[split thread] Biology and labeling.

[Hayalet]

Well he is Clary not Turkish by any standards
Those standards being what?

[d3cimat3d]

Those standards being what?

Being of Anatolian substrate.

[Hayalet]

Being of Anatolian substrate.
Is not a measure of Turkishness.

[d3cimat3d]

Is not a measure of Turkishness.

But it is. Turkish is synonymous with Anatolia. Turkic with central Asia. Ask a Kyrgyz what the word "Turk" means to him and his definition will be different from yours.

[Hayalet]

Turkish is synonymous with Anatolia.
No, it isn't. There are groups in the Balkans, the Caucasus, Cyprus and the Middle East who are just as Turkish as the Turks of Anatolia. Crimean Tatars are a peripheral group, as they are between Kipchaks and the Oghuz. Crimean Tatars in Turkey are ethnically just Turkish though, as Pecheneg said. It's really stupid and futile, arguing that someone whose name is Hüseyin Demir isn't Turkish by any standards. Saying that his genetics is not typically Turkish is one thing, saying that he is not Turkish is something else.

[Hayalet]

Germanic peoples, whom i dont either consider as all Germans. To call all Turkic speaking peoples as Turks in any academic debate would be to make unnecessary confusion.
You are mistaken.

Germans to Germanic peoples = Induction

Turks to Turkish people = Deduction

Pecheneg isn't saying all Turkic peoples are Turkish, but if you say that a person of Crimean Tatar descent in Turkey can't be Turkish as he is not genetically Anatolian enough, you don't understand who Turkish people are.

[Hoca]

But it is. Turkish is synonymous with Anatolia. Turkic with central Asia. Ask a Kyrgyz what the word "Turk" means to him and his definition will be different from yours.

That is just matter how it is written in history.

In history there is no such thing as Huns, they never called himself like that, the Huns called themselves Turks. But in history books they are called Huns.

[evon]

You are mistaken.

Germans to Germanic peoples = Induction

Turks to Turkish people = Deduction

Pecheneg isn't saying all Turkic peoples are Turkish, but if you say that a person of Crimean Tatar descent in Turkey can't be Turkish as he is not genetically Anatolian enough, you don't understand who Turkish people are.

You and him are misunderstanding it completely, i dont see how you can make such a mistake!

I am saying that the term Turk is best used for people whom identify as Turkish, from Turkey, not as a term covering all people whom speak a Turkic language.
DNA has nothing to do with this sorts of identity, but it has everything to do with regional genepools, such as Anatolia, Iberia, Scandinavia, and so on. Hence a Crimean Tatar who lives in turkey can identify as a Turk, but he will not belong to the Turkish genepool, just like a Spaniard living in Turkey can identify as a Turk, but he wount belong to the Turkish genepool.

This sort of unnecessary confusion is just why i never use the term Turk for anyone else then people from Turkey, and in DNA debates i try my best only to apply it to those whom belong to the Turkish/Turk (Anatolian) genepool.

But enough of this OT nonsense, it is irrelevant to this thread, if anyone wants to make another thread on the subject that would be fine, otherwise i will delete future posts referring to this subject, or move them into a new thread as to avoid derailing this Thread from its Topic further.

[Hayalet]

I am saying that the term Turk is best used for people whom identify as Turkish, from Turkey, not as a term covering all people whom speak a Turkic language.
Why don't you check a dictionary? Definitions of "Turk":


Meriam-Webster

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

Oxford

1: native or inhabitant of Turkey, or a person of Turkish descent.
2: a member of any of the ancient central Asian peoples who spoke Turkic languages, including the Seljuks and Ottomans.

Reference.com

1. a native or inhabitant of Turkey.
4. a member of any of the peoples speaking Turkic languages.

TheFreeDictionary.com

1. A native or inhabitant of Turkey.
2. A member of the principal ethnic group of modern-day Turkey or, formerly, of the Ottoman Empire.
3. A member of any of the Turkic-speaking peoples.
In English, the distinction between the smaller group and the larger group is expressed by the words Turkish and Turkic. "Turk" can be used in reference to either. Trying to reserve it for the smaller group doesn't make sense either, because in that case, you couldn't call Göktürks, who are most notable for their use of the ethnonym of "Turk", Turks.



