Turkologist doesnt mean Turkish, they are academic people. Count the names in that quote= V.N. Tatischev, I.G. Dobrodomov, E.V. Hawks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondie
Turkologist doesnt mean Turkish, they are academic people. Count the names in that quote= V.N. Tatischev, I.G. Dobrodomov, E.V. Hawks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondie
Why should I repeat the obvious: I already stated numerous times on this forum that I don't particularly have high opinion on Hungarians, especially since they are so immune to widespread corruption and repeatedly offer great majority with their votes, to a person who is one of the worst and most rotten leaders in the history of this country. Do you really wonder why a thinking person would hardly feel any patriotism in times like these.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turul Karom
Yet the conqueror class was bilingual with Y-DNA of R1a, not N. This is somehow going to be a goal scored then for a non-Turkic part of the core? The problem is that N is something that was argued by Dunai as evidence for a Mansi core, yet the Turkic group Avars are mostly N. Therefore, Avar=Mansi? I am showing him the hypocrisy of his own logic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondie
I never said that R1 is exclusively Turkic, but that it is dominant amongst many groups that are called Turkic today. Unlike Dunai, whose favorite debate tactic