The Volga Bulgarians unofficial and slow Vazrazhdane

[poiuytrewq0987]

http://kazanherald.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Bolgars.jpg

Graffiti that reads '1552 Tatar wake up!' referring to the year that the Kazan Khanate fell to Ivan Grozny.

The Bolgar National Congress, a political organization for Bolgarists, has been nothing if not thorough in its research: the number of innocent trees which paid for its flurry of letters to the Tatar Parliament defies imagination. The Congress’s website is replete with quotes on liberty from the Koran, Pushkin, Tolstoy, and even the Christian Bible (ironically, the Bolgar National Congress website url employs the u spelling: www.bulgars.ru). The furrow-browed intellectuals of the Congress have been no less generous in their providing historical justification for their emotive argument. Viewing the naming of the Tatar nation as a way to “whitewash the bloody annexation of the Kazan Khanate in 1552”, the website “Bulgar Renaissance” questions the Soviet decision to proclaim a Tatarstan Republic. Fargat Nurutdinov, author of “Bulgarsky Vapros” (The Bulgar Question) believes that the Tatar nation was created to provide a more secular, less anti-Russian identity for the Bolgars. In April 1946, Nurutdinov explains, the Soviet Acaemy of Science held a conference in Moscow on the ethnogenesis of the Kazan Tatars. After the conference, which featured research of a certain academic named A.G. Karimullin, it was concluded that the naming of the Tatar Republic had been a “historic mistake,” since 1.6 million people identified themselves as Bulgars in a 1926 census in the USSR.

http://kazanherald.com/2011/12/06/id...e-all-bolgars/

[poiuytrewq0987]

I love this part. :D


Accusations of human rights abuses due to the naming of the Tatar nation are very much proof of quite how committed the Bolgarists are to their cause. G. Khalilov, the President of the Bolgar National Congress, even sent a letter to the Tatarstan Parliament in June 2000 requesting that the President abolish the republic’s name and accusing the government of having slandered him in spreading untrue information about his nationality (namely that he was a Tatar rather than a Bolgar), and that “with these actions, his government had caused him great mental harm and irreparable damage to his health.” Khalilov continued, accusing the government of conducting “spiritual genocide” of the Bolgar people and “libel on a global scale.” Some of the Bolgarists’ impassioned statements could in my opinion only be more drastic if they sued the Republic of Bulgaria for breach of copyright!

[Onur]

Thraex, i know you are a weird guy but your attempts to "Bulgarianize" these people are futile. We are not living in 9th century anymore. There are no Cyril&Methodious to assimilate Volga Bulgars like as it happened to Balkan Bulgars.


As a side note, the term "bOlgar" has been invented by the Moscow after they created Bulgaria in Balkans in 1878. These people was always calling themselves as Bulgars but Moscow wanted to change their name to Bolgar, so there wouldn't be any naming problem in future like today`s Greece and Macedonia conflict. In fact, they stole the name Bulgar from the real heirs of it in Volga Bulgaria and awarded it to slavic speaking fake Bulgars in Balkans. Moscow has erroneously [purposely] called them as "Tatars" and then they took the right to call themselves as Bulgar after 1878.

I would support them to sue fake Bulgar state in Balkans and prevent them to use their name because the real Bulgars lives around Volga region, not in Balkans anymore.

[Hayalet]

Fargat Nurutdinov, author of “Bulgarsky Vapros” (The Bulgar Question) believes that the Tatar nation was created to provide a more secular, less anti-Russian identity for the Bolgars.
Doesn't make sense. The term "Tatar" was associated with the Kypchak Turks during the era of the Golden Horde, which was far more destructive for Russians than Volga Bulgars.

[poiuytrewq0987]

You're a loon if you think I am trying to Bulgarize the Bulgarians in Volga-Kama. They are proud of their Bulgarian ethnic identity and there's nothing you can do to change that reality.


Thraex, i know you are a weird guy but your attempts to "Bulgarianize" these people are futile. We are not living in 9th century anymore. There are no Cyril&Methodious to assimilate Volga Bulgars like as it happened to Balkan Bulgars.


As a side note, the term "bOlgar" has been invented by the Moscow after they created Bulgaria in Balkans in 1878. These people was always calling themselves as Bulgars but Moscow wanted to change their name to Bolgar, so there wouldn't be any naming problem in future like today`s Greece and Macedonia conflict. In fact, they stole the name Bulgar from the real heirs of it in Volga Bulgaria and awarded it to slavic speaking fake Bulgars in Balkans. Moscow has erroneously [purposely] called them as "Tatars" and then they took the right to call themselves as Bulgar after 1878.

I would support them to sue fake Bulgar state in Balkans and prevent them to use their name because the real Bulgars lives around Volga region, not in Balkans anymore.

