Quote:
Originally Posted by
Blondie
But this haplo is not even turkic but originated from Europe spreaded by indo iranics.
Ok, so what is a Turkic haplo to you? Just Q? C? It seems like what you are willing to accept as Turkic is unreasonably narrow considering that from the start, Turkic people were heterogeneous tribes and not an ethnostate. Considering the Eurasian steppes and the quick rise and fall of nomadic empires, it is no surprise that there would be so much variety.
Quote:
Doesn't matter, we know that the hungarian language is uralic, but we have no idea about the avar language, so you cannot classify it as turkic.
I am not trying to do it myself. I am saying that academics are the ones who are doing that; most see Avars as a Turkic people. Hence the irony at them being majority N (that we currently have access to) while Hungarian conquerors who some academics try to make more associated as Khanty/Mansi related are predominantly R1.
Quote:
But their most genetic were not altaic, because these markers have been found everywhere, among non turkics too, the r1a-z93 originated from europe, not from altay. And now in 21. century the hungarian genetic is mostly slavic just like the large part of hungarian culture, so Hungary is a slavic coutry now, do you agree?
This is because of how a nomadic empire spreads. It doesn't exactly respect or keep borders. R1a-Z93 is found in many places like other haplos. Your Slavic argument is not hard to understand, but I don't agree. All that matters is origin and continuity, not overall % total. Turkics were never even 100% East Asian, not even close, and I find the idea that this somehow represents elements of "Turkicness" as the only possible modern element as not giving enough credit to the western Eurasian admixture Hungarians had during the conquering era (or other Turkics, say during the Bilge Khagan era).
There are some Africans in the West who are 50% European but still got enough genetics to look more African than European via chance. Are their African ancestors Germanic now? No. They are still part of each, but their ancestors were different. Just like modern Hungarians vs. old Hungarians. Same concept. The issue I have is that there are those who feel so detached from the founding populations that they wish to have nothing to do with them (although with a weirdly hostile behavior) that seems like more desperation to not be seen as non-western rather than apathy.
Quote:
What kind of nations? Turkmens or khazaks? lol
I see it mostly from Turkey, but I have seen it in most nations. Of course, I know you are aware that this is what the Turkic Council calls us as well.
Quote:
Gypsies will be the majority in Hungary and i doubt they will have turkic identity, neither hungarians.
I disagree, and I know we will not see eye-to-eye on this future about demographics. If you are so worried about demographics, then make that a point of something to address in your life. What matters most is what the Hungarian nation (which is a people, not a magical border) does.
Quote:
I have never said that.
It wasn't an accusation.
Quote:
It happened but hungarus = köznép in the hungarian society and this is a scientific term in the hungarian academy.
Then you should read the Gesta Hungarorum.
It is no different than the feudalism of the Lords vs. the pedantry. You are framing it in a racial light. My counter is that the Vata Tengrist uprising is a great example of a successful grass-roots Hungarian effort to restore the "Conqueror elite" to prominence in Hungary. This could not have happened if they preferred a European master to the Conqueror dynasty since the violence was not simply religiously based but mostly driven by anti-foreign sentiment.
Quote:
The noble class were mixed of course, but they considered themselves as descedants of counquerors, they claimed it, not me.
I don't trust the Gesta 100%. It has political motivations. I am sure some of it is true, but there is plenty that can be too politically motivated at the time. I prefer to look to modern sciences, archaeology, and genetics. Stories can also be too corrupted over time.
Quote:
No need to start personal attacks, my pro turkic comments from the last half years are still visible. This is the problem with you, you make identity question of it, and you don't even care the facts, but the conquerors must be turkic and nothing else, because this is your identity.
There was no personal attack. It was an observation about how it appears to me (your behavior of deleting the posts). Also, it is tiresome when you even respond to posts of mine that mention the Hungarian conquerors can be classified as Uralo-Altaic and I wouldn't have a problem with it, but in the same breath you will claim that I think the conquerors must be 100% pure-pure Turkic (which cannot even be defined by either of us in an academic way).
Quote:
Yes my majority ancestry is german, my identity is danube swabian, but im partly hungarian too, and i grew up in Hungary, this is my home, so of course i do care about my hungarian side. The german prehistory is very clearly, there are no debates about it. The german subforum is also dead, only Morti, Teutone and me write comments there.
Most of the subforums are dead, unfortunately. I am aware you have some Hungarian ancestry, hence why I think it would be interesting for you to actually take a DNA test with some companies and post the results.
Teutone has been very friendly with me, and I appreciate some of his insight on certain topics.
Quote:
For example we agree that the human rights are okay in Hungary, or the western media is always lying about this country, etc.
About székelys i accept their origin myth, that they are descedants of huns, if you see their paternal origin székelys have the highest haplogroup Q in Europe which is a pure original hunnic marker and huns were most likely old turkic. We know there were such hungarian tribes who had turkic origin (for example kabars), but hungarians as ethnicity are not and were not turkic in general.
Hungary is frequently lied about in the West, true. Though in another thread there seems to be an interesting documentary that is pro-Hungary in this sense.
We don't know what haplogroup Attila or his children would have been, therefore I don't think one can say for sure what a "pure original Hunnic marker" is. Also, I don't think that my sub-group is more Hunnic than the Conquering Hungarians. I think that this divide comes from the idea that Hungarians must be Ugric-oriented and therefore the Szeklers must be Turkic-oriented based on the runes, genetics, and legends. We have never thought of ourselves as different from other Hungarians, as a separate nation from other Hungarians, but as a type of "durable Hungarian" who kept the old ways more from the steppe times. I don't think it is productive or helpful to think of Szeklers as Turkic but Hungarians are not.
This is a point I would like to make to you, since you have spoken with me for this long. Surely you need to appreciate my good faith, as if Szeklers are a Turkic people, and if I am so interesting in identifying as one, then I can just say that I am Szekler alone. Right? It would be an easy excuse; you have seen my yourDNAportal results that show my 50% Szekler ancestry, and I have always been open about my DNA results across all tests I have taken through them and more. So why do I not do this? Because I don't believe that Szeklers are a different Turkic group. I don't think the evidence is good enough. I think that, at the "strangest" we could be from one another, that Hungarians are Hunnic from tribes that joined pre-blood oath from Central-East Asia, and Szeklers are additionally Hunnic from extra European holdout descendants of Huns. That is perhaps why Szeklers have more Turkic genetics on average (besides simply dying less in the Transylvania region). That does not mean that Szeklers are different Huns or a different tribe, but that the Conquering Hungarians set the Szeklers in Transylvania (and in other areas of Hungary that is rarely talked about) and we mixed together more over time. The language similarities attests to this common origin truth. Róna-Tas explained this point beautifully. While it doesn't eliminate the possibility, the only real language challenge is the name.
Do you believe specifically that we are Turkic in a way that other Hungarians are not based on origin?