Hence a Crimean Tatar who lives in turkey can identify as a Turk, but he will not belong to the Turkish genepool, just like a Spaniard living in Turkey can identify as a Turk, but he wount belong to the Turkish genepool.
A Crimean Tatar who identifies Turkish in Turkey is Turkish. So whatever his DNA (he might not be necessarily representative), he is one of the people who constitute the Turkish genepool. A Spaniard who "identifies Turkish" in Turkey does not become ethnically Turkish, so he is not relevant.

[evon]

As i said before, this is my personal preference, i dont know the academic standard on this matter of the definition, but in the case of ancient peoples ect i would call them by their full name, and not label Gökturks as Turks, but as Gökturks.

No matter how much a person of Tatar ancestry identifies as a Turk From Turkey, he wount be part of the anatolian genepool unless he contributes to it, or has partial ancestry from it, this is why it dosnt matter if he is martian, Tatar, Chinese, Uzbek or Italian, or whatever ethnic group not belonging to the Anatolian genepol, he can adopt the identity, but not the genepool, you cant change your biology.

I am moving this debate to a new thread now as its derailing this original one far too much.

[evon]

Topic split from this thread (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?76455-Crimean-Tatar-autosomal-DNA/page5).

[Hayalet]

As i said before, this is my personal preference, i dont know the academic standard on this matter of the definition
It is as I said. Go to any academic search engine and run "ancient Turks", "proto-Turks" etc., you would see it for yourself.


No matter how much a person of Tatar ancestry identifies as a Turk From Turkey, he wount be part of the anatolian genepool unless he contributes to it, or has partial ancestry from it, this is why it dosnt matter if he is martian, Tatar, Chinese, Uzbek or Italian, or whatever ethnic group not belonging to the Anatolian genepol, he can adopt the identity, but not the genepool, you cant change your biology.
OK, if you had said the person wasn't genetically "Anatolian" (whatever that is), I wouldn't have objected. But you said he wasn't Turkish by any standards and that's not true.

[evon]

It is as I said. Go to any academic search engine and run "ancient Turks", "proto-Turks" etc., you would see it for yourself.

OK, if you had said the person wasn't genetically "Anatolian" (whatever that is), I wouldn't have objected. But you said he wasn't Turkish by any standards and that's not true.

As ive already said, i prefer to keep Turk as a definition for Turks from Turkey, it dosnt matter if the academic definition is different as this is my personal preference.

Same as above, when in a DNA thread you say someone isnt this or that, its clearly a reference to the DNA results that where posted, i would not start talking about his cultural identity would i, as its irrelevant to the results that were debated, which were DNA results.

[evon]

I though i should explain my personal preference somewhat as to show that its not merely taken from the wizards hat, and to make this clear, this is not related to the usage in DNA as such, but in a universal way.

Many scholars like myself find it useful to make as clear a distinction between groups of people, especially when its between people of different times periods, as otherwise it would be nearly impossible to communicate the message that is meant to be conveyed, the variations in making such distinctions vary allot between scholars, some use Turk for all Turkic speaking peoples of the present, while some only as a singular term for Turkish.
In historical writings it is best to give the peoples an extra identity in the case of multi-ethnic empires and such, therefore a term such as Ottoman Turks is often used (http://books.google.co.in/books?id=aI5pAAAAMAAJ&q=ottoman+turks+justin&dq=ottoman+turks+justin&hl=en&sa=X&ei=T2Z1Ud2HGeON4AT8rYDYDA&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA), while many also just use Ottomans as a term describing all Turkic speaking peoples inside the empire. Carter Vaughn Findley has a few remarks on the issue, i would advice anyone interested in this to read his book (http://books.google.co.in/books?id=bdZbe3zOz_MC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false).

I use the same rules for most peoples, an example is the usage of Norse versus Norwegian, to me Norse is an ethnic term that belongs in the past, while some use it today for Norwegians, but for me the modern usage of Norse is best used only for past peoples, and in Norwegian the term Norrøn is used in such a way, but not in English, where it can be used for past and present peoples, hence one needs to rely on personal preference if one is to get by with the least amount of misunderstandings when trying to make a point.

You also have terms like Chinese and Indian, which is basically very loose concepts, and which is often used as Han Chinese to specify and make communication easier, if we all used such vague terms, it would be impossible to communicate on these debate boards..anyways, hope i made my point well enough, so that we can put this to rest:)