[poiuytrewq0987]

Doesn't make sense. The term "Tatar" was associated with the Kypchak Turks during the era of the Golden Horde, which was far more destructive for Russians than Volga Bulgars.

Oh no, a Volga Bulgarian just contradicted your pan-turko fantasies. They have nothing to do with turkos except speaking a Turkic-related language.

[Hayalet]

Oh no, a Volga Bulgarian just contradicted your pan-turko fantasies.
:no000000:

On the contrary, they are contradicting you. They say they are unhappy with the ethnonym "Tatar" because they find it too pro-Russian (therefore pro-Slavic).

It wouldn't matter to pan-Turkists if they identified Tatar or Bulgar, because both are Turkic groups. For your information, there is another group in the Volga region other than Tatars and they (Chuvash) speak a language thought to be related to old Bulgar. And guess what, it is also Turkic. :icon_cheesygrin:

You are just utterly clueless.

[inactive_member]

We are not living in 9th century anymore. There are no Cyril&Methodious to assimilate Volga Bulgars like as it happened to Balkan Bulgars.

I read comments of a person who considers himself a "turkologist" stating he is not aware of any fully nomadic Turkish speaking tribe that changed their language, hinting it was difficult to assimilate nomadic Turks. It would be settled people that would change the language coming into contact with Turks. If this is true, then it’s likely Turkish speaking ruling class that united Slavic tribes in the Danube was in minority. The adaptation of the name of the ruling class was widespread back then.

Moreover, Turks could not have appeared out of thin air in the Balkans. They migrated coming into contact with local populations living in the Danube.

[Hoca]

Bulgarian nationalism is funny. I see it as a little puppy that barks a lot, but can't do much harm :D

[poiuytrewq0987]

:no000000:

On the contrary, they are contradicting you. They say they are unhappy with the ethnonym "Tatar" because they find it too pro-Russian (therefore pro-Slavic).

It wouldn't matter to pan-Turkists if they identified Tatar or Bulgar, because both are Turkic groups. For your information, there is another group in the Volga region other than Tatars and they (Chuvash) speak a language thought to be related to old Bulgar. And guess what, it is also Turkic. :icon_cheesygrin:

You are just utterly clueless.

Incorrect. They don't want to identify as Tatars not because the Russians imposed on them but because it's something they absolutely don't identify with because... ding, ding, they are not Tatars but Bulgarians. It's just plain comical to see Turks deny us of our roots because we are the biggest force in destroying pan-turko fantasies. The reality is this, pan-turko only applies to Turks of Anatolia, and weird Asians in Central Asia.

About Chuvasho-Bulgarian language, it's certainly Turkic influenced but the people are nowhere related to Turks or other Turkic-speaking peoples in Central Asia. The language is incomprehensible to the Turkic speaking people in Turkey and Central Asia ... because the Chuvash Bulgarians are Bulgarians.

[Hoca]

Thraex, when are you going to remove that Tatar girl from your avatar?

[Hayalet]

Incorrect. They don't want to identify as Tatars not because the Russians imposed on them but because it's something they absolutely don't identify with because... ding, ding, they are not Tatars but Bulgarians. It's just plain comical to see Turks deny us of our roots because we are the biggest force in destroying pan-turko fantasies. The reality is this, pan-turko only applies to Turks of Anatolia, and weird Asians in Central Asia.

About Chuvasho-Bulgarian language, it's certainly Turkic influenced but the people are nowhere related to Turks or other Turkic-speaking peoples in Central Asia. The language is incomprehensible to the Turkic speaking people in Turkey and Central Asia ... because the Chuvash Bulgarians are Bulgarians.
And you people have the audacity to accuse Macedonians of stealing history. :lol:

All right, two can play at that game. You are not Bulgarians, Thraex. You are just Thracian Slavs. Let's see... Thraslav? That's it. Thraslav!

[poiuytrewq0987]

And you people have the audacity to accuse Macedonians of stealing history. :lol:

All right, two can play at that game. You are not Bulgarians, Thraex. You are just Thracian Slavs. Let's see... Thraslav? That's it. Thraslav!

Haha no. It's already been proven eons ago that the Chuvash people are descended from Bulgarians, the same with Volga Bulgarians. The only noticeable difference is they speak a different branch of Bulgar languages.

Chuvasho-Bulgarian language is incomprehensible to turkos because Volga Bulgarians were never Turkish. We however did get divided when Great Bulgaria got conquered by the Khazars Simple enough for you to understand?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_vd10oidYl6w/S_uMqQq1GkI/AAAAAAAAJM8/ONOvVmh4sUU/s1600/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B023.png

[Hayalet]

Chuvasho-Bulgarian language is incomprehensible to turkos because Volga Bulgarians were never Turkish.
Chuvash may not be mutually intelligible with Turkish, but they're part of the same language family with tons of cognates.

