurdish Av means water. But similar words are not reliable sources, two words that may sound similar could have the meanings of something completely different.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_language

Only Iliad supports that theory. However this language is still unclassified. Furthermore, there are more evidences about an Etruscan language than about a Trojan one. So, if we can draw conclusion about Trojan, Etruscan CAN be the source, not the subject.


http://www.thetroyguide.com/id7.html

"Because the lliad was written in Ancient Greek and all the names of the persons and gods were Greek names, many people think that the Trojans and the Greeks were the same people and they spoke the same people and they spoke the same language. The abundance of the Mycenaean type of ceramics which were found during the excavations also strengthens this opinion. But according to the latest research of linguists, the Trojans spoke an Indo-European language which was widely spoken in different part of Anatolia, called Luvian."


What about Sumerians, who had strong connections to Ural-Altai people? What about Trojans who are probably predecessors of Ural-Altai alike language speaking Etruscans? What about Kipchaks of Georgia(just North-East neighbour of Anatolia) who lived there for more than 2000 years? Or above all, as I stated before how Seljuks fastly Turkified(IMO reTurkified) Anatolia whereas Byzantines couldn't "Hellenise" it for hundreds of years?


I'm talking about the traditional borders of Anatolia, not all of Turkey.
Sumerians were present in the South of Mesopotamia.

I forgot about the Trojans.

Kipchaks originated in modern Kazakhstan.

The Seljuks originated in the North of the Caspian sea. No where near Anatolia.

You haven't convinced me that any of these groups were Ural-Altaic (except for Kipchaks and Seljuks who of course are)




Well, Kurds are not an ethnicity either. Despite historians and linguists with imperialist aims(Minorsky, Lazarev, Izady, Charmoy, Nikitine, Jaba, Soane etc.) tried to create one Kurdish language and ethnicity, they all failed. Still a Kurd from Hakkari can't understand a Kurd from Şırnak.

Yes they can, Kurds from Hakkari and Sirnak both speak Kurmanji dialect of the Kurdish language. Drop it already, I have already shown you when the term "Kurd" came into use and that was over 1000 years ago with the wars between Madig and the Sassanid empire.

There are several divisions of Kurds, the biggest one is Kurmanji, and their name dates back to the Magi tribe of the Mede empire. Kur = Son. Manji = Magi. It basically means Son of Magi.

Apparently, the other Mede tribes became loyal to Persia and so became Persianized. The only Mede tribe that resisted this was the Magi tribe. The Magi tribe was always the most dominant tribe in the Mede empire.


Even one of the most prominent Kurdicists, Izady says that, after a possible Kurdish independence, Kurds in other parts of Turkey(%60 of Kurds) than South-Eastern Turkey, should stay in their places. I also recall a Kurdish politician saying that, "Why I should abandon my claims on İstanbul, only for a soil in South-Eastern Anatolia?"


She is not one of the most prominent Kurdicists. There is a total of 23 million Kurds through out Turkey. 20 million who live in the South east and East. The remaining 3 million live in other parts of Turkey. I can give you sources if you want. Which Kurdish politican said that? Istanbul is not Kurdish at all.

[Partizan]

Its a matter of small details of course, but Stalin and Ataturk i think we can agree on were similar in ideology and its execution, especially extreme secularization..Hitler used the same ideology as Ataturk in terms of ethnic bond, that odes not mean they were both warmongers and racists, but the reliance on such ethnic bonds for nationalism to function is a dual sword and thats what ive been trying to explain, this is why nationalism is only good is its not based on ethnic unity and is moderate..

Atatürk, who cared about national unity inside of Turkey, can't be compared to Hitler who wanted to wipe Slavs out of map, just for some Lebensraum. They are ideologically really different and Atatürk's nationalism is exactly an anti-thesis of Hitler's insane Nazism. Atatürk had pan-Turkist tendencies though, however he did not think about exterminating other people for "life areas of Turks".



See, this is blatant Racism, no excuse for it, denying a ethnic group, homogeneous or not its own existence like this is what my whole point is, shame on you!


I do not deny it, I cannot deny something which already does not exist :cool:




Less imperialistic, we were a de facto colony for over 400 years :picard1: We are and have always been a minor European state, the only euro-atlantic alliance we are in is the same one Turkey is in, its called NATO :picard1:


Norway was one of the founder members, think about that.


Islamist is still Islamist, it can only partly function with any notion of nationalism, but certainly not extreme nationalism, reading writings on te wall will blind you from what they do, AKP has moved Turkey further away from Europe in terms of trade and directed its compass towards the arab states, for you to see this in real politics will probably take a decade or so. also, Islamism does not equal pan-islamist ideas, one can function without the other, but a caliphate is always the utopian dream, but few parties every get the chance to live such wild fantasies..


Haven't you heard about "Türk-İslam Sentezi"? :picard1: Most of the Turkish right is influenced by this ideology. If you check AKP members, around a quarter of them come from MHP or BBP-alike traditions. I think you don't properly follow Turkish politics, AKP started to act more nationalist, also in domestic affairs. I am sure you heard about KCK arrestings, Erdoğan's addressing to 1071 Manzikert victory and such stuff. AKP is still not really nationalist but you cannot desparately hope for end of Turkish nationalism. Of course AKP has great problems with the Turkish Republic's creator ideology, Kemalism, however AKP's steps against Kemalism just turn people more and more Kemalist, nothing else. For example two years ago, visitor numbers to Anıtkabir Mausoleum and Dolmabahçe Palace were at it's highest rate. Also in last 19.th May, because of AKP stopped "school parades" for this day, people filled the streets. You, Western Imperialists should never forget that Atatürk did not die. We, all Turks, have a part of Atatürk in our soul. Leave AKP alone, if even whole Turkey would get nuked, it would not change.



Please show me a dictionary where such ideologies are seen as nationalism? i have an inkling what you mean, but its not nationalism as we see it, its move like a movement in multiple states (nationalism is within one state).


No need to show a dictionary, pan-nationalism is a widely known term.


I beg you, quote one sentence where i am Eurocentric and place the dictionary reference next to it, i beg you!

Seeing Turkic people inferior to other cultures, because of nomadic lifestyle perhaps?


Yes, because Turkish suppression of minorities have nothing to do with imperialism in this context :picard1:


There are no minorities in Turkey, except the non-Muslim ones who are treated well, period. I think after our great independence war, we proved that to whole world with Treaty of Lausanne.



Your land, so the Kurds who live there are living on your land? Well, the Palestinians, no excuse me, arabs are living on Jewish land...so of course, these people dont really exist, if i just close my eyes they vanish in a haze of phosphorous smoke..Your lack of respect for the other is astonishing..


Well, there are not Kurds in my country, just some Turks who think they are Kurds. As I said, it is the internationally accurate one according to Treaty of Lausanne :thumbs



Hahaha, so now you are trying to misquote me out of context to give me a bad name :P seriously, that quote was a response to someone (probably you) saying i must be a wannabe Turk, because i took so much interest in Turkish affairs here on this European preservation cultural forum :picard1: and last i checked, China and India are Asian :P


It was a response to Pecheneg, I know. Besides he is very right on this point, you showed your real face in this post. It seems there are superior and inferior cultures to you, like Turkic ones fall into second one. That is what can be acknowledged from your post.


Orientalism in art really says it all (it started as an artistic "movement"), now if you find any such ideas in my writings i would be happy for you to expose them so i can rid myself of such dinosaurs:

http://www.andrewgrahamdixon.com/article_images/Odalisque%20with%20Slave,%20by%20Jean-Auguste-Dominique%20Ingres.jpg

http://www.southasiamail.com/images/Arti1_2Oct.jpg

Using western glasses, aka Eurocentrism is the idea that i rate everyhting according to European values and norms, i dont do that in dealing with Turkey, i view it through a academic lense, now if you cant accept that and are unable to quote any Eurocentric writings made by me,

I am using Edward Said's definition on Orientalism. Beside your view on Turkic peoples, you are quite superficial on Islam. For example, you take the mainstream Sunni view instead Qu'ranic verses and conclusion is, "Sharia is a pillar of Islam". I think it is not because of lack of information or something, you just love to show it like that.


then its all on you for making an insulting comment without foundation, as you have done so many times already, ..

Check my all posts,except Lounge ones,in more than half of them I either show a direct source or I address to some books.


i guess its what i get for arguing with a teenager, as i am not young enough to know everything..

You have rightness here, Vicky the Viking, I definitely know more than a Norse about my own country, my own affairs, my own nation, my own history and my own religion. The problem is with the ones, who meddle their noses into everything with a small and superficial knowledge.

[Sagjaz]

Well, there are not Kurds in my country, just some Turks who think they are Kurds.

They speak Kurdish, they are ethnically Kurdish and they belong to the Kurdish culture. Isn't that the definition of "being a Kurd"? How are they Turks if they are Indo-Iranians who lived in the region long before the Turks arrived from Central Asia? Sure, they absorbed some Turkish elements, but that's it.

[Ayazid]

Uzbeks, Kygyz, Kazahks ect are very different from Turkmens, and hence also from Turks, Turkmen seem to be the fitting population if one is to look for a fitting source based on matching segments and matching admixture profiles, Uzbeks and the others are far more East/North Asian then Turkmens, and of course lots more so then Turks again.

I am not sure about genetics, but Uzbeks are phenotypically not really that much different from Turkmens. Kazakhs and Kyrgyz are far more mongoloid.

[agality]

They speak Kurdish, they are ethnically Kurdish and they belong to the Kurdish culture. Isn't that the definition of "being a Kurd"? How are they Turks if they are Indo-Iranians who lived in the region long before the Turks arrived from Central Asia? Sure, they absorbed some Turkish elements, but that's it.

I agree with you. There is a Kurdish minority in Turkey. But the problem is while some Kurds are pretty reasonable and friendly, some are uneducated mountain peasants like Serhildan for example. Just look at his ultra-facist sign and title under his nickname. Kurds like him literally wants all Turks dead.

Just imagine amerindians wants to form a new republic on Texas and what could happen after that.

[Siberian Cold Breeze]

They are nothing like Amerindians

Amerindians were native to land .Kurds came later ,around 16 century because of Ottoman religious policy preferred for their sect sunni (by Yavuz and Kanuni) replaced by Alevi Turkmen tribes. Their real homeland is Zagros mountains .

[agality]

They are nothing like Amerindians

Amerindians were native to land .Kurds came later ,around 16 century because of Ottoman religious policy preferred for their sect sunni (by Yavuz and Kanuni) replaced by Alevi Turkmen tribes. Their real homeland is Zagros mountains .

Thanks for informing us.

[Ayazid]

They are nothing like Amerindians

Amerindians were native to land.

In what sense they were more native to their land than Kurds? They didn't just grow out of the ground there.

[Partizan]

Vovel harmony - Well, me being 1/4 Spanish from Valencia, I know that Valencian has vowel harmony as well and Valencian is not a Ural-Altaic language.

Hmmm at first a Kurd from Erbil, later a Kurd from Urfa, now a Spanish from Valencia :bored:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vowel_harmony

If you check that page, almost all languages which have vowel harmony are either Uralic or Altaic. The rest are exceptions.


No gender in language- That doesn't prove much, the Kurdish Sorani dialect has no gender as well.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutrality_in_genderless_languages

Except Persian and some other IE languages, all IE languages have genders. I think the case of Persian(and it's degenerated form Sorani) can be attributed to Parthian-Turanian relations:

http://www.hunmagyar.org/turan/index.html

Well, this page is copyrighted so I can't copy-paste but there explains the Parthians being Turanian instead of Indo-European originally.


Similar words - can you show me those similar words with Etruscan language? There are similar words with Kurdish and Sumerian too. For example, in Sumerian A means water and Kurdish Av means water. But similar words are not reliable sources, two words that may sound similar could have the meanings of something completely different.



Etruscan words such as mi (I), eca/ita (this), maθ (honey), tin (day) and tur (give) have long persuaded many scholars that Etruscan is a Eurasiatic language, perhaps even an Anatolian language (Bomhard) that split from a common Indo-European stem at a very early stage. The precise nature of its affiliations nevertheless remain obscure. In what is probably the most interesting account of recent years, the Italian dialectologist, Mario Alinei, suggests in his new book that Etruscan is nothing more than an archaic form of Hungarian with extensive Türkic borrowings.

This linguistic proposition rests on two historical/archaeological propositions – an uncontroversial one that the Etruscans came from the Carpathian basin, and a highly controversial one that identifies them as a proto-Hungarian/Uralic people.

The first of these had already been demonstrated by the late 1960s by archaeologists such as Hugh Hencken, who highlighted the cultural continuities between the Urnfeld cultures of Central Europe and the proto-Villanovan cultures of Northern and Central Italy, suggesting that the former culture had introduced a series of innovations to the latter, such as hydraulic engineering, the horse, the sword. Hencken also pointed out that the Urnfelders had probably left their signature among the Sea Peoples who attacked Mycenae and the Egypt of Ramesses III towards the end of the second millennium B.C., in the form of ships with prows in the form of horned birds’ heads, as well as a name cited by Egyptian sources, the Tursha which agrees with the Greek name for the Etruscans, the Tyrsenoi, and as Alinei tentatively suggests, with Türk.


While the above sequence of events does not necessarily place a Hungarian label on these Bronze Age Urnfeld peoples, it follows from Alinei’s continuity theory (see my review of Origini delle Lingue d’Europa) that Italic speakers are the original occupants of Italy and the Western Mediterranean. Hence, the Etruscans could only be an intrusive presence, despite the claims to the contrary by the classical historian, Dionysius of Halicarnassus.

What has hidden the Uralic affiliations of Etruscan is its highly variable spelling, although Alinei assures us that its latitude is no worse than in Mediaeval Florentine or Venetian texts. If the Etruscans were a warrior aristocracy that was gradually absorbed by its subjects, then it presumably recruited its scribes from its Italic-speaking subjects, who wrote in a vowel-poor alphabet of Semitic origin, thus obscuring the open syllable, agglutinative nature of a Uralic language with extensive vowel harmony.

These links nevertheless become clear when we consider the Etruscan vocabulary for its offices of state. Writing in the 10th century, the Arab historian, Ibn Rusta, noted that Hungarian tribes split their leadership between a warlord wielding de facto executive power, the gyula, and a largely ceremonial but revered king, the kende. Alinei finds that the main offices of the Etruscan state included the ZILA/ZILAΘ/ZILCI/ZILI/ZILX, identifiedby Greek sources as the military commander, and the CANΘE/CAMΘI/CANΘCE, the princes civitatis or leader of the Etruscan community. Then there is the knight, LUCUMO (Hung. ló (horse) + Komi. kom (man)), the two-headed axe, PURΘ (Hung. balta (axe), Chuvash purte), and the land surveyor, MARUNU (Hung. mérő (measure)), to cite but a few examples.


Once one overcomes this hurdle, the relationships become much clearer, the main phonological differences being Etr. θ > Hung. t, Etr. c > Hung. k/h, Etr. z > Hung. gy/cs.



I have chosen the following examples from among the hundreds that Alinei provides togive a flavour of his proposed correspondences, which demonstrate the phonological conservatism of the Uralic languages. (NB Hung. = Hungarian, M. = Manty):



Etr. atranes > Hung. arany (gold) [Alinei points out that this was probably a general FUg borrowing tharana, from Iranian saraña]; Etr. avil > Hung. év (year); Etr. calu > Hung. hal (die); Etr. caθ/cat/caθinum/caθna > M. kot (sun); Etr. elśsi > Hung. első (first); Etr. fulu (smith) > Hung. fűlő (stoker of fire); Etr. hus > Hung. hős (young); Etr. ilacve > Hung. elégvé/eléggé (sufficient); Etr. iθal > Hung. ital (beverage); Etr. laukh/lux > Hung. ló (horse); Etr. mar- (measure) > Hung. mér-(measure); Etr. nac/nacna > Hung. nagy (big); Etr. parliu (to cook) > Hung. párol (to boil/steam);Etr. rasna (territory, region, country) > Old Hung. resz (region, territory) [from FUg räc3(piece, part)]; Etr. tes/tez > Hung. tesz (do); Etr. uru (Sir, lord) > Hung. úr (landowner, lord); Etr.zilacal (stars) > Hung. csillag (star).


Indeed, with such a key, the Etruscan phrase zilaθ mexl rasnal/s can be read as ‘magistrateof the Etruscan country’. The word rasna which Dionysus of Halicarnassus misread as the Etruscans’ name for themselves is merely the word for country, while Alinei identifies mex as an archaic world for people, similar to magyar.


It seems like that, Etruscan is a kind of proto-Uralo Altaic. It has similarities with both Hungarian, Chuvash and Khanty.


http://www.thetroyguide.com/id7.html

"Because the lliad was written in Ancient Greek and all the names of the persons and gods were Greek names, many people think that the Trojans and the Greeks were the same people and they spoke the same people and they spoke the same language. The abundance of the Mycenaean type of ceramics which were found during the excavations also strengthens this opinion. But according to the latest research of linguists, the Trojans spoke an Indo-European language which was widely spoken in different part of Anatolia, called Luvian."

1.If I would write a novel about Turkey's current affairs today and if I would write Erdoğan-Obama conversation in Turkish, would it mean Obama spoke Turkish? :rolleyes:
2.Trojans were not only settlers in Troy. After them Greeks colonized this area, perhaps that is why there are some Mycenaean type of ceramics.
3.Luvian thing is also just a theory yet. Mostly based on assumptions.
4.http://books.google.com.tr/books?id=qvvdVXckfqQC&pg=PA211&lpg=PA211&dq=Mehmed+II+troy&source=bl&ots=leO_WWD7iO&sig=MNEFLZiJBPMOvhN8mCpmdNic43A&hl=tr&sa=X&ei=9TKhUKrGNqmk0QX0_4C4Cg&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=Mehmed%20II%20troy&f=false

Even Mehmed II, conqueror of Constantinople/İstanbul boasted with taking revenge of Trojans.


I'm talking about the traditional borders of Anatolia, not all of Turkey.
Sumerians were present in the South of Mesopotamia.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Cities_of_Sumer_%28en%29.svg

Not too distant to Anatolia. BTW cut the "traditional border" bullshit, modern usage of Anatolia=Whole Turkey except European part(Eastern Thrace).



Kipchaks originated in modern Kazakhstan.


It is what is said by Eurocentrist historians. I believed it just some days ago also. However, Georgian chronicles tell different things:

http://kavtaradze.wetpaint.com/page/Georgian+Chronicles+and+the+raison+d'%C3%AAtre+of+ the+Iberian+Kingdom


In "Mok'c'evay K'art'lisay" and The Life of the Kings, we have the description of the invasion of Georgia by Alexander the Great who saw there horrible barbarians, established on the Kura river (Mtkvari - in Georgian) and along its northern tributaries (flowing down from the mountains of the Great Caucasian Ridge), people who were called by Georgians "Bun-Turks and Kipchaks".[96] Alexander was astonished because no other people acted in such a disgusting way as they did. But they had strong towns and were fearless warriors. In Georgian annals the characterization of these barbarians is picturesquely expressed, though by the words of the chronicier: "the description of their way of life is inexpressible".[97]

It seems that the Bun-Turks, whose name is usually explained as original, fundamental, real Turks or as "Hun-Turks" and whom Alexander supposedly met in Central Transcaucasia, must have represented the population of northern provenance, broken through the south of the Caucasian mountains. This fact is in a certain degree confirmed by the information in The Life of the Kings, namely that Bun-Turks, surrounded by Alexander's forces in the stronghold of Sarkine, slipped through the hole in the rock and took shelter in the Caucasian mountains: "He (Alexander - G.K.) caused much hardship for the Sarkinelians, because he attacked them for eleven months. Secretly they began to hew out the rock and to drill through the cliff, which was soft and easily cut. The Sarkinelians escaped through the hole by night and fled to the Caucasus; they left the city empty. Alexander conquered all K'art'li" (I, 18).[98]


Arseni Beri, the Georgian author of the twelfth century, indicated the area where the Bun-Turks were resettled after Alexander having banished them from K'art'li, as a place situated outside of Ovseti (that means the country of Ossetians or "Alans").[99] By the words of Arseni Beri this place is a vaste country, rich in water, and where afterwards the great breed of Qipchaks lived. It is quite certain that Arseni Beri had the steppes of South Russia in mind.

As only in this part of The Life of the Kings, describing Alexanders campaign towards the Caucasus, the Bun-Turks are mentioned, though the text in connection 196 with earlier and later northern invaders speaks mainly of Khazars,[100] this fact must be considered as an additional proof of the borrowing of above part from "Mok'c'evay K'art'lisay" or from a third source, common for both these chronicles, unknown to us.

As Khazars are mentioned in The Life of the Kings describing events of pre-Alexander time, it becomes obvious that this ethnonym was used in the conventionl sense and implied nomadic tribes settled in the Northern Caucasia. By the information of The Life of the Kings, for example, long before king Nebuchadnezzar captured Jerusalem, Khazars invaded the Northern Caucasia: "At that time the Khazars grew strong and began to attack the peoples of Lek and Kavkas... and they requested help against the Xazars. All the peoples descended from T'argamos united, crossed the Caucasus mountain, ravaged all the territory of Xazaret'i, built cities at the entrance to Xazaret'i, and returned. After that the Xazars appointed a king; all the Xazars submitted to this king, their sovereign. They advanced and came out at the Pass of the Sea, which is now called Daruband. The descendants of T'argamos were unable to resist them, because the multitude of the Xazars was numberless. They plundered the land of the descendants of T'argamos, destroyed all the cities of Ararat and of Masis and of the north..." (I, 11-12).[101]

The information about the building of cities at the entrance to Khazaria seems to be the reflection of the permanent desire of the Transcaucasian population to fortify the entrances also at the northern edges of passes leading through the Caucasus. By the information of Georgian annals, Georgian kings used the Dariali Pass (Persian "Dar-i-alan", Gate of Alans) for their campaigns to the north of the Caucasus. The Life of King Vaxtang Gorgasali points out that: "Vaxtang set out and stopped in T'ianet'i. There all the kings of the Caucasus joined him, 50,000 cavalry. He advanced in the name of God and crossed the pass of Darialan. On his entry into Ossetia Vaxtang was 16 years old. Then the kings of Ossetia assembled their troops and were joined by a force from Xazaret'i. They met him on the river which flows from the Darialan and descends into the valley of Ossetia" (I, 151).[102]


Well as I know Cyrilic and Methodius also link Bulgars and Khazars to "those Kipchaks who fought against Alexander." So, Kipchaks are almost natives of Southern Caucasus, for over 2 millenias...



Yes they can, Kurds from Hakkari and Sirnak both speak Kurmanji dialect of the Kurdish language.

Well I know from personal experiences, they can not even understand each other.


Drop it already, I have already shown you when the term "Kurd" came into use and that was over 1000 years ago with the wars between Madig and the Sassanid empire.


I suggest you to find and read Sheref Khan's Sherefname. Here, he does never define a core population for Kurds, in one page he links Kurds to Abbasid Caliphate, in one page he links Kurds to Oghuz Khan legend, in one page he links Kurds to djinns... It shows that, Kurd IS NOT an ethnicity, just an umbrella term for the pastoral/nomadic/shepherd people of Eastern Anatolia/Northern Mesopotamia. Before Charmoy, Minorsky, Lazarev, Soane and other historians of imperialist states created the fake identity of Kurds, you guys were just a bunch of Persians, Turks, Armenians and Arabs. Just like how "Greeks" were Arvanite Albanians, Vlaches and Christian Turks before Voltaire, Goethe, Byron etc. wrote some epic history for them.


She is not one of the most prominent Kurdicists. There is a total of 23 million Kurds through out Turkey. 20 million who live in the South east and East. The remaining 3 million live in other parts of Turkey. I can give you sources if you want. Which Kurdish politican said that? Istanbul is not Kurdish at all.

1.Izady is HE.

http://turksolu.org/252/foto/izady.jpg

And he is the most prominent Kurdish pseudo-historian ever.

2.First of all, 23 million Kurd is the Kurdish theory. Western sources talk about 13 million Kurds. Secondly, İstanbul is known with the city where has the biggest Kurdish population. Thirdly, Musa Anter said that. Not a politician, my mistake, but a fervent Kurdish nationalist under the fake Marxist mask.

[Siberian Cold Breeze]

In what sense they were more native to their land than Kurds? They didn't just grow out of the ground there.

you can meditate about that..repeat the sentences in a row. don't forget to take deep breaths ..may be you get enlightenment :bored:

[Partizan]

They speak Kurdish, they are ethnically Kurdish and they belong to the Kurdish culture. Isn't that the definition of "being a Kurd"? How are they Turks if they are Indo-Iranians who lived in the region long before the Turks arrived from Central Asia? Sure, they absorbed some Turkish elements, but that's it.

Well, if you have read Kurdologues like Martin von Bruinessen, you can see, plural of Kurd in modern Arabic, "Ekrad", has been used for defining a social status, not for an ethnicity. Bruinessen cites that, in Ottoman archives, "Ekrad-ı-Yörükan", "Ekrad-ı-Türkmen" and such terms were widely used. Of course it does not mean "Kurdish Turkmens", because Ekrad is the word used for shepherd/pastoral/nomadic population of East Anatolia and Northern Mesopotamia. So you say, when it got changed and became an ethnic identity? After Russian expansion in Northern Iran in the middle of 19.th century, Russians stole the original Sherefname and a French historian called François Charmoy, who was under Russian patronage, translated it and pressed it in St.Petersburg. In this translation(the original one is not accessable now), even despite Charmoy's attempts to link "Ekrad" to an ethnic identity, you can see that Sheref Khan has never described Kurds as one nation or one ethnicity.

After this start of Russians, of course other imperialists states(France and England) followed them about Kurdology researches.

Kurd=A fake ethnicity created in Russian and Western laboratories.


They are nothing like Amerindians

Amerindians were native to land .Kurds came later ,around 16 century because of Ottoman religious policy preferred for their sect sunni (by Yavuz and Kanuni) replaced by Alevi Turkmen tribes. Their real homeland is Zagros mountains .

Well, partly right, partly false. Of course Selim II and Süleyman the Magnificient settled some Iranic tribes from Zagros to Eastern Anatolia, however it is not the only source of Kurds. Moreover, those tribes which were settled were not even Kurds. The manufacturation of so-called Kurdish nation was mostly completed after Minorsky, which is the start of 20.th century.

[alanr]

In what sense they were more native to their land than Kurds? They didn't just grow out of the ground there.

You're actually taking this kid seriously? on another thread it claims that the mongols were more civilized and contributed more than ancient Mesopotamia. Also, she claims that Kurds appeared in the 16th century when Saladin and his tribe were residing in modern Armenia in 1100's. I suggest you don't waste time on this kid.

[Sagjaz]

Well, if you have read Kurdologues like Martin von Bruinessen, you can see, plural of Kurd in modern Arabic, "Ekrad", has been used for defining a social status, not for an ethnicity. Bruinessen cites that, in Ottoman archives, "Ekrad-ı-Yörükan", "Ekrad-ı-Türkmen" and such terms were widely used. Of course it does not mean "Kurdish Turkmens", because Ekrad is the word used for shepherd/pastoral/nomadic population of East Anatolia and Northern Mesopotamia. So you say, when it got changed and became an ethnic identity? After Russian expansion in Northern Iran in the middle of 19.th century, Russians stole the original Sherefname and a French historian called François Charmoy, who was under Russian patronage, translated it and pressed it in St.Petersburg. In this translation(the original one is not accessable now), even despite Charmoy's attempts to link "Ekrad" to an ethnic identity, you can see that Sheref Khan has never described Kurds as one nation or one ethnicity.


Isn’t it possible that they were named after their social status? You’re probably right that it’s not “one nation or one ethnicity” – it’s probably a collection of various different, similar ones – just like the Chinese, German and Italian nations (and actually most other nations, including the Turkish nation) are, for example. I don’t see how what you said proves that they’re Turks.

I wish to ask you, if Kurds don't exist and if the people calling themselves Kurds are actually Turks, how come they have spoken an Indo-Iranian language since at least the 13th century?

I hope I’m not offending you, as that’s not my intention. I appreciate your response to my post. I think I just misunderstood what you said, so I'd be happy if you could clarify it. :)

[alanr]

Isn’t it possible that they were named after their social status? You’re probably right that it’s not “one nation or one ethnicity” – it’s probably a collection of various different, similar ones – just like the Chinese, German and Italian nations (and actually most other nations, including the Turkish nation) are, for example. I don’t see how what you said proves that they’re Turks.

I wish to ask you, if Kurds don't exist and if the people calling themselves Kurds are actually Turks, how come they have spoken an Indo-Iranian language since at least the 13th century?

I hope I’m not offending you, as that’s not my intention. I appreciate your response to my post. I think I just misunderstood what you said, so I'd be happy if you could clarify it. :)

Man why are you asking a Turk, a nationalist Turk to inform you on Kurds? Isn't a simple Google search a much more viable option? He will feed you with tons of lies. I don't have time at the moment but I'll log on later and post all relevant information.

[ChildOfTheJin]

Hmmm at first a Kurd from Erbil, later a Kurd from Urfa, now a Spanish from Valencia :bored:




I'm 3/4 Kurdish from the North of Erbil. I have relatives from Urfa (cousins) And I am 1/4 Spanish from my mothers side (and she is half Kurdish) :thumb001:


If you check that page, almost all languages which have vowel harmony are either Uralic or Altaic. The rest are exceptions.

Keyword: almost



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-...less_languages

Except Persian and some other IE languages, all IE languages have genders. I think the case of Persian(and it's degenerated form Sorani) can be attributed to Parthian-Turanian relations:

http://www.hunmagyar.org/turan/index.html

Well, this page is copyrighted so I can't copy-paste but there explains the Parthians being Turanian instead of Indo-European originally.

The Parthians are IE. You do not know of the first 3 Iranic tribes? The Madayu (Medes) Parsu (Persians) and Parthians are the fore fathers of all Iranic people. The Feili Kurds have quite a lot of Parthian blood.


It seems like that, Etruscan is a kind of proto-Uralo Altaic. It has similarities with both Hungarian, Chuvash and Khanty.


So you are telling me, the descendents of Etruscans which live in Italy, are Turkic? And that Rome was Turkic? Do these people look Turkic?



Even Mehmed II, conqueror of Constantinople/İstanbul boasted with taking revenge of Trojans.

And so did Ataturk.


Not too distant to Anatolia. BTW cut the "traditional border" bullshit, modern usage of Anatolia=Whole Turkey except European part(Eastern Thrace).

Why should I cut the traditional border "bullshit"? Kurds are not Anatolian. And even if I do use the modern term, Sumerians are still not Anatolian.


Well I know from personal experiences, they can not even understand each other.

What personal experience? You have met all the Kurds from Sirnak and Hakkari?


I suggest you to find and read Sheref Khan's Sherefname.

There is no no such guy



2.First of all, 23 million Kurd is the Kurdish theory. Western sources talk about 13 million Kurds. Secondly, İstanbul is known with the city where has the biggest Kurdish population. Thirdly, Musa Anter said that. Not a politician, my mistake, but a fervent Kurdish nationalist under the fake Marxist mask.

This is by Rudaw, a very proffesional news site that takes not just Kurdish writers, but Turkish and Europeans too.

http://www.ekurd.net/mismas/articles/misc2012/9/turkey4166.htm

[ChildOfTheJin]

I agree with you. There is a Kurdish minority in Turkey. But the problem is while some Kurds are pretty reasonable and friendly, some are uneducated mountain peasants like Serhildan for example. Just look at his ultra-facist sign and title under his nickname. Kurds like him literally wants all Turks dead.

Just imagine amerindians wants to form a new republic on Texas and what could happen after that.

Uneducated peasant? You know nothing of my background. And so what? I hate Bozkurt. You don't know what type of shit they do...

[ChildOfTheJin]

They are nothing like Amerindians

Amerindians were native to land .Kurds came later ,around 16 century because of Ottoman religious policy preferred for their sect sunni (by Yavuz and Kanuni) replaced by Alevi Turkmen tribes. Their real homeland is Zagros mountains .

Exactly, do you even know where the Zagros mountains are? They are not only in Iran.

[ChildOfTheJin]

I found several DNA studies from wiki:


In 2004 a team from Italy and Spain undertook a genetic study of the Etruscans, based on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) from 80 bone samples taken from tombs dating from the seventh century to the third century BC in Etruria.[18] This study found that the ancient DNA extracted from the Etruscan remains had some affininties with modern European populations including Tuscans in Italy. In addition the Etruscan samples possibly revealed more genetic inheritance from the eastern and southern Mediterranean than modern Italian samples contain. Hans-Jürgen Bandelt expressed concern about the methodology used in the study, saying "it is unclear to what extent the “Etruscan” data represent severely damaged or partly contaminated mtDNA sequences; therefore, any comparison with modern population data must be considered quite hazardous."[19]

A more recent study has suggested a Near Eastern origin.[20] The researchers conclude that their data, taken from the modern Tuscan population, 'support the scenario of a post-Neolithic genetic input from the Near East to the present-day population of Tuscany’. In the absence of any dating evidence there is however no direct link between this genetic input and the Etruscans.

A 2007 mtDNA study sampled a group from the Coriell Medical Institute containing DNA samples from a small town near Florence. The results found a Near Eastern cluster. However the samples were not considered to be genetically "atypical".[21][22]

Another study showed that the areas of historical Etruscan occupation share a relatively high concentration of y-haplogroup G with Anatolians, and the people of Caucasus, where the haplogroup reaches its greatest presence, particularly amongst the Ossetians and Georgians. This evidence is not specific to any period or calendar date, and might reflect contiguous populations or significant migration far back in the Stone Age.

Another team of Italian researchers showed that the mtDNA of cattle (Bos taurus) in modern Tuscany is different from that of cattle normally found elsewhere in Italy, and even in Europe as a whole.[23][24][25] An autochthonous population that diverged genetically was suggested as a possibility by Cavalli-Sforza.[2] The mtDNA is similar to that of cattle typically found in the Near East. Many tribes who have migrated in the past have typically taken their livestock with them as they moved. This bovine mtDNA study suggests that at least some people whose descendants were Etruscans made their way to Italy from Anatolia or other parts of the Near East. However, the study gives no clue as to when they might have done so. There is the possibility that Etruscan civilization arose locally with maritime contacts from all across the Mediterranean, and the genetic presence could have been all along since the Neolithic and the expansion of the seaborne Cardium Pottery cultures of same origin.

Another study by geneticist Alberto Piazza of the University of Turin linked the Etruscans to Turkey. The team compared DNA sequences with those from men in modern Turkey, northern Italy, the Greek island of Lemnos, the Italian islands of Sicily and Sardinia and the southern Balkans. They found that the genetic sequences of the Tuscan men varied significantly from those of men in surrounding regions in Italy, and that the men from Murlo and Volterra were the most closely related to men from Turkey. In Murlo in particular, one genetic variant is shared only by people from Turkey.[26][27][28]

[Partizan]

Isn’t it possible that they were named after their social status? You’re probably right that it’s not “one nation or one ethnicity” – it’s probably a collection of various different, similar ones – just like the Chinese, German and Italian nations (and actually most other nations, including the Turkish nation) are, for example. I don’t see how what you said proves that they’re Turks.

I wish to ask you, if Kurds don't exist and if the people calling themselves Kurds are actually Turks, how come they have spoken an Indo-Iranian language since at least the 13th century?

I hope I’m not offending you, as that’s not my intention. I appreciate your response to my post. I think I just misunderstood what you said, so I'd be happy if you could clarify it. :)

Well, the problem is terms like "Kurd" or "Ekrad" have never been used as an ethnic term until 19.th century. Furthermore, who used those as ethnic terms were French and Russian orientalists, not so-called Kurds themselves. If you read the historians who so-called Kurds here appreciate like Martin van Bruneissen, they talk about the same thing and I think you can easily read Bruneissen's books in Dutch.

About Kurdish language, unfortunately we do not have original sources like Sherefname and Mem-u-Zin. We have Sherefname's translation, from Charmoy and it is clear it was falsified because of political goals of Russian Empire at 19.th century. Moreover we only have a 19.th century handwriting of Mem-u-Zin, not original one written in 1600's. As I know Kurdologues like Miralla Galletti also admit that the history of Kurdish language is very blurry and it is hard to determine history about some Kurdish(!) writers.

[evon]

Atatürk, who cared about national unity inside of Turkey, can't be compared to Hitler who wanted to wipe Slavs out of map, just for some Lebensraum. They are ideologically really different and Atatürk's nationalism is exactly an anti-thesis of Hitler's insane Nazism. Atatürk had pan-Turkist tendencies though, however he did not think about exterminating other people for "life areas of Turks".


This is the main difference, Ataturk did not for whatever reason get hung-up on homogeneous phenotypes as a "indicator" for a people (Germans), had turkey been more uniform in terms of phenotype this might not have been so who knows, but this is pure speculations on my part.

The only things that comes close to a biological übermench ideal of any form that comes to my mind, is the "Caucasian schoolbooks" that was created during Ataturks reign, i dont have the book (http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Global_Political_Islam_International_Rel.html?id=A FiaUV-8Zl4C)where i read about this at hand, but here it is if you have access to it at a library near you? if you are unaware of them i am not surprised.

Wanting to forcefully assimilate is also aggressive, it would be akin to Hitler forcing Slavic speaking peoples to adopt a German culture and language.

But considering you are a racist ignoramus, i guess you dont have a problem with any such ideas, so there is no use in debating them with you as i cant agree with someone who has so little contempt for human life and freedom as most racist have, so lets agree to disagree on the issue.




Norway was one of the founder members, think about that.


So a country just recovering from German, British and Russian invasion during WW2 had a major role to play in the foundation of NATO and today we retain this role, you are truly ignorant my friend.. please, if you want to debate this, learn some basics first..i am not trying to be rude here, its just so obvious you know nothing about Norwegian history..





Haven't you heard about "Türk-İslam Sentezi"? :picard1: Most of the Turkish right is influenced by this ideology. If you check AKP members, around a quarter of them come from MHP or BBP-alike traditions. I think you don't properly follow Turkish politics, AKP started to act more nationalist, also in domestic affairs. I am sure you heard about KCK arrestings, Erdoğan's addressing to 1071 Manzikert victory and such stuff. AKP is still not really nationalist but you cannot desparately hope for end of Turkish nationalism. Of course AKP has great problems with the Turkish Republic's creator ideology, Kemalism, however AKP's steps against Kemalism just turn people more and more Kemalist, nothing else. For example two years ago, visitor numbers to Anıtkabir Mausoleum and Dolmabahçe Palace were at it's highest rate. Also in last 19.th May, because of AKP stopped "school parades" for this day, people filled the streets. You, Western Imperialists should never forget that Atatürk did not die. We, all Turks, have a part of Atatürk in our soul. Leave AKP alone, if even whole Turkey would get nuked, it would not change.


Truly idiotic, again you call me an imperialist (when my country only became independent just over 100 years ago from colonialism), while your country continue to suppress minorities forcefully, dont you see that when people read your comments they will stop taking your seriously, because you are so far from factual reality its making your co-debatants look bad :picard1:

As i said before, AKP is at its core Islamist, but as i also said, its the most moderate Islamist party that i can think of at this current time (so as you say they are close to nationalism ect), trying to make AKP into a non-Islamist party is wishful thinking on your account.



No need to show a dictionary, pan-nationalism is a widely known term.


Which equals, i am wrong but i am too stubborn to realize my mistake, so i am the lesser man. with this attitude you wount find much comfort in academia, as its all about leaving your pride behind and face the facts, even if you dont agree with them..




Seeing Turkic people inferior to other cultures, because of nomadic lifestyle perhaps?



Most Turkic speaking people are not nomadic, and there is nothing inferior about being nomadic on its own accord, and lastly having a preference for intellectual cultures such as China over Nomadic illiterates is not Eurocentric, its just a preference of mine..mostly because i find intellectual works by various civilizations to be far more interesting. so again, learn the terminology before you start accusing people of things!



There are no minorities in Turkey, except the non-Muslim ones who are treated well, period. I think after our great independence war, we proved that to whole world with Treaty of Lausanne.


Again, blatantly Racist!





It was a response to Pecheneg, I know. Besides he is very right on this point, you showed your real face in this post. It seems there are superior and inferior cultures to you, like Turkic ones fall into second one. That is what can be acknowledged from your post.


No, its not what i said you liar! if you pursue this type of misquoting i will try to get you banned at your next hick-up!




I am using Edward Said's definition on Orientalism. Beside your view on Turkic peoples, you are quite superficial on Islam. For example, you take the mainstream Sunni view instead Qu'ranic verses and conclusion is, "Sharia is a pillar of Islam". I think it is not because of lack of information or something, you just love to show it like that.


Well, could you post Saids definition for me, i like to see how you understand him?

Ok, here you just showed me how little you actually know about Islam too, thanks for the firewood :p

Firstly the shari'a is a compilation made from the Quran and Hadiths ect, the term Shari's can also be said to not exist for those who reject most of the orthodox Islamic scholars, but very few follow this line, hence in debating Islam it is best to follow mainstream ideals as to not become totally lost in the normative track of individual interpretations, like our Bosnian members whom roam this forum, whom hold a very different view then most main-streamers do.

I dont think i have ever said Shari'a is a pillar of Islam, you need to quote me if you are to come with such accusations, otherwise its just your word, which is looking increasingly worthless..

I study Islam at a very deep level and i have dated Muslims, so i have some insight into the religious workings, but i am humble enough to say that i do not have a full grasp of most of the religion, my speciality is Shari's and methodology..most of my academic books are by Muslims themselves, so i my sources are far from Eurocentric at their core, the books themselves stress the lack of Eurocentrism as the main theme which they explain things through, so i think you are reaching in the blind here...truly..if you are religious i would ask you to be careful when talking about matters which you are unsure about, as for you it is much more serious in retrospect then it is for me who is an humanist.

I am also not one to quote Suras out of context, i actually warn about doring this, because its dubious, especially given the Quranic suras are arranged in a linear fashion..



Check my all posts,except Lounge ones,in more than half of them I either show a direct source or I address to some books.


No, you misunderstood, i asked you to quote me being Eurocentric if you are to casually throw the term at people..



You have rightness here, Vicky the Viking, I definitely know more than a Norse about my own country, my own affairs, my own nation, my own history and my own religion. The problem is with the ones, who meddle their noses into everything with a small and superficial knowledge.

The problem is that teenagers always think they know everything, this is because their brain neurones are jumbled up as they are becoming men, when you get a degree in history we can talk, or at least give some proper sources for your radical ideas, until then you will just remain a ignorant teenager in my view!


I am not sure about genetics, but Uzbeks are phenotypically not really that much different from Turkmens. Kazakhs and Kyrgyz are far more mongoloid.


Genetics is the main issue here, phenotype is useless in comparison, its like saying red apples are juicier based on their redness rather then on their sweetness which you cant see..

[ChildOfTheJin]

I definitely know more than a Norse about my own country, my own affairs, my own nation, my own history and my own religion.

Exactly, and I would definetely know more about Kurdistan, Kurdish history and genetics than a Turk.

[evon]

Exactly, and I would definetely know more about Kurdistan, Kurdish history and genetics than a Turk.

I reject this idea, just because you are born into a culture or ethnic group does not mean you know allot about it, many in my culture/ethnic group are very ignorant about Norwegian history, and i would take a Turkish or Kurdish academics words over their if they had the better argument...

[Siberian Cold Breeze]

The Zagros Mountains (Persian: رشته كوه زاگرس‎, Aramaic: ܛܘܪ ܙܪܓܣ, Kurdish: زنجیرهچیاکانی زاگرۆس, Lurish: کو یه لی زاگروس,Arabic: جبال زغروس ‎) are the largest mountain range in Iran and Iraq.

[ChildOfTheJin]

The Zagros Mountains (Persian: رشته كوه زاگرس‎, Aramaic: ܛܘܪ ܙܪܓܣ, Kurdish: زنجیرهچیاکانی زاگرۆس, Lurish: کو یه لی زاگروس,Arabic: جبال زغروس ‎) are the largest mountain range in Iran and Iraq.

Exactly, only a part of Kurdish ancestry comes from there. You know nothing or very little of Kurdish ancestry and history.

[Partizan]

The Parthians are IE. You do not know of the first 3 Iranic tribes? The Madayu (Medes) Parsu (Persians) and Parthians are the fore fathers of all Iranic people. The Feili Kurds have quite a lot of Parthian blood

George Rawlinson, one of the first researchers on Parthian empire, claims that they were Turkic.


So you are telling me, the descendents of Etruscans which live in Italy, are Turkic? And that Rome was Turkic? Do these people look Turkic?


I say proto-Ural Altai. I do not think today's Mongoloid looking Kazakhs or Kyrgyzes are represantives of proto-Turkic people. For example proto-Kyrgyzes were described as blue eyed and blond however today's Kyrgyzes are highly mixed with Siberian people like Yeniseians. If you read Prof.Mario Alinei's works, it seems proto-Turks migrated either from Carpathian Basin or from Mesopotamia to Central Asia. I think Chuvashes are the purest Turkic people, their language has striking resemblance to old Turkic people like Bulgars and Khazars, also they look blonde and blue eyed like description of old Turkic people(first Kyrgyzes, Khazars and Cumans/Kipchaks). Kipchaks/Cumans were called as Polovtsy(blondes) by Slavic tribes.


And so did Ataturk.

Even before all those historical researches, DNA tests and other technological/historical achievements, Mehmed II linked himself and Ottoman dynasty to Trojans, just some food for thought...


Why should I cut the traditional border "bullshit"? Kurds are not Anatolian.

Because modern usage is rather common. BTW please decide what Kurds are, are you Scythians, native Mesopotamians, Hurrians, Kardu people or what? I think some day you will link Kurds to Reptilians :lol:


And even if I do use the modern term, Sumerians are still not Anatolian.


Still not far away from Anatolia.


What personal experience? You have met all the Kurds from Sirnak and Hakkari?


Nope but I've lived in Aksaray, where has a lot of Kurds and now I am living in İstanbul, where has plenty of them too. I also have many relatives, friends and teachers who worked in South Eastern Anatolia and said similar things about even Kurds from different villages can not understand each other.



There is no no such guy


Sheref Khan Bitlisi?


This is by Rudaw, a very proffesional news site that takes not just Kurdish writers, but Turkish and Europeans too.

http://www.ekurd.net/mismas/articles/misc2012/9/turkey4166.htm

:bored:

When it comes to current affairs and demographics, you always bring pro-Kurdish sites like ekurd where cherry picks evidences and show everything positive for Kurds.


I found several DNA studies from wiki:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jun/18/italy.johnhooper

A similar one to you posted:


They then compared their Y chromosomes, which are passed from father to son, with those of other groups in Italy, the Balkans, modern-day Turkey and the Greek island of Lemnos, which linguistic evidence suggests could have links to the Etruscans.

"The DNA samples from Murlo and Volterra are much more highly correlated to those of the eastern peoples than to those of the other inhabitants of [Italy]," said Alberto Piazza of the University of Turin, who presented the research. "One particular genetic variant, found in the samples from Murlo, was shared only with people from Turkey."

Another recent genetic study, of "chianina" and three other Tuscan cattle strains, found they were unrelated to Italian breeds. Yet matches were found in Turkey and the Balkans, along the supposed route of some of ancient Italy's most enigmatic immigrants.

[ChildOfTheJin]

I reject this idea, just because you are born into a culture or ethnic group does not mean you know allot about it, many in my culture/ethnic group are very ignorant about Norwegian history, and i would take a Turkish or Kurdish academics words over their if they had the better argument...

Yes but would you trust a Turk on Kurdish history? I would believe it if it was a Dutch person for example that has researched carefully, but Turks would probably claim we are a Turkic people, which I presume Partizan is doing atm.

[Siberian Cold Breeze]

I m not interested at all...I only know you are not native here ..that's all I need to know
I m interested in my history ,not history of a tiny Iranian tribe used for interests of globalisation :bored:

[ChildOfTheJin]

George Rawlinson, one of the first researchers on Parthian empire, claims that they were Turkic.


And what did he say? I can invite a Feili Kurd from anthroscape (which many Turks from here know him) to come here and explain Parthian ancestry among Feili Kurds. he Knows more about it than me.


I say proto-Ural Altai.

Look at the DNA tests I posted. You will find it interesting.


Even before all those historical researches, DNA tests and other technological/historical achievements, Mehmed II linked himself and Ottoman dynasty to Trojans, just some food for thought...


And where was his proof? His imagination?


Because modern usage is rather common. BTW please decide what Kurds are, are you Scythians, native Mesopotamians, Hurrians, Kardu people or what? I think some day you will link Kurds to Reptilians

Kurds are a mixed bunch, I wouldn't be surprised if we have some Turkic or Semetic blood too, but that is of course going to be very low.


Still not far away from Anatolia.

Still not part of Anatolia. Why don't you try walking 1000 miles? Yes, its still not very far.


Nope but I've lived in Aksaray, where has a lot of Kurds and now I am living in İstanbul, where has plenty of them too. I also have many relatives, friends and teachers who worked in South Eastern Anatolia and said similar things about even Kurds from different villages can not understand each other.

ALL Kurds in Turkey can understand each other if they speak Kurmanji. The misunderstanding part comes where you speaking with a Kurd who speaks a different dialect. Example, Kurmanji has genders, Sorani doesn't.


Sheref Khan Bitlisi?

I thought you meant someone else. Anyway, show me a source of what he said.


When it comes to current affairs and demographics, you always bring pro-Kurdish sites like ekurd where cherry picks evidences and show everything positive for Kurds.

I can tell you didn't read it.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007...aly.johnhooper

A similar one to you posted:

Right, I can believe this since those Turks from there don't look Turkic or Turanid or all the other stuff. This is when the Turkification part comes in. :thumb001:


I m not interested at all...I only know you are not native here ..that's all I need to know
I m interested in my history ,not history of a tiny Iranian tribe used for interests of globalisation

Look at my Hurrian ancestors then. Go do some research.

[evon]

Yes but would you trust a Turk on Kurdish history? I would believe it if it was a Dutch person for example that has researched carefully, but Turks would probably claim we are a Turkic people, which I presume Partizan is doing atm.

I must say i have prejudiced about Turkish academics on topics of Kurd's yes, but if the argument was sound and the evidence was sound, i would accept it, sometimes it takes a better man (or woman, very sexist of me :P ) to accept when he is wrong and move on, being wrong in one thing does not nullify all your ideas, its not meant to bring you into a crisis of self-esteem, its meant to become a part of you (after all its you whom will become more knowledgeable).

Partizan has shown and agreed that he is what definitions would call a Racist (check his statements in my debate with him), so i would ignore his racist outbursts and focus on the other stuff which you can counter-argument if you think he or whomever is wrong..

[agality]

Uneducated peasant? You know nothing of my background. And so what? I hate Bozkurt. You don't know what type of shit they do...

True, i don`t know you. But i judge you as an ignorant person because all you do is linking from a site called ekurd and calling that a reliable source. History is a science, lots of scientific papers are written, lots of scholars are studying. But what you do is linking from ekurd, you hear the biased news from your own people then bear grudge against Turks. That`s what an ignorant peasant does. I`ll be very upset if you are using an Turkish IP address.

[ChildOfTheJin]

True, i don`t know you. But i judge you as an ignorant person because all you do is linking from a site called ekurd and calling that a reliable source. History is a science, lots of scientific papers are written, lots of scholars are studying. But what you do is linking from ekurd, you hear the biased news from your own people then bear grudge against Turks. That`s what an ignorant peasant does. I`ll be very upset if you are using an Turkish IP address.

You were talking about scientific research and you used wiki as a source? That is even worst than ekurd

[agality]

You were talking about scientific research and you used wiki as a source? That is even worst than ekurd

Wiki itself not a reliable source, have you ever heard the term `references` ? It`s written under every wikipedia page. I had a look at your page ekurd. And news are like `KURDS ARE THE BEST!!! ISTANBUL IS CAPTURED BY KURDS!!!!` Source:Uganda Post.

[ChildOfTheJin]

Wiki itself not a reliable source, have you ever heard the term `references` ? It`s written under every wikipedia page. I had a look at your page ekurd. And news are like `KURDS ARE THE BEST!!! ISTANBUL IS CAPTURED BY KURDS!!!!` Source:Uganda Post.

Yes and look carefully at those references. They come from sites like eKurd and todays Zaman. Some things don't even have references

[Pecheneg]

Also most of those Turkic speaking peoples you listed came via the Volga Region into Central Europe, Not Anatolia..
http://i47.tinypic.com/2vrwl0y.jpg

Read my post again. I was talking about "Oghuz".

There are hundreds of thousands of people in balkans who are descendants of Turkic peoples like Kypchaqs, Pechenegs, Avars, Oghuz(from anatolia)... but i guarantee none of them have central asian appearance / autosomal dna.










Yes, i agree with this, but the dilemma recedes in terms of biology, not in identity as such..
No. Their dna perfectly matches with these people's historical background. Even though they are mixed, they still carry the traces of their long journey.
As i said before, they don't expect to see typical central asian autosomal dna in their genetic results. For instance, i don't need a DNA test to tell who i am. It would probably place me in somewhere between central anatolian Turks and crimean Tatars, because this is what my ancestry is, I wouldn't be surprised.













And yes, Nationalism and these ideas of racial unity are all European ideologies, created in the darkest part of our history, when we war at constant war with each other, in my country it raped our minorities for decades until we learned tolerance and moved beyond these out-dated ideals..i hope for your children’s sake this evolution of ideology happens in Turkey too..

Turkish nationalism is not based on ethnicity, we have no problem with Kurds, Circassians, Arabs, Bosniaks .etc who are loyal to our country.


Turkish identity as such has nothing to do with ataturk, but he fused it with nationalism as Germany did during Hitler ect, its never a good idea in a multi ethnic country to do this, because the minorities are the first victims, and all non-uniform behaviour ect are all targets for this form of extremism..
Do not even try to compare Turkish nationalism to German Nazizm for God's sake. Go find a solution to your Breivik-like people in norway first.







I am Eurasian:P i have genetic roots going to far flung places such as China and India, just like i have German, Saami, English, ect roots, its a cosmopolitan identity, and i embrace that..
So be it, you are eurasian and we are not. :laugh:





if you ever do a DNA test, i hope you do the same, Turkic speaking or not, its all part of you and they are as important as each other..
Why can't you just use "Turk" instead of Turkic speaking? :rolleyes:
Is it new trend in antro forums or what?




Here are the latest runs by Dodecad (Mediterranean centric), Harappan (Asian centric), and Eurogenes (Eurocentric), and they all show that Turks are mostly native to Anatolia with minor central Asian ancestry:
most of these links say nothing about "minor central asian ancestry", they just show some admixtures but since you think Turkic=Mongoloid, you made it up. Comparison of Turks and some strongly mongoloid Turkic populations is nothing but nonsense. Why don't they compare us with Turkmens?




Turks of Turkey speak an Oghuz dialect of Turkic languages. The other major Turkic groups speaking Oghuz include Azeri Turks of Azerbaijan and Iran as well as Turkmens of Turkmenistan.
http://i49.tinypic.com/2bds0w.png
The results for Kayseri were similar to results for Istanbul. These results suggest that Turkmens of Turkmenistan are fundamentally West Asian genetically and similar to Turks of Turkey. Furthermore the Siberian genetic content in Turkmens and Turks of Turkey are comparable suggesting a significant Turkmen influx into Anatolia if indeed the source population of Turks of Turkey were Turkmens of Seljuqs.
Turks' Anatolian neighbors/relatives Armenians and Greeks lack Siberian and East Asian genes all together. Depending on the source population of Turks of Anatolia this suggests a significant Turkmen population must have migrated to Anatolia to have passed on these Siberian and East Asian segments to the current Turkish population. If that source population is Turkmens of Turkmenistan then Anatolia must have received a Turkoman migrant population approximately equal to its original population size.



But i'm sure you will find another excuse for this and try to impose us with your never-ending paragraphs.

[evon]

No. Their dna perfectly matches with these people's historical background. Even though they are mixed, they still carry the traces of their long journey.
As i said before, they don't expect to see typical central asian autosomal dna in their genetic results. For instance, i don't need a DNA test to tell who i am. It would probably place me in somewhere between central anatolian Turks and crimean Tatars, because this is what my ancestry is, I wouldn't be surprised.


Its not about having traces as such, you missed my point here, i am talking about someone who identifies as having recent Central Asian ancestry, not 500+ years ago..




Turkish nationalism is not based on ethnicity, we have no problem with Kurds, Circassians, Arabs, Bosniaks .etc who are loyal to our country.


Well tell that to Partizan :thumb001: Also it was originally created on the idea of a unified country, hence terms such as Mountain Turks for kurds ect..



Do not even try to compare Turkish nationalism to German Nazizm for God's sake. Go find a solution to your Breivik-like people in norway first.


Breivik is not a Nazi, he is a religious nationalist (much like an extreme Islamist), quite far from the Nazis whom where Socialist nationalist (Which is what the term Nazi is derived from in German).

All nationalism has the same core values, and in this regard Turkish is the same as German or Norwegian or any other nationalism..






So be it, you are eurasian and we are not. :laugh:


Turks are a great example of Eurasian, and some are even Afro-Eurasian or whatever that terminology would be..



Why can't you just use "Turk" instead of Turkic speaking? :rolleyes:
Is it new trend in antro forums or what?


When i found that there is no evident DNA link between all Turkic speaking peoples i started using regional identities rather then any pan-linguistic one..Hence Turks are Turkish, Tatars are Volga Tatars ect, Uzbeks are Uzbeks ect ect.. you get it right? otherwise it gets confusing in conversations on DNA and ethnic groups ect...




most of these links say nothing about "minor central asian ancestry", they just show some admixtures but since you think Turkic=Mongoloid, you made it up. Comparison of Turks and some strongly mongoloid Turkic populations is nothing but nonsense. Why don't they compare us with Turkmens?


Its not what they are there for, they are to show the level of admixture that you can use to compare yourself with other populations, most if not all Central Asian populations are represented there, and they use a large number of components ect, so you should be able to at least partly calculate similarity, and with the Harappan segment analysis you can also dig deeper...

Mongolian is not a good stand in component for anyone and infact there is no Mongolian component, the closest you get is a North Eurasian one or Siberian one that is found near 99% in North Asian Turkic speaking peoples, the other valuable component could be East Asian, which seems to be very high in some Central Asian populations..

But i will ask Eurogenes to make a full comprehensive study of the Eurasian relationship for Turkic and Mongolian populations, then we will get a clear DNA survey on it that everyone can enjoy..

By the way, some Turks also have ties to Mongolian populations, so there are some among you with possible non-Turkic speaking Chingizid lines ;) My guess they are Mongolians via Iraq who settled in Anatolia in the post-Mongolian period..but thats another subject..






But i'm sure you will find another excuse for this and try to impose us with your never-ending paragraphs.


Firstly, using only Armenians and Greeks is terrible, because these two populations have been mostly isolated (with the exception of Pontic greeks ect), one should also use Georgians, Kurds, Syrians, Lebanese, Bulgarians ect..then the figure gets much clearer...

The interpretation of these admixture data is not very good, its basing itself on a limited number of samples (there is a huge variation of East and North Asian components in Turkey), and of components, this is why i said its better to use multiple studies..

[agality]

Yes and look carefully at those references. They come from sites like eKurd and todays Zaman. Some things don't even have references

For example you claim that Semdinli is under Kurdish control. Just open wiki page of Semdinli and read sentences that have references. It`s clear that your source ekurd is a very very biased one just like Today`s Zaman.

[ChildOfTheJin]

For example you claim that Semdinli is under Kurdish control. Just open wiki page of Semdinli and read sentences that have references. It`s clear that your source ekurd is a very very biased one just like Today`s Zaman.

It was under Kurdish control when the Guerrillas defeated the Turkish army.

[evon]

I talked with eurogenes DNA project and he agreed to do a full survey/study on Turkish (probably also Kurdish) when the new multimix comes out, whatever that is? he also said the new Ancestry painting v2.0 admixture from 23andme will also answer allot of questions regarding the admixture make-up of Turks and Kurds, so soon all arguments will be corrected by a full fledged DNA study:)

[ChildOfTheJin]

I talked with eurogenes DNA project and he agreed to do a full survey/study on Turkish (probably also Kurdish) when the new multimix comes out, whatever that is? he also said the new Ancestry painting v2.0 admixture from 23andme will also answer allot of questions regarding the admixture make-up of Turks and Kurds, so soon all arguments will be corrected by a full fledged DNA study:)

Thank you, do you know when the results will come?

[evon]

Thank you, do you know when the results will come?

The new Ancestry painting V2.0 is just around the corner, with regards to the survey i will make a thread about here on the forum, i dont want to speculate about a date for that though, but i think sometime soon :)

[Annihilus]

I talked with eurogenes DNA project and he agreed to do a full survey/study on Turkish (probably also Kurdish) when the new multimix comes out, whatever that is? he also said the new Ancestry painting v2.0 admixture from 23andme will also answer allot of questions regarding the admixture make-up of Turks and Kurds, so soon all arguments will be corrected by a full fledged DNA study:)

What arguments can be corrected by it, is it going to tell us something we don't know yet?

[evon]

What arguments can be corrected by it, is it going to tell us something we don't know yet?

I am hopeful that it will be able to show approximately the % of Central Asian ancestry in modern Turkish peoples (We have access to a good number of varied samples, so thats good), i also asked if he could look into the idea of a pan-Turkic biological connection, to check if all Turkic speaking peoples share a line of biological ancestry, the level of European, Arab, Jewish ect influence on the modern population, and so on...If it is successful it will be the first such study of its kind, dwarfing failed studies such as Dodecads Turkic study, and will be a great asset for Turks whom are into DNA ect.. so look forward to it:)

But you can also get allot of info from the Ancestry painting v2.0 soon! :thumb001:

[Partizan]

The only things that comes close to a biological übermench ideal of any form that comes to my mind, is the "Caucasian schoolbooks" that was created during Ataturks reign, i dont have the book (http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Global_Political_Islam_International_Rel.html?id=A FiaUV-8Zl4C)where i read about this at hand, but here it is if you have access to it at a library near you? if you are unaware of them i am not surprised.

Well I know about anthropologic works under Atatürk's regime but those can not be counted as racism. You know, from the start of 19.th century to end of 20.th century, there was a raise of Philohellenism and therefore, anti-Turkism.

Let's check some quotes about this situation.

Lloyd George:


"What have the Turks ever contributed to culture, to art, or to any aspect of human progress that you can think of? They are a human cancer, a creeping agony in the flesh of the lands they misgovern, rotting every fiber of life. They have ruled over most of the countries which are the candle of civilization.."

Charles Darwin:


Lastly I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilisation than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risks the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is. The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world.

So, in such a World, where the propaganda about "Turks being untermensch" is widely spread, how Atatürk had to defend his nation? Of course with weapons of the enemy, history and anthropology.


Wanting to forcefully assimilate is also aggressive, it would be akin to Hitler forcing Slavic speaking peoples to adopt a German culture and language.

Hitler's aim was exterminating them, not assimilating. Also unlike Atatürk only had aims for Misak-ı-Milli borders, Hitler had aims about Western Russia, where has never been a Germanic land. Don't confuse expansionism with patriotism.


But considering you are a racist ignoramus, i guess you dont have a problem with any such ideas, so there is no use in debating them with you as i cant agree with someone who has so little contempt for human life and freedom as most racist have, so lets agree to disagree on the issue.

I am not a racist. Have you ever seen me judging anyone for his/her race? Hell no. I just accept only "Turkish identity", "Turkish language" and "Turkish culture" in borders of my nation. Anyone who would accept those absolutely is welcome. Not to forget, like you, many ignorant and superficial guys use "racism" wrong. There are only three races in the world, "Caucasoid", "Negroid," and "Mongoloid". Since I don't yell for any of them's supremacy, I am definitely not a racist.


So a country just recovering from German, British and Russian invasion during WW2 had a major role to play in the foundation of NATO and today we retain this role, you are truly ignorant my friend.. please, if you want to debate this, learn some basics first..i am not trying to be rude here, its just so obvious you know nothing about Norwegian history..

How would you explain that, the angel, peaceful, innocent Norway being one of the greatest weapon exporters? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/sep/24/norway-ethical-oil-environment-arms)

More:

http://www.ssb.no/english/magazine/art-2011-01-21-01-en.html

Your country just benefits wars in Middle East, by selling weapons. Sorry, your country is in center of Western Imperialism.



Truly idiotic, again you call me an imperialist (when my country only became independent just over 100 years ago from colonialism), while your country continue to suppress minorities forcefully, dont you see that when people read your comments they will stop taking your seriously, because you are so far from factual reality its making your co-debatants look bad :picard1:

Stop whining please.

There are no minorities opressed in my country, ask any Greek, Jew or Armenian living in Turkey. Those are counted minorities in Lausanne treaty, the treaty which determines such stuff like minority rights when it comes to Turkish politics.



As i said before, AKP is at its core Islamist, but as i also said, its the most moderate Islamist party that i can think of at this current time (so as you say they are close to nationalism ect), trying to make AKP into a non-Islamist party is wishful thinking on your account.

I have never said they are non-Islamist. They are more Islamist than you think also, however they have a strong nationalist influence.

http://medya.zaman.com.tr/2007/04/25/ag-nfk.jpg

Here, you see young Mr. Gül with Necip Fazıl Kısakürek, who is one of the prominent ideologues of Islamist-Nationalist synthesis of Turkey. Not to forget that, especially from Central Anatolia, most AKP voters are ex-MHP voters.


Which equals, i am wrong but i am too stubborn to realize my mistake, so i am the lesser man. with this attitude you wount find much comfort in academia, as its all about leaving your pride behind and face the facts, even if you dont agree with them..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-nationalism

Happy now?




Most Turkic speaking people are not nomadic, and there is nothing inferior about being nomadic on its own accord, and lastly having a preference for intellectual cultures such as China over Nomadic illiterates is not Eurocentric, its just a preference of mine..mostly because i find intellectual works by various civilizations to be far more interesting. so again, learn the terminology before you start accusing people of things!

I know most of Turkic people are not nomadic at all. However in your post, you just show your idea on civilization:


Turkic speaking peoples have no attributes or historical achievements that somehow make me want to be part of that, i value civilizations such as ancient Greece, China and India far higher then i would any nomad society on the fringe of the civilized world, sorry mate, you need to go further into bush with that "superiority complex"...

It is how you view Turkic people.


Again, blatantly Racist!

:picard1: :picard1: :picard1: :picard1: :picard1: :picard1:

On the contrary, accepting everybody in Turkish borders as Turk is quite far away from being discriminatory. It is the nicest and most peaceful kind of nationalism.



No, its not what i said you liar! if you pursue this type of misquoting i will try to get you banned at your next hick-up!

Don't get mad because of getting exposed :thumb001: Try your best, what I have done is nothing against forum rules. I just quoted what you wrote.


Well, could you post Saids definition for me, i like to see how you understand him?

Of course. I can summarise his view on this issue as that, "Looking at the East with the Western glasses."

Despite you pretend to be scientifical, you look at the East with "The West's way of science", Mr. Evon. That is the problem


Ok, here you just showed me how little you actually know about Islam too, thanks for the firewood :p

Yes, as you're the greatest Islamic scholar ever, you know everything better than us, illiterate Turks.



I dont think i have ever said Shari'a is a pillar of Islam, you need to quote me if you are to come with such accusations, otherwise its just your word, which is looking increasingly worthless..

Just in the last post, I posted a discussion between you and me. You used the argument, "Quranic verses about Sharia" however you forget that Qu'ran is an entire message, in another verses it exactly shows Qu'ran does not talk about "only one road". And in this verse, "road" is "Sharia" in Arabic.


I study Islam at a very deep level and i have dated Muslims, so i have some insight into the religious workings, but i am humble enough to say that i do not have a full grasp of most of the religion, my speciality is Shari's and methodology..most of my academic books are by Muslims themselves, so i my sources are far from Eurocentric at their core, the books themselves stress the lack of Eurocentrism as the main theme which they explain things through, so i think you are reaching in the blind here...truly..if you are religious i would ask you to be careful when talking about matters which you are unsure about, as for you it is much more serious in retrospect then it is for me who is an humanist.

You are mostly taking Sunni scholars and Hadiths(which are definitely not a good source) as sources, which fits your agenda, showing Muslims as uncivilized savages.


I am also not one to quote Suras out of context, i actually warn about doring this, because its dubious, especially given the Quranic suras are arranged in a linear fashion..

Well, Qu'ranic suras are only real sources of Islam. As I know no verse talks about, "look at Hadith books for details" or stuff like that.


The problem is that teenagers always think they know everything, this is because their brain neurones are jumbled up as they are becoming men, when you get a degree in history we can talk, or at least give some proper sources for your radical ideas, until then you will just remain a ignorant teenager in my view!

Your view is worthless for me so I don't even care.


Exactly, and I would definetely know more about Kurdistan, Kurdish history and genetics than a Turk.

Kurdistan? Sorry, this place does not exist.

Kurdish history? Unexistant, again.

Kurdish genetics? Sorry, there is no Kurdish people and no Kurdish genetics.

And what did he say? I can invite a Feili Kurd from anthroscape (which many Turks from here know him) to come here and explain Parthian ancestry among Feili Kurds. he Knows more about it than me.

Well I know him, "Angrals". Anyway, I haven't read his book yet however as I know Rawlinson was one of the first historians who worked on Parthians.


And where was his proof? His imagination?

Is not it weird, almost 2400 years later than the Trojan civilization's end, one Turkish Ottoman Sultan "takes revenge of them" and boasts with it?


Still not part of Anatolia. Why don't you try walking 1000 miles? Yes, its still not very far.

Yes, but the Mesopotamian influence on Anatolia is not insignificiant. Assyrians, Akkadians and other Mesopotamian folks, who were exactly cultural(not lingual or racial since they were Semites) heirs of Sumerians ruled a significiant part of Anatolia.


I thought you meant someone else. Anyway, show me a source of what he said.

Well, if you have Sharafnama under your hand, you can check and confirm what I wrote:

Claim 1, Kurds are descended from Shaitans(devils):

"According to some scholars, Kurds descent from Shaitans called Div. According to many stories, Divs bred with humans and it resulted with Kurds. Allah knows what they exactly are."

Claim 2, Kurds descend from a messenger of Oghuz Khan:

"According to tales, after Mohammed being prophet, it was heard in every country in the World. All leaders of nations wanted to serve this great leader. Oghuz Khan, the King of Turkestan, sent someone among Kurds called Boghdoz Aman, who had an ugly and devilish face. After they asked him, which nation are you from, he said, from Kurdish one. And Mohammed(pbuh) said that, "This nation will never have happiness of living sanely."

(to note that, the concept of nation in Sharafnama is probably a mistranslation. Because it also says, "Taifat-un min al Djinn"(The "taifa" of Djinns), as it says, the taifa of Ekrad. Taifa is community at real but it is taken as nation by Charmoy).

Again, by Sheref Khan Bitlisi, information on "Kurdish begs":

"Most important historians say, begs of Cizre are from Umayyad Caliph Walid's son Halid's lineage."

And according to Sharafnama, real "Kurdistan" is only Çemişgezek district:

"The intelligence and brilliant minds of the people who dedicated themselves to learn history, show that begs of Çemişgezek amirs are from one Abbasid Caliph called Melkit. Moreover some other great historians claim, those begs are descended from grandson of Kasım, son of Ali called Amir Salik. This Amir was one member of Seljuk dynasty."

It seems, what Sheref Khan describes is not an ethnicity but a social status shared by Arabs, Turks and even to some extent Shaitans :rolleyes:

Since there is no e-book press of Sharafnama, I am directly translating from the quotes I have. As I said, you can check Sharafnama from any library.




Right, I can believe this since those Turks from there don't look Turkic or Turanid or all the other stuff. This is when the Turkification part comes in. :thumb001:

Yeah, sure you Kurds are all pure descendants of Hurrians, Scythians, Sumerians, Mitanni, Halafs etc. at the same time but when it comes to Turks, it is Turkification :rolleyes:

Moreover I think those evidences on Paleolithic Continuity Theory, Sumerian-Etruscan-Turkic connection and so on prove that proto-Turkic people were a pure Caucasoid people, also description of Khazars, Cumans and first Kyrgyzes(blond or red haired, blue eyed etc.) prove that.

[Turkophagos]

Kurds should have their own kurdish courts in their own kurdish country where of course they would speak kurdish and only kurdish.

Hopefully we'll witness that this decade.

[Kemalisté]

One becomes really silly when one denies that there is no proper government authority in Hakkari. The former general who served in that region for decades and the current leader of a center nationalist party have put this fact into words. Those who claim the opposite should go there and try to walk with a Turkish flag. Blame the government for this, sorry.

[ChildOfTheJin]

Well, Partizan, considering all that bullshit you wrote, I need not say anything else.

You have embarrassed the Turkish folk here.

[Sagjaz]

Man why are you asking a Turk, a nationalist Turk to inform you on Kurds? Isn't a simple Google search a much more viable option? He will feed you with tons of lies. I don't have time at the moment but I'll log on later and post all relevant information.

I'm not asking him to inform me on Kurds, I'm just asking him to support his claims with proof. ;)


Well, the problem is terms like "Kurd" or "Ekrad" have never been used as an ethnic term until 19.th century. Furthermore, who used those as ethnic terms were French and Russian orientalists, not so-called Kurds themselves. If you read the historians who so-called Kurds here appreciate like Martin van Bruneissen, they talk about the same thing and I think you can easily read Bruneissen's books in Dutch.

About Kurdish language, unfortunately we do not have original sources like Sherefname and Mem-u-Zin. We have Sherefname's translation, from Charmoy and it is clear it was falsified because of political goals of Russian Empire at 19.th century. Moreover we only have a 19.th century handwriting of Mem-u-Zin, not original one written in 1600's. As I know Kurdologues like Miralla Galletti also admit that the history of Kurdish language is very blurry and it is hard to determine history about some Kurdish(!) writers.

Well how about the Yazidi Black Book (http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meshaf_Re%C5%9F)? It was written earlier than Mem and Zin, and in a Kurdish dialect.

So, you claim the Kurds were Turkic people and that they became a different ethnicity from the Turkish one in the 19th century. Does that mean you claim that they started speaking Kurdish in the 19th century? Then where did the language come from all of the sudden?

[evon]

Well I know about anthropologic works under Atatürk's regime but those can not be counted as racism. You know, from the start of 19.th century to end of 20.th century, there was a raise of Philohellenism and therefore, anti-Turkism.

Let's check some quotes about this situation.

Lloyd George:


Charles Darwin:

So, in such a World, where the propaganda about "Turks being untermensch" is widely spread, how Atatürk had to defend his nation? Of course with weapons of the enemy, history and anthropology.

Its not at all what i was referring to at all, i am going to purchase the book i listed tomorrow if i get enough time, then i can quote you what i was talking about, but a short teaser is that the school books featured European looking persons on purpose (i think they even had blond hair and blue eyes, but on this part i am unsure), so wait for it until tomorrow:) But you should be aware of Nietzsche's saying which is a hole you fall into here by proposing racism to defend against others racism:


He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.


Which is find sad..we are all subject to racism from time to time (have you personally experienced it? i can tell you its not nice), its no excuse for ourselves to become racist in defence..



Hitler's aim was exterminating them, not assimilating. Also unlike Atatürk only had aims for Misak-ı-Milli borders, Hitler had aims about Western Russia, where has never been a Germanic land. Don't confuse expansionism with patriotism.


Forceful assimilation of Kurds is not patriotism, its racism.



I am not a racist. Have you ever seen me judging anyone for his/her race? Hell no. I just accept only "Turkish identity", "Turkish language" and "Turkish culture" in borders of my nation. Anyone who would accept those absolutely is welcome. Not to forget, like you, many ignorant and superficial guys use "racism" wrong. There are only three races in the world, "Caucasoid", "Negroid," and "Mongoloid". Since I don't yell for any of them's supremacy, I am definitely not a racist.


Racism is not just related to biology in such a fashion, that is just the root of the word, the modern meaning covers, cultural, religious, ect discriminatory behaviour or ideas, thus your comment about Kurds not being a real ethnic group or whatnot is covered by that definition..

here is a good overview of a UN charter on the wider subject of racial discrimination which is de facto racism;

http://www.hri.org/docs/ICERD66.htm

l





How would you explain that, the angel, peaceful, innocent Norway being one of the greatest weapon exporters? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/sep/24/norway-ethical-oil-environment-arms)

More:

http://www.ssb.no/english/magazine/art-2011-01-21-01-en.html

Your country just benefits wars in Middle East, by selling weapons. Sorry, your country is in center of Western Imperialism.



It that all you got:P Your own country does the same thing and so does everyone else, so we are all Imperialist countries then :P

as an example; Turkish arm-sales:

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2012/08/28/Turkey-seeks-increased-arms-exports/UPI-50721346186145/

Economic investment and such is a global thing which we are all part of, Turkeys military is in bed with capitalism in that sense.




Stop whining please.

There are no minorities opressed in my country, ask any Greek, Jew or Armenian living in Turkey. Those are counted minorities in Lausanne treaty, the treaty which determines such stuff like minority rights when it comes to Turkish politics.


Yeah and Kurds are mountain Turks, sorry i forgot you were a racist again, thanks for reminding me!




I have never said they are non-Islamist. They are more Islamist than you think also, however they have a strong nationalist influence.

http://medya.zaman.com.tr/2007/04/25/ag-nfk.jpg

Here, you see young Mr. Gül with Necip Fazıl Kısakürek, who is one of the prominent ideologues of Islamist-Nationalist synthesis of Turkey. Not to forget that, especially from Central Anatolia, most AKP voters are ex-MHP voters.


Well we can agree on this...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-nationalism

Happy now?



No, Wikipedia does not list any sources, so please check again:)




I know most of Turkic people are not nomadic at all. However in your post, you just show your idea on civilization:



It is how you view Turkic people.


Its what i value in terms of personal interest, not in terms of human or cultural value, one can have preferences that does not indicate discriminatory biased, as i said, i like cultures whom produce literary works more then those whom do not, Most Nomadic cultures do not produce such works, as they tend to be illiterate societies whom function using oral transmission instead..This is not how i view modern day Turks or other Turkic speaking peoples, because you are not nomadic anymore and have a long history of literary works ect, i actually enjoy Ottoman history allot.



:picard1::picard1::picard1::picard1::picard1::pica rd1:

On the contrary, accepting everybody in Turkish borders as Turk is quite far away from being discriminatory. It is the nicest and most peaceful kind of nationalism.


Its racism, forced assimilation like this is what my country did to our minorities in the past and today we accept that state racism as part of our nationalist history..one day Turkey will too, its just a matter of time, all ideologies eventually fade..




Don't get mad because of getting exposed :thumb001: Try your best, what I have done is nothing against forum rules. I just quoted what you wrote.


Actually if you misquote someone or spread lies about them i am pretty sure you would get banned, its the common sense factor found on such forums and they cannot function without this rule as otherwise all sorts of trolling would happen on a daily basis..so please, quote as much as you want, but dont misquote me (interpret my quote without the actual quote being present).



Of course. I can summarise his view on this issue as that, "Looking at the East with the Western glasses."

Despite you pretend to be scientifical, you look at the East with "The West's way of science", Mr. Evon. That is the problem


This is a problem, because its not what Orientalism for him is, here is a quote:


The book Orientalism (1978) proposed the existence of a “subtle and persistent Eurocentric prejudice against Arabo–Islamic peoples and their culture”, which derives from Western culture’s long tradition of false and romanticized images of Asia, in general, and the Middle East, in particular, which serve as implicit justifications for European and U.S. colonial and imperialist ambitions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Said#Literary_criticism

I actually have a copy of this book ;)

I dont think i have romanticized Asia in anyway, to the contrary, i try my best to be descriptive and non-partisan..







Just in the last post, I posted a discussion between you and me. You used the argument, "Quranic verses about Sharia" however you forget that Qu'ran is an entire message, in another verses it exactly shows Qu'ran does not talk about "only one road". And in this verse, "road" is "Sharia" in Arabic.


So, you are saying one cannot read suras individually in a certain context?



You are mostly taking Sunni scholars and Hadiths(which are definitely not a good source) as sources, which fits your agenda, showing Muslims as uncivilized savages.


No, actually, had i been a Muslim i would have been a form of Shia, the story about Ali's "bad luck" after the death of Muhammed really does move me, and i dont see Muslims as savages, if i had i would never have bother studying the subject..there is actually a Hadith that i would like to paint because i find it so moving, i can quote it:


On one occasion, the Prophet called Ali and began whispering to him. After a time those present began saying: "he has been a long time whispering to his cousin." Later the Prophet said: "It was not I that whispering to him but God".


My only agenda is to gain more understanding, something i think you have lost in your extremism..



Well, Qu'ranic suras are only real sources of Islam. As I know no verse talks about, "look at Hadith books for details" or stuff like that.


Well then you belong to the fringe, as the majority of Muslims rely on Hadith ect for their Islam, i think your view of Islam is been secularized by ataturk's effort, but its fine with me, but you must realize its a minority view..You should join the Bosnian club, they also hold this view..

The idea with Hadith is that the Prophet was basically infallible because he was guided by god, hence all he did was guided by god, hence in a way infallible..if you want to learn more about the methodology and such behind this i would recommend checking out my thread about "what is Islam (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=59708)", it might be interesting?

[Pecheneg]

just noticed this chimping
http://i50.tinypic.com/10qe3iu.jpg


i guess you are one of those apes whose terrorist relatives get hunted by Bozkurt Special Ops. :laugh:



(nag nag nag) x 10.000
I wonder what encourage you to write never ending anti-Turk paragraphs?
I sense there is a specific reason.

The polite language you use doesn't hide your anti-Turk feelings. So you better clearly say "I dislike Turks, hence i support kurds&pkk, I'm an admirer of Altaic/Steppe cultures and steppe warlords like Hulagu, Timur... that's why i'm trying to minimize Turks' central asian heritage. "
See? I summarized 'what you trying to say' in a few sentences, so no need to write dozens of paragraphs in a polite way. ;)

[Yalquzaq]

Evon, you really need to get a life, this kind of obsession is too much, specially in something that has no relation to you. I have not seen any Turk here being obsessed about other nations unlike many other users here that are obsessed with Turks, its just weird.

[evon]

Evon, you really need to get a life, this kind of obsession is too much, specially in something that has no relation to you. I have not seen any Turk here being obsessed about other nations unlike many other users here that are obsessed with Turks, its just weird.

Ok firstly, you are on a forum dedicated to European cultural preservation and writing in a European language, so is it not the wrong place to be if you do not want people to comment on your ideas when you express them here on the forum? i think you got it the wrong way around..

I am not obsessed with any people, culture or language ect, my domain in knowledge, wherever it takes me, now when i see people talking shit and whom are ignorant, i will respond with facts, when iknow they are wrong, its that simple, if you check my other thread responses you will see the same determination.

Academia is my passion and History is my chosen branch, hence coming to this forum is natural, whats your excuse?




Pecheneg, did that comment make you feel happy or proud? Well done

I reported the picture, its disgusting and immature..

[Demhat]

I'm not asking him to inform me on Kurds, I'm just asking him to support his claims with proof. ;)



Well how about the Yazidi Black Book (http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meshaf_Re%C5%9F)? It was written earlier than Mem and Zin, and in a Kurdish dialect.

So, you claim the Kurds were Turkic people and that they became a different ethnicity from the Turkish one in the 19th century. Does that mean you claim that they started speaking Kurdish in the 19th century? Then where did the language come from all of the sudden?


He is retarded. He claims the very old Kurdish legend of Mem (Mem the Alan) u Zin as Turkic. While this story wasnt even known by Turks. Hell the Alan tribe does not even exist among Turks but Kurds.

[ChildOfTheJin]

edit

[Partizan]

Well how about the Yazidi Black Book (http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meshaf_Re%C5%9F)? It was written earlier than Mem and Zin, and in a Kurdish dialect.

So, you claim the Kurds were Turkic people and that they became a different ethnicity from the Turkish one in the 19th century. Does that mean you claim that they started speaking Kurdish in the 19th century? Then where did the language come from all of the sudden?

1.Ehm, your source, Wikipedia also says that:


Nevertheless, scholars generally agree that the manuscripts of both books published in 1911 and 1913 were forgeries written by non-Yazidis in response to Western travelers’ and scholars’ interest in the Yazidi religion; they do reflect authentic Yezidi traditions, however.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yazidi_Black_Book

It seems there is something fishy here :rolleyes:

Also many Yazidi organisations don't identify themselves as Kurds:

http://www.tert.am/en/news/2010/03/12/tamoyan/


“We will sue anyone who tries to say that Yezidi is a religion and not a nation. Yezidis are a modern nation; they have their [own] community and literature,” President of the National Union of Yezidi in Armenia Aziz Tamoyan said in response to statement by Kurds that there are no Yezidis and that Yezidi is nothing but a religion.

According to Tamoyan, Sultan Yezid was the ancestor of Yezidis and Sharfadin established the religion.

A 2001 census showed that there are 1,500 Kurds and 41,000 Yezidi in Armenia.

“Those 1,500 Kurds abandoned Armenia. Only one Kurd has remained. Today those who consider themselves Kurds are in fact Yezidi, they speak Yezideren and say that they are Yezidi. The Kurds use a totally different language which we do not understand,” explained Tamoyan, adding that the Kurdish people have Turkish roots.

Asked why then do the Yezidi consider themselves Kurds, Tamoyan said: “They become Kurds by being bought out. Such as there are sects among Armenians, so too have Yezidis adopted Kurdish identity. Our roots are different, we are sunworshippers, while the Kurds are Muslim. Kurd means a shepherd.”

Tamoyan also mentioned that a lot of Yezidi had participated in the Karabakh war, while not a single Kurd did so.

The Yezidi people in Armenia have sent a letter to the president, the chair of the National Assembly and the Prosecutor General of Armenia to complain against the Kurds. They are asking that the Kurdish radio and the Kurdish Committee in Armenia be shut down. The Kurds have, in turn, made an appeal against the Yezidi.

From Yezidi Human Rights Organisation:


In the past 20 years to present, especially since the internet has become the easiest way to find information regarding whatever a person wishes to search for. We have seen that more than 99% of the writers accusing the innocent Yezidi as devil worshipers, this is absolutely pure fiction. During the Saddam’s era, the Yezidis were misclassified as Arab in ethnicity by his political force. Although Saddam has gone, but the KRG (Real Dictators) has come to power in Northern Iraq since 1991, and they also are forcing the innocent Yezidis to be misclassified as Kurdish; again this time under KRG’s brutal and dictatorial system. All these are misleading, untruth, and pure fiction information about the innocent Yezidis (Ezdae). Because of all these misunderstanding the truth about the Yezidis, we have been attacked more than 73 of times in the past 1000 years to present, therefore we (Ezdae) have lost millions of innocent Yezidis in those brutal and inhumane attacks against this most indigenous and peaceful nation in the world today.


And this video summarises the issue well:

J1NhSu6FeVQ

2. No, I do not mean that Kurds are Turkic at all, just a mixed bunch of people in Middle East which includes Turks, if you ask genetically/ethnically/culturally. BUT, according to Lausanne treaty, they are just Turks(I mean so-called Kurds of Turkey). Lausanne counts only Greeks, Armenians and Jews as minorities, whereas Kurds are not listed. So, internationally we can not talk about "Kurdish minority in Turkey", it just does not exist also according to Lausanne treaty.


Its not at all what i was referring to at all, i am going to purchase the book i listed tomorrow if i get enough time, then i can quote you what i was talking about, but a short teaser is that the school books featured European looking persons on purpose (i think they even had blond hair and blue eyes, but on this part i am unsure), so wait for it until tomorrow:) But you should be aware of Nietzsche's saying which is a hole you fall into here by proposing racism to defend against others racism:



Which is find sad..we are all subject to racism from time to time (have you personally experienced it? i can tell you its not nice), its no excuse for ourselves to become racist in defence..


Well, you misunderstood me, again. Those books don't show any other "races" as inferior, however as a response to Turkophobe climate of early 20.th century, claims that, "if Euros are superior, Turks are nothing less." I do not see it as some kind of racism honestly.



Forceful assimilation of Kurds is not patriotism, its racism.

Well, it is weird, despite our government put Kurdish as an elective lesson, only ten percent of students in Diyarbakır choose it :rolleyes: Moreover the government established Kurdish language courses for the people who did not want to "forget" their language(!!!), however those courses were closed because of lack of attendance :D Food for thought, I do not think simple Kurds(!) IRL care about Kurdish language(!) as much as PKK symphatizers in this forum.


Racism is not just related to biology in such a fashion, that is just the root of the word, the modern meaning covers, cultural, religious, ect discriminatory behaviour or ideas, thus your comment about Kurds not being a real ethnic group or whatnot is covered by that definition..

here is a good overview of a UN charter on the wider subject of racial discrimination which is de facto racism:

http://www.hri.org/docs/ICERD66.htm


I do not discriminate so-called Kurds, I see 70 million of people in Turkey as Turks(well, I see my Sephardi class friend as a "Turkish of Jewish descent", as he and other Jews I know would agree), Lausanne says so :) Please go and blame Lord Curzon and other Entente delegates in Lausanne, who could not persuade us to accept Kurds as a minority :thumb001:




It that all you got:P Your own country does the same thing and so does everyone else, so we are all Imperialist countries then :P

as an example; Turkish arm-sales:

http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2012/08/28/Turkey-seeks-increased-arms-exports/UPI-50721346186145/

Economic investment and such is a global thing which we are all part of, Turkeys military is in bed with capitalism in that sense.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_con_arm_exp-military-conventional-arms-exports

You compare 20.th and 26.th? Or rather, 51 billion dollars with 18 billion dollars? :picard1: During Iraq War, especially since 2005, Norway's gun export rate exactly doubled, idk why? (http://www.ssb.no/english/magazine/art-2011-01-21-01-en.html)


Yeah and Kurds are mountain Turks, sorry i forgot you were a racist again, thanks for reminding me!


Mountain or not, they are Turks. According to Lausanne, again.

If you check Lausanne's part about minorities (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lausanne/Part_I), only non-Muslims are accepted in minority status.



Its what i value in terms of personal interest, not in terms of human or cultural value, one can have preferences that does not indicate discriminatory biased, as i said, i like cultures whom produce literary works more then those whom do not, Most Nomadic cultures do not produce such works, as they tend to be illiterate societies whom function using oral transmission instead..This is not how i view modern day Turks or other Turkic speaking peoples, because you are not nomadic anymore and have a long history of literary works ect, i actually enjoy Ottoman history allot.


Could be, however it does not explain why you do not post about the more stationary civilizations who had literate works like Romans, Greeks, various Mezopotamian civilizations instead of Turkic tribes? Even you had a quote from Tamerlane as signature just a few days ago. I do not want to call you as, "Turkic wannabe", unlike other Turkish posters but your obsession on Turks is not understandable.


Its racism, forced assimilation like this is what my country did to our minorities in the past and today we accept that state racism as part of our nationalist history..one day Turkey will too, its just a matter of time, all ideologies eventually fade..

Not really. You can not view Turkish and Norwegian history in the same boat about this issue. From Seljuks to Turkish Republic, Kurds have never been viewed as a minority and except some feudal landlords(in last times of Ottoman empire and in first decades of Turkish Republic) and except some terrorist organizations(since 1978), even the people who are lately identified as Kurds did not care about it. Even despite, the seperatist terrorism gained power on political way, most of normal citizens in East and South-East Turkey do not care about the "language", "minority rights" and other nonsenses which imperialist states impose on Turkey.

Still, BDP gets no more than %6.66 among all Turkey. If we take so-called Kurds as a 13 millions of people, which means nearly %20 of Turkey, even majority of Kurds(or rather to say, Turkish people from South-East and parts of Eastern Turkey) do NOT support BDP.


Actually if you misquote someone or spread lies about them i am pretty sure you would get banned, its the common sense factor found on such forums and they cannot function without this rule as otherwise all sorts of trolling would happen on a daily basis..so please, quote as much as you want, but dont misquote me (interpret my quote without the actual quote being present).


I do not think I interpreted your post, I just took the part of it where you were comparing Turkic civilization to other ones.


So, you are saying one cannot read suras individually in a certain context?


I mean, before making conclusion, reading whole of Qu'ran is important. Even there is a joke in Turkey about, it says do not perform salah in Qu'ran. It is a funny story about a man, who read "Nisa" surah and went to imam of village and said, "it writes, do not perform salah." And hodja says: "Read full of it, it says don't perform salah when you are drunk!"

This joke explains the case well.


My only agenda is to gain more understanding, something i think you have lost in your extremism..


:bored: I am tired with your extremism accusations.


Well then you belong to the fringe, as the majority of Muslims rely on Hadith ect for their Islam, i think your view of Islam is been secularized by ataturk's effort, but its fine with me, but you must realize its a minority view..You should join the Bosnian club, they also hold this view..


I know it is the minority view. Moreover, I think it is not only about Atatürk's secularisation, I think this "Quranist" views in Islam in last decades are just like an interesting synthesis of "Salafism" and "Mutazila" in the Medieval Islam philosophy but of course has influence from modern philosophy. I think this is an important thing though, the Salafism since Ibn Taymiyyah had already been anti-thesis of Mutazila, since Wasl ibn Ata. However Islamic world had not reach the dialectic synthesis of those two opposing views yet. In my opinion, the Quraniyoon might end this problem.


The idea with Hadith is that the Prophet was basically infallible because he was guided by god, hence all he did was guided by god, hence in a way infallible..if you want to learn more about the methodology and such behind this i would recommend checking out my thread about "what is Islam (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=59708)", it might be interesting?

I will check. However as I know the famous theologian, Yaşar Nuri Öztürk, claimed that even the first sahaba avoided "collecting hadiths" however after Umayyad period the hadith collection started with a political agenda. I do not know if any other theologian supports this view but Yaşar Nuri had strong proofs for that, too bad I left his book in my ex-dwelling. Probably going to get it after some weeks, I would gladly translate quotes from this book.

[evon]

Well, you misunderstood me, again. Those books don't show any other "races" as inferior, however as a response to Turkophobe climate of early 20.th century, claims that, "if Euros are superior, Turks are nothing less." I do not see it as some kind of racism honestly.


What these kinds of books so is i heightened sense of phenotype (race as they called it back then), it has nothing to do with your own justification of racism, thats another matter altogether, And lumping all of Europe into one as you continuously do is about as bad as if i do it with the whole middle east:

I said i would get the book and i did, i will quote the passage in question:

"The children depicted in these texts, distinctly Caucasian in complexion and dress, demonstrated a mastery of Ataturks modernist program and encouraged their readers to do the same".





I do not discriminate so-called Kurds, I see 70 million of people in Turkey as Turks(well, I see my Sephardi class friend as a "Turkish of Jewish descent", as he and other Jews I know would agree), Lausanne says so :) Please go and blame Lord Curzon and other Entente delegates in Lausanne, who could not persuade us to accept Kurds as a minority :thumb001:


Ok, so you follow all documents from the 20-30's like they were freshly printed science articles, well, that just goes to show how out of touch with reality your whole world view is.




http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_con_arm_exp-military-conventional-arms-exports

You compare 20.th and 26.th? Or rather, 51 billion dollars with 18 billion dollars? :picard1: During Iraq War, especially since 2005, Norway's gun export rate exactly doubled, idk why? (http://www.ssb.no/english/magazine/art-2011-01-21-01-en.html)


The point was that Imperialism is not defined by globalist economic trends, see definition:

"im·pe·ri·al·ism/imˈpi(ə)rēəˌlizəm/
Noun:
A policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force."

I it was, the biggest imperialists would be places such as Singapore, Luxembourg ect.., not major militarized states.



Mountain or not, they are Turks. According to Lausanne, again.

If you check Lausanne's part about minorities (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lausanne/Part_I), only non-Muslims are accepted in minority status.


Again, time to join the post-1920's, the world has continued to grow, your constant bickering on this is all to reminiscent of Israeli justification of its harsh treatment of Palestinians..No wonder Turkey's Shia are wanting to join EU, at least then they will get recognition as a minority..



Could be, however it does not explain why you do not post about the more stationary civilizations who had literate works like Romans, Greeks, various Mezopotamian civilizations instead of Turkic tribes? Even you had a quote from Tamerlane as signature just a few days ago. I do not want to call you as, "Turkic wannabe", unlike other Turkish posters but your obsession on Turks is not understandable.



first off, few of these other topics are as controversial as the ones involving Turkish posters, Greece, ect have no internal conflicts like Turkey, ect, so its not so much a topic, but yes i would love to see more Greek focused threads!

Also, the Timur quote was not days ago but months, and last i checked he was not Turkish, but a Tatar, i dont see a bond between Turkish history and him in this sense...

again as i said to yhe other Turkish poster, you are on a European forum, using a European language, how can you come here and expect not to be "bothered" by other members when you start posting, its ironic and one could ask, do these Turks seek attention for themselves ect?





Not really. You can not view Turkish and Norwegian history in the same boat about this issue. From Seljuks to Turkish Republic, Kurds have never been viewed as a minority and except some feudal landlords(in last times of Ottoman empire and in first decades of Turkish Republic) and except some terrorist organizations(since 1978), even the people who are lately identified as Kurds did not care about it. Even despite, the seperatist terrorism gained power on political way, most of normal citizens in East and South-East Turkey do not care about the "language", "minority rights" and other nonsenses which imperialist states impose on Turkey.

Still, BDP gets no more than %6.66 among all Turkey. If we take so-called Kurds as a 13 millions of people, which means nearly %20 of Turkey, even majority of Kurds(or rather to say, Turkish people from South-East and parts of Eastern Turkey) do NOT support BDP.


No, i view all countries in the same boat on this, when a country has a history of oppression towards a minority, there will come a time in the future when it will have to seriously deal with its past, no matter if you now think this is not going to happen, that just shows your ignorance about history...

Many states operate in the same way Turkey does with regards to Kurdish people, the most known is China, and history dictates that even this stubborn state will one day lower its nationalist agenda and deal with its past, it might take a long time, but it will happen as long as their past crimes are recorded by historians.

Your mentality is extreme nationalistic, paranoid and defensive, which is basically what your state has been feeding Turkish citizens since 1923 onwards..but lets wait and see, i doubt this can last forever.



I know it is the minority view. Moreover, I think it is not only about Atatürk's secularisation, I think this "Quranist" views in Islam in last decades are just like an interesting synthesis of "Salafism" and "Mutazila" in the Medieval Islam philosophy but of course has influence from modern philosophy. I think this is an important thing though, the Salafism since Ibn Taymiyyah had already been anti-thesis of Mutazila, since Wasl ibn Ata. However Islamic world had not reach the dialectic synthesis of those two opposing views yet. In my opinion, the Quraniyoon might end this problem.


I dont see how such old ideals should be the guide for a modern fringe view of Islam? in fact they are not even close. also, what do you mean by using salafism in this context?



I will check. However as I know the famous theologian, Yaşar Nuri Öztürk, claimed that even the first sahaba avoided "collecting hadiths" however after Umayyad period the hadith collection started with a political agenda. I do not know if any other theologian supports this view but Yaşar Nuri had strong proofs for that, too bad I left his book in my ex-dwelling. Probably going to get it after some weeks, I would gladly translate quotes from this book.


The debate on Hadith collections are a controversial one, the problem is that generally Islamic historians different in their time-frame from secular historians, hence all such theories seem to depend on this first fork in the road..

Personally i take the view that Hadiths was collected during the time when the Caliphate was breaking up and regional law was starting to be felt across the various regions, hence scholars tried to limit this by collecting the hadith.

[Sagjaz]

1.Ehm, your source, Wikipedia also says that:

It seems there is something fishy here :rolleyes:

Also many Yazidi organisations don't identify themselves as Kurds:

http://www.tert.am/en/news/2010/03/12/tamoyan/

From Yezidi Human Rights Organisation:

And this video summarises the issue well:

Alright, thank you. I did not know that. I'm no expert on Kurdish history at all, so I admit that these scholars could be right. ;)


2. No, I do not mean that Kurds are Turkic at all, just a mixed bunch of people in Middle East which includes Turks, if you ask genetically/ethnically/culturally. BUT, according to Lausanne treaty, they are just Turks(I mean so-called Kurds of Turkey). Lausanne counts only Greeks, Armenians and Jews as minorities, whereas Kurds are not listed. So, internationally we can not talk about "Kurdish minority in Turkey", it just does not exist also according to Lausanne treaty.

Aha, I misunderstood you then. I'm quite sorry for that. I'm sure there are quite a few Kurds who are of partial Turkic (Turanoid) descent. ;)

That the Lausanne Treaty doesn't acknowledge them as a minority doesn't mean they are Turks. Are you saying that if I move to Turkey, I will automatically become a Turk because Dutchmen are not a recognized minority in Turkey?

You didn't answer one of my questions though. I had asked if, since you believe the Kurdish civilization only came to existence in the 19th century, do you also believe they started speaking Kurdish in the 19th century?

[ChildOfTheJin]

Alright, thank you. I did not know that. I'm no expert on Kurdish history at all, so I admit that these scholars could be right.

Don't listen to him, Yezidis are Kurds. Their holy book is written in Kurdish. The Sun in the Kurdish flag is associated with Yezidis. They speak Kurdish. They consider themselves Kurdish. I know a Yezidi who is a bigger Kurdish nationalist than me.

He s trying to fill your brain with lies.

[Partizan]

What these kinds of books so is i heightened sense of phenotype (race as they called it back then), it has nothing to do with your own justification of racism, thats another matter altogether, And lumping all of Europe into one as you continuously do is about as bad as if i do it with the whole middle east:

I said i would get the book and i did, i will quote the passage in question:

"The children depicted in these texts, distinctly Caucasian in complexion and dress, demonstrated a mastery of Ataturks modernist program and encouraged their readers to do the same".

Well, as I said, it is not racism but the response to the racism against Turks since 19.th century, especially in France and England(happy now?)



Ok, so you follow all documents from the 20-30's like they were freshly printed science articles, well, that just goes to show how out of touch with reality your whole world view is.

No, I mean Lausanne is an internationally accepted treaty, so it's articles are still accepted according to international laws. Not to forget, Turkey's relation with other states is mainly based on Lausanne treaty. So, nobody can claim that there is a Kurdish minority in Turkey.


The point was that Imperialism is not defined by globalist economic trends, see definition:

"im·pe·ri·al·ism/imˈpi(ə)rēəˌlizəm/
Noun:
A policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force."

I it was, the biggest imperialists would be places such as Singapore, Luxembourg ect.., not major militarized states.

Would agree that. However what I tried to mean was, as being a NATO's creator member who also exports huge amounts of guns to the USA, Norway is not really out of imperialism.


Again, time to join the post-1920's, the world has continued to grow, your constant bickering on this is all to reminiscent of Israeli justification of its harsh treatment of Palestinians..No wonder Turkey's Shia are wanting to join EU, at least then they will get recognition as a minority..

It has nothing to do with Israel's case. Israel was created with tricky and recent migrations, however Turkey defended herself against invaders and made them accepted the unitarian style of Turkish Republic. According to Lausanne, minorities are certain. Do you mean Alevi people by saying Shia, or the Twelver Shia around Iğdır?


first off, few of these other topics are as controversial as the ones involving Turkish posters, Greece, ect have no internal conflicts like Turkey, ect, so its not so much a topic, but yes i would love to see more Greek focused threads!

Create them yourself so.


Also, the Timur quote was not days ago but months, and last i checked he was not Turkish, but a Tatar, i dont see a bond between Turkish history and him in this sense...

Tatar? He was Turkic(would be closest to today's Uzbeks) with some Mongolian heritage. Anyway, he was a Turkic warrior and according to Gérard Chaliand, he was a "Muslim Turk". If you completely seperate Turkish and Turkic, that is your point of view however.


again as i said to yhe other Turkish poster, you are on a European forum, using a European language, how can you come here and expect not to be "bothered" by other members when you start posting, its ironic and one could ask, do these Turks seek attention for themselves ect?

Loki and other mods like Tuan Belanda explained that Turkey has ties to Europe geographically and also Turkish impact on European history can not be denied. So, it is nothing weird about we post on this forum. What is relevance of that to the topic anyway?


No, i view all countries in the same boat on this, when a country has a history of oppression towards a minority, there will come a time in the future when it will have to seriously deal with its past, no matter if you now think this is not going to happen, that just shows your ignorance about history...

Many states operate in the same way Turkey does with regards to Kurdish people, the most known is China, and history dictates that even this stubborn state will one day lower its nationalist agenda and deal with its past, it might take a long time, but it will happen as long as their past crimes are recorded by historians.

The real ignorance is viewing every country in the same boat. Every country has different conditions, especially comparing Turkey to China is completely wrong.


Your mentality is extreme nationalistic, paranoid and defensive, which is basically what your state has been feeding Turkish citizens since 1923 onwards..but lets wait and see, i doubt this can last forever.

Dude, you confuse Turkish civic/cultural nationalists with those kind of guys I think:

XocmSmUf_w8

You are quite superficial. You cannot see any Somalians or any other refugees/immigrants getting discriminated in Turkey, we are far away from Nazi style ethnic nationalism.


I dont see how such old ideals should be the guide for a modern fringe view of Islam? in fact they are not even close. also, what do you mean by using salafism in this context?

Well, what I mean is, for many centuries the two opposite sides of Islamic philosophy(rationalist/Mutazila and puritan/Salafi) could never achieve getting a synthesis. However, in Western philosophy for example, the rationalism and empirism got synthesed by Kant and it led to an improve in Western philosophy. Or the Luther, despite being against Catholicism, had some influence from Augustine of Hippo. I think the Quranism is influenced from both Salafism and Mutazila, with being under influence of Western Philosophy and of course, secularism. Quranism has the puritan side of Salafism, on the other hand the rationalist side of Mutazila is existent among Quranist scholars.


The debate on Hadith collections are a controversial one, the problem is that generally Islamic historians different in their time-frame from secular historians, hence all such theories seem to depend on this first fork in the road..

Personally i take the view that Hadiths was collected during the time when the Caliphate was breaking up and regional law was starting to be felt across the various regions, hence scholars tried to limit this by collecting the hadith.

Well, as I know Abu Huraira(the biggest hadith narrator in Buhari) was disliked in Caliphate era, even Caliph Omar dismissed him from his governorship of Bahrain, because of corruption. However in Umayyad era, his status changed.


That the Lausanne Treaty doesn't acknowledge them as a minority doesn't mean they are Turks. Are you saying that if I move to Turkey, I will automatically become a Turk because Dutchmen are not a recognized minority in Turkey?

Well, if you will come with 300 Dutch families and ask for "Dutch as a minority language", Treaty of Lausanne inhibits you to do that. What I mean is, according to international laws, rights of Kurds are just the same with citizenship and human rights of Turkish citizens. No extra rights like language, for example.


You didn't answer one of my questions though. I had asked if, since you believe the Kurdish civilization only came to existence in the 19th century, do you also believe they started speaking Kurdish in the 19th century?

I believe that, various Iranic speaking people who have no connection to each other at all are called as Kurds and it was not by themselves, by Western and Russian scholars. Also I believe, there are many non-Iranics who were Kurdified. Some of them are re-learning their Turkish origins recently:



- TIRKAN / TÜRKAN / TİRKANLI AŞİRETİ: TÜRKLER anlamına gelir. Osmanlı Tahrîr Defterlerinde "Ekrad ve Yörükan Taifesinden" gösterilmişlerdir. OĞUZLAR´ın 24 boyundan biri olan BEĞDİLİ boyuna mensupturlar. Önceleri KARAKEÇİLİLER´e tâbi iken sonradan Viranşehir´de (Urfa) bir derebeyi olan İbrahim Paşa bunları MİLLÎ aşîretine bağlamıştır. TÜRKAN aşîreti mensupları, TÜRK olduklarını bilen, Kurmançca konuşan bir TÜRK aşîretidir. Aşiretin en kalabalık olduğu yer Siverek´tir (Urfa).

TIRKAN / TÜRKAN/ TİRKANLI CLAN: Which means TURKS. In Ottoman consensus, they were noted as "From Ekrad and Yörükan Community". They are from BEĞDİLİ tribe of Oghuzes, out of 24 tribes. They were from Karakeçililer clan but a feudal lord from Viranşehir (Urfa) counted the into MİLLİ clan later. TÜRKAN clan's members are acknowledged of their TURKISH origins but they speak Kirmanch. This tribe is present in Siverek(Urfa).

After the high birth rates among Kurds, many Turkoman tribes like them were assimilated into Kurds.

http://www.karacadagturkmendernegi.com/Menu.aspx?xid=08

[evon]

No, I mean Lausanne is an internationally accepted treaty, so it's articles are still accepted according to international laws. Not to forget, Turkey's relation with other states is mainly based on Lausanne treaty. So, nobody can claim that there is a Kurdish minority in Turkey.


Last i checked most states recognize Kurds as a minority and did so long before the treaty in question, the fact that you are like a dinosaur holding on to a ancient document to justify your radicalism just goes to show its and your ideologies redundancy.



Would agree that. However what I tried to mean was, as being a NATO's creator member who also exports huge amounts of guns to the USA, Norway is not really out of imperialism.



Norway is far from imperialistic, had we been imperialistic we would have not ceded various claims to offshore territories as we have in the past..



It has nothing to do with Israel's case. Israel was created with tricky and recent migrations, however Turkey defended herself against invaders and made them accepted the unitarian style of Turkish Republic. According to Lausanne, minorities are certain. Do you mean Alevi people by saying Shia, or the Twelver Shia around Iğdır?


Alevi is part of the shia block yes, according to recent census about 20% of Turkey is Shia, when lumping these as Muslims you deny them their right to identity. Als9o, turkey and Israel actually have allot in common, thats why these two countries have traditionally had such close ties, which with the accent of AKP has been slowly been eroding with a new "Islamic orientation"..




Tatar? He was Turkic(would be closest to today's Uzbeks) with some Mongolian heritage. Anyway, he was a Turkic warrior and according to Gérard Chaliand, he was a "Muslim Turk". If you completely seperate Turkish and Turkic, that is your point of view however.


He had no known Mongolian ancestry, he just claimed it to legitimize his rule, he even kept a puppet khan. Turkic is a linguistic group, he was Tatar and yes today we would say Uzbek. As for his religious nature, well, lets just say he was very pragmatic and cynical, a master propagandist..



Loki and other mods like Tuan Belanda explained that Turkey has ties to Europe geographically and also Turkish impact on European history can not be denied. So, it is nothing weird about we post on this forum. What is relevance of that to the topic anyway?


It is weird when you accuse someone of criticising Turkish topics..dont you see its hypocritical..if you had created a thread here in Turkish then nobody would have come to debate it except those whom speak Turkish, but that rarely happens, you guys consciously choose to write in English, hence dont be surprised if non Turks comment.



The real ignorance is viewing every country in the same boat. Every country has different conditions, especially comparing Turkey to China is completely wrong.


Every country is different, but also the same, a good quote on the part of history is:

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

G santayana.




Dude, you confuse Turkish civic/cultural nationalists with those kind of guys I think:

XocmSmUf_w8

You are quite superficial. You cannot see any Somalians or any other refugees/immigrants getting discriminated in Turkey, we are far away from Nazi style ethnic nationalism.


Those guys are not nationalists as such, they are more focused on race then on country, you are more focused on country then race, but there is allot of gray in between there, so there is no surprise you sometimes overlap, Turkey have racism just like any other country, but the one i am referring to is towards minorities that you dont recognize...Kurds, as well as religious minorities such as Alevi experience this allot, the latter also at times experience riots aimed at them...but these are criminal acts as in any country, hence i only took it up since you talked about Somalis..




Well, what I mean is, for many centuries the two opposite sides of Islamic philosophy(rationalist/Mutazila and puritan/Salafi) could never achieve getting a synthesis. However, in Western philosophy for example, the rationalism and empirism got synthesed by Kant and it led to an improve in Western philosophy. Or the Luther, despite being against Catholicism, had some influence from Augustine of Hippo. I think the Quranism is influenced from both Salafism and Mutazila, with being under influence of Western Philosophy and of course, secularism. Quranism has the puritan side of Salafism, on the other hand the rationalist side of Mutazila is existent among Quranist scholars.


So you are basically saying that Quranism as you dubbed it is equal to protestantism? if so i think you are mistaken, they are quite far apart from where i am sitting..





Well, as I know Abu Huraira(the biggest hadith narrator in Buhari) was disliked in Caliphate era, even Caliph Omar dismissed him from his governorship of Bahrain, because of corruption. However in Umayyad era, his status changed.


See, this is a classical example of what i said, the timing here is off from secularist historians, while for Islamic historians this seems to fit..for secularists this form of hadith collection started later then this, in the late Umayyad period..i dont think we can agree on these sub-topics..

[Bugarash 1893]

Today language to be used in court,tomorrow Indipendent Kurdistan!

I mean really,kurds are 20 million people and dont have their own country.

Montenigrins are 600,000 people and have a country!

[alanr]

Today language to be used in court,tomorrow Indipendent Kurdistan!

I mean really,kurds are 20 million people and dont have their own country.

Montenigrins are 600,000 people and have a country!

And why do you think that is? in the past Turks, Iranians and Arabs cooperated together against Kurds. Now that alliance is no longer in place in fact Kurds are taking advantage of that. "Iraqi" Kurdistan is free. "Syrian" Kurdistan is to follow. You do the math.

[alanr]

Hahahahahahaha. "Many yezidi organisations" what a buffoon. You're describing a couple people as that's what it takes to open an organisation these days. Yezidis ARE Kurds and the overwhelming majority of them identify as Kurds.

Yezidi highest authority is found among the Emir and Prince. Both who have asserted their Kurdishness. In fact the Kurdish list in Iraq recieved 8 seats worth of votes from the Yezidi community while the Yezidi list that denies their Kurdishness didn't even receive enough votes for one seat.

This nationalist Turk is added to my very long list of deluded and uneducated Turks.

Iraq's Yezidi Leader: 'we Are Part of the Kurdish People'

http://www.aina.org/news/20120830185033.htm

Yezidis inseparable part of Kurds; Masrour Barzani and Yezidis Prince Meeting

http://www.malpress.com/english/news/288-yezidis-inseparable-part-of-kurds-masrour-barzani-and-yezidis-prince-meeting.html

[ChildOfTheJin]

Hahahahahahaha. "Many yezidi organisations" what a buffoon. You're describing a couple people as that's what it takes to open an organisation these days. Yezidis ARE Kurds and the overwhelming majority of them identify as Kurds.

Yezidi highest authority is found among the Emir and Prince. Both who have asserted their Kurdishness. In fact the Kurdish list in Iraq recieved 8 seats worth of votes from the Yezidi community while the Yezidi list that denies their Kurdishness didn't even receive enough votes for one seat.

This nationalist Turk is added to my very long list of deluded and uneducated Turks.

Iraq's Yezidi Leader: 'we Are Part of the Kurdish People'

http://www.aina.org/news/20120830185033.htm

Yezidis inseparable part of Kurds; Masrour Barzani and Yezidis Prince Meeting

http://www.malpress.com/english/news/288-yezidis-inseparable-part-of-kurds-masrour-barzani-and-yezidis-prince-meeting.html

Partizan is so stupid

He talks of Turks being Kurdified :picard1:

He talks of Kurds are descended from devils :picard1:

He said we have no history, culture and language:picard1:

He is just a waste of our time :thumb001:

[alanr]

Partizan is so stupid

He talks of Turks being Kurdified :picard1:

He talks of Kurds are descended from devils :picard1:

He said we have no history, culture and language:picard1:

He is just a waste of our time :thumb001:

He is what he is and follows the typical monkey see monkey do. He thinks he can spread propaganda and some may fall for it but the overwhelming majority won't.

Before you fall for the crap Partizan feeds you, please remember that he is insulting your intelligence by thinking that you're easy to fool.

Who the hell wants to be Turkic anyway? other than those deluded fools with an identity crisis.

[Hayalet]

Today language to be used in court,tomorrow Indipendent Kurdistan!
Correction: The language was used in court yesterday, Turkey remains undivided today.

[Partizan]

Last i checked most states recognize Kurds as a minority and did so long before the treaty in question, the fact that you are like a dinosaur holding on to a ancient document to justify your radicalism just goes to show its and your ideologies redundancy.

Lausanne is clear. Since there is no treaty else who replaces Lausanne, there is not a Kurdish minority in Turkey.



Alevi is part of the shia block yes, according to recent census about 20% of Turkey is Shia, when lumping these as Muslims you deny them their right to identity. Als9o, turkey and Israel actually have allot in common, thats why these two countries have traditionally had such close ties, which with the accent of AKP has been slowly been eroding with a new "Islamic orientation"..


Well, I have mixed feelings on this issue. We should solve it in ourselves, Turkish Alevis and Turkish Sunnis. Alevis have always remained local to Turkish state, however right-wing governments always discriminated them.


He had no known Mongolian ancestry, he just claimed it to legitimize his rule, he even kept a puppet khan. Turkic is a linguistic group, he was Tatar and yes today we would say Uzbek. As for his religious nature, well, lets just say he was very pragmatic and cynical, a master propagandist..


There is a rumour about his father being from Barlas tribe, which was a "Turkic and Mongol mix". About him being Tatar, I am not really sure. If you use "Tatar" as an umbrella term for Central Asian steppe nomads in medieval, he was definitely a Tatar but today Tatar has a different meaning. Turkic is not only a linguistic term, also a cultural and ethnical one.



It is weird when you accuse someone of criticising Turkish topics..dont you see its hypocritical..if you had created a thread here in Turkish then nobody would have come to debate it except those whom speak Turkish, but that rarely happens, you guys consciously choose to write in English, hence dont be surprised if non Turks comment.


That is not a problem but you regularly jump into Turkic related threads, talk behalf of Turks and patronise everybody else comments there :picard1:



Every country is different, but also the same, a good quote on the part of history is:

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

G santayana.

Do not worry, we know our past very well. We do not need a Norwegian to remind us our part.


Those guys are not nationalists as such, they are more focused on race then on country, you are more focused on country then race, but there is allot of gray in between there, so there is no surprise you sometimes overlap, Turkey have racism just like any other country, but the one i am referring to is towards minorities that you dont recognize...Kurds, as well as religious minorities such as Alevi experience this allot, the latter also at times experience riots aimed at them...but these are criminal acts as in any country, hence i only took it up since you talked about Somalis..


You see? What is in Turkey is nationalism and patriotism, not "racism" as you mentioned in previous posts. About Kurds, as I said international treaties do not recognise them too(at least about Turkey). Moreover, except the Kurds who support BDP, Kurds do not even care about things like minority rights.


So you are basically saying that Quranism as you dubbed it is equal to protestantism? if so i think you are mistaken, they are quite far apart from where i am sitting..


Nope, I just gave Protestantism as an example. They have similar points of course but not equivalent.



See, this is a classical example of what i said, the timing here is off from secularist historians, while for Islamic historians this seems to fit..for secularists this form of hadith collection started later then this, in the late Umayyad period..i dont think we can agree on these sub-topics..

There I would agree... There is a debate about this issue.


Hahahahahahaha. "Many yezidi organisations" what a buffoon. You're describing a couple people as that's what it takes to open an organisation these days. Yezidis ARE Kurds and the overwhelming majority of them identify as Kurds.

Yezidi highest authority is found among the Emir and Prince. Both who have asserted their Kurdishness. In fact the Kurdish list in Iraq recieved 8 seats worth of votes from the Yezidi community while the Yezidi list that denies their Kurdishness didn't even receive enough votes for one seat.

This nationalist Turk is added to my very long list of deluded and uneducated Turks.

Iraq's Yezidi Leader: 'we Are Part of the Kurdish People'

http://www.aina.org/news/20120830185033.htm

Yezidis inseparable part of Kurds; Masrour Barzani and Yezidis Prince Meeting

http://www.malpress.com/english/news/288-yezidis-inseparable-part-of-kurds-masrour-barzani-and-yezidis-prince-meeting.html

Of course Yezidis who think they are not Kurds are minority yet but their number is growing.

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/default.aspx?pageid=438&n=the-unsolvable-controversy-of-kurds-and-yezidis-in-armenia-2010-08-13

I find that interesting also:

http://www.hrw.org/en/node/86357


This 51-page report calls on the regional government to grant legal recognition to Shabaks and Yazidis as distinct ethnic groups instead of imposing Kurdish identity on them and to ensure that they can participate in public affairs without fear of retribution. The report also calls on the central government in Baghdad to protect minorities at the local, provincial, and national levels, and to investigate killings and displacement of Assyrian Christians and deadly attacks against other minorities.

Of course Yezidis who think they are not Kurds are mostly in Armenia nowadays but it does not mean this idea will not be common among Kurds of Iraq.

[Partizan]

Partizan is so stupid

He talks of Turks being Kurdified :picard1:

He talks of Kurds are descended from devils :picard1:

He said we have no history, culture and language:picard1:

He is just a waste of our time :thumb001:

And I have done all of those with sources.

However you are right about the last sentence. Since you Kurds are unable to accept truth, that is meaningless to discuss with you. Anyway, write whatever you want here, Kurdify whole world (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPb82Zlp3-w) if you want :)

[alanr]

Absolute bullshit. The Armenian government tried to separate Kurds from Yezidis but they'll fail. They may have succeed slightly due to the fact that Kurds had no one turn to, now they do, and the more Yezidis that visit their holy ground in Lalish the more of them that turn back to their original Kurdish roots.

"Now under the autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government, the pilgrims are returning. The Yezidis have their own minister in government.

“Before we were not free to pray and could not visit here easily," said Lokman Suleiman, a local Yezidi teacher. "Now we can. The Kurdistan government is not only good for us, it is good for all people. The sun now rises over a Kurdistan of many colors, free and proud.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMQI_788wlI

I already told you, Yezidis value their prince and emir and they are the highest authority in their religious life style. Both the prince and emir have asserted their Kurdishness. You are actually retarded if you think anyone can separate Yezidis from Kurds. Especially in Southern Kurdistan where most of them live.

This phenomenon is strictly in Armenia where the government funded some uneducated Yezidis to try and split them, it would be stupid to assume that'll read Southern Kurdistan. In fact the educated among them are against this movement and in recent years received funds from Erbil to undo the wrong doings.

It doesn't stop there.


ike the Yezidis, Iraqi Christians were targeted by Sunni and Shi'ite militants after Saddam Hussein's ouster.

Down in the heat of Erbil city, Father Aesha Dawoud leads an Assyrian church in a suburb of the Kurdistan capital.

“Now our churches and our holy places are honored and respected by the people who live around us,” said Father Aesha. “In celebration and in peace, people come here. The people of this city guard our places of worship.”

There were tens of thousands of Christians living in cities like Baghdad and Basra in southern Iraq. The majority have fled - some overseas, many to Kurdistan.

Father Aesha said his congregation would support an independent Kurdish state.

“If the situation is like now, if they don’t change things for us, then yes we would support the Kurds,” he said.

Many Christians have settled in the town of Ainkawa outside Erbil.

Ragat Hana Yousef moved to Ainkawa from Baghdad after his liquor store there was bombed in 2005.

"Kurdistan is different from the rest of Iraq because now everyone is free to speak," he said. "There is more democracy and what’s most important, it is safe.”

http://www.voanews.com/content/religious-minorities-find-sanctuary-in-kurdistan/1546032.html

[Su]

Too much troll-feast and off-topic, just for your information about the actual topic (LAWS):



5271 Sayılı Ceza Muhakemeleri Kanunu Madde 202:
“Sanık veya mağdur, meramını anlatabilecek ölçüde Türkçe bilmiyorsa; mahkeme tarafından atanan tercüman aracılığıyla duruşmadaki iddia ve savunmaya ilişkin esaslı noktalar tercüme edilir.”

6100 Sayılı Hukuk Muhakemeleri Kanunu Madde 263:
“Tanık, Türkçe bilmezse tercümanla dinlenir.”

[Su]

The translation of it in English:



"If either the accused or the victim don't have sufficient knowledge of Turkish to make their case, fundamental points of the indictment and the defense statement are translated by translators appointed by the court."

"Witnesses are heard with the help of an interpreter if they don't speak Turkish."