On the other hand, it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Thraslavian language that's mistakenly called Bulgarian.

[poiuytrewq0987]

Chuvash may not be mutually intelligible with Turkish, but they're part of the same language family with tons of cognates.

On the other hand, it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Thraslavian language that's mistakenly called Bulgarian.

Language families don't give a complete picture in terms of how ethnic groups are related. We, the Bulgars, created the Slavic world but Bulgars and Russians or Bulgars and Poles are not the same people.

Deal with it.

[Archduke]

Language families don't give a complete picture in terms of how ethnic groups are related. We, the Bulgars, created the Slavic world but Bulgars and Russians or Bulgars and Poles are not the same people

True.

Btw, Onur's meta-ethnicity is Hunnic. Can you imagine? :lol:

[Hayalet]

We, the Bulgars, created the Slavic world but Bulgars and Russians or Bulgars and Poles are not the same people.
Good, keep your Thraslavic presence in that world. We have a world of ours:


The International Organization of Turkic Culture is an international cultural organization of countries with Turkic populations, speaking languages belonging to the Turkic language family. Other than being an abbreviation of the former official name "Türk Kültür ve Sanatları Ortak Yönetimi" - Joint Administration of Turkic Culture and Arts, "Türksoy" is a compound noun, in Turkish, made up of the words "Türk" (Turk) and "soy" (ancestry).

The General Secretary of TÜRKSOY is Duisen Kaseinov, former Minister of Culture of Kazakhstan. TÜRKSOY has its headquarters in Ankara, Turkey.

Members:


Altai Republic


Azerbaijan


Bashkortostan


Gagauzia


Kazakhstan


Khakassia


Kyrgyzstan


Northern Cyprus


Sakha Republic


Tatarstan


Turkey


Turkmenistan


Tuva


Uzbekistan

[Hoca]

Turkish Bulgarians are the only ones who can claim Turkic history. The remaining slav trash should keep their dirty fingers away from Turkic history :D

[Chrissi]

Volga Tatars are basically Bulgariens I read alot about it and apparently the people that formed Bulgaria called Bulgars split up some tribes went to Volga(Tatarstan) and later converted to Islam and the others formed Bulgaria and adopted the orthodox faith. Also other Volga Tatars I know see themselves as Bulgarian. Im 1/4 Tatar myself. The Crimean Tatars on the other hand are turkish. Mongol horde was also called Tatars.

[bimo]

a people can't derive from a mix of peoples ? isn't that normal ?
italians for example are proud to be a mix of different peoples (ancient roman , etrurians , celtic ecc... ) , but no here on the forum many dumb fanatics think their people have something like 100% pure origin from their prefer old people (like turks think they are 100% tukic :D )

bulgarians today are slav but this does not mean they are 100% slavic , turks should accept that proto-bulgarian are ancestor for bulgarians not for turks

anyway i ask to hoca to post a sourche where is proved that bulgars are related to turks and not bulgarians , he didn't answer.........

[bimo]

Turkish Bulgarians are the only ones who can claim Turkic history. The remaining slav trash should keep their dirty fingers away from Turkic history :D

turkish bulgarians are just ottoman anatolian invaders , nothing more

[Hayalet]

a people can't derive from a mix of peoples ? isn't that normal ? italians for example are proud to be a mix of different peoples (ancient roman , etrurians , celtic ecc... )
The problem starts when people try to distort history. For example, Italians don't claim Etruscans and Celts were Latin/Romance people.


turks should accept that proto-bulgarian are ancestor for bulgarians not for turks. anyway i ask to hoca to post a sourche where is proved that bulgars are related to turks and not bulgarians , he didn't answer.........
Bulgars were Turks. If you want to claim they are among your ancestors acknowledging that fact, all is well.

[Vulcho]

Turkish Bulgarians are the only ones who can claim Turkic history. The remaining slav trash should keep their dirty fingers away from Turkic history :D

Exactly how are the Bulgars more related to Turks than to modern Bulgarians? You have to come in touch with reality.

[Archduke]

The problem starts when people try to distort history. For example, Italians don't claim Etruscans and Celts were Latin/Romance people.

Italians also don't claim that Romanians are Italians. But yet you do similar thing.



Bulgars were Turks. If you want to claim they are among your ancestors acknowledging that fact, all is well.

[Hayalet]

Italians also don't claim that Romanians are Italians. But yet you do similar thing.
Bulgars weren't Turkish (smaller group), but Turkic (larger group). "Turks" can be used for either.

[bimo]

Bulgars were Turks. If you want to claim they are among your ancestors acknowledging that fact, all is well.

turkic does not mean modern turkish

anyway i don't claim bulgars weren't turkic , but since exist a iranic theory i take in consideraion also that , isn't that normal ?

[Archduke]

"Turks" can be used for either.

Wrong. For example, Russian can't be used for both ethnicity and meta-ethnicity.

[Hayalet]

Wrong. For example, Russian can't be used for both ethnicity and meta-ethnicity.
It's a just different case. "Turks" can have the meaning of the smaller group like Russians or the larger group like Slavs.


1. a native or inhabitant of Turkey, or a person of Turkish descent.
2. a member of any of numerous peoples speaking Turkic languages who live in a region extending from the Balkans to eastern Siberia and western China

[Yalquzaq]

Good, keep your Thraslavic presence in that world. We have a world of ours:

Off-topic, but I really think that they should think about including Dagestan aswell. Turkic groups number over 600 thousands there (432 thousand Kumyks, 131 thousand Azerbaijani Turks, 40 thousand Nogais), the whole Dagestan has 2 million population.

[Yalquzaq]

The "Turk" and "Turkic" distinction does not exist in Turkic languagues.

What you guys refer to is indeed "Turkish" as Altay pointed out. Turk has a broader meaning, in fact applying to all Turkic peoples.

For instance, you say "Kazakistan Türkleri" the same way you say "Türkiye Türkleri".

[Lithium]

I wonder why are Turks so passionate to discuss the origin of the proto-Bulgarians. It has nothing to do with you but it seems that you like the idea of us today's Bulgarians being fake.

[Hoca]

It seems that our slavic friends don't know the meaning of Turk.

[Lithium]

It seems that our slavic friends don't know the meaning of Turk.

Yes, we do. That's why I am wondering.

[bimo]

For instance, you say "Kazakistan Türkleri" the same way you say "Türkiye Türkleri".

what's your point ?
khazak consider themselves just khazak not turkish , the word "Türkleri" is because of their linguistic group , for example is like to say spanish are latin or ukrainians are slavic , that's does not mean spanish and romanians are the same people, or ukrainians and czech are the same people

[Yalquzaq]

My point is that the "Turk" and "Turkic" distinction does not exist in Turkic languagues. All of Turkic groups are "Turks".

No, that term is purely based on ethnicity. If you would refer to the language, it would be "Türkçesi". "Türkleri" gives the same meaning as "Turks of...".

[poiuytrewq0987]

My point is that the "Turk" and "Turkic" distinction does not exist in Turkic languagues. All of Turkic groups are "Turks".

No, that term is purely based on ethnicity. If you would refer to the language, it would be "Türkçesi". "Türkleri" gives the same meaning as "Turks of...".

It doesn't matter one bit if there isn't a distinction in your language. In fact it is a sign of how unrefined your culture is. The point is there IS a real world distinction between Bulgars and Turks/Turkics. The Bulgars have never called themselves Turkish or Turkic or anything similar. That is a fact. It also doesn't matter one bit if they had Turkish names or titles because it could just as easily mean they were subjugated by early Gokturks and for a long while they had become used to Turkic names and titles. But when they left the realm of Turkdom they immediately started to develop their own distinct culture, language and traditions. The fact that Chuvasho-Bulgarian is incomprehensible to modern Turkic speakers actually proves that the Bulgars and Chuvash Bulgars share a common root and a root that is wholly different from Turkic peoples. I think it is best for you Turks to just forget about Bulgars because they are not your people but ours. That would be the most honorable thing Turks have done in a long time but I don't think you people will start now. You still haven't admitted to the crimes of Young Turks genocides of Christian populations in Ottoman Turkey ... denial is a Turkish trait.

[Hayalet]

The Bulgars have never called themselves Turkish or Turkic or anything similar.
They were lumped into the same category as other Turkic peoples such as Avars, Gokturks, Khazars, Pechenegs, Sabirs, the Oghuz and Uyghurs by contemporary chroniclers and scholars.


I think it is best for you Turks to just forget about Bulgars because they are not your people but ours.
Modern Tatarstan is part of the same international Turkic organization as Turkey. I guess we are too lenient on Bulgaria, very much unlike Greece is with Macedonia.

[archangel]

lol Volga Bulgars were Türkic and Volga Tatars are Türkic as hell,many hardcore Türkic nationalist and pan Turanists have Tatar ancestry

[poiuytrewq0987]

They were lumped into the same category as other Turkic peoples such as Avars, Gokturks, Khazars, Pechenegs, Sabirs, the Oghuz and Uyghurs by contemporary chroniclers and scholars.

They are only theories, not proven facts. The Bulgarians being descended from ancient Bulgarians however is a proven fact.


Modern Tatarstan is part of the same international Turkic organization as Turkey. I guess we are too lenient on Bulgaria, very much unlike Greece is with Macedonia.

Doesn't mean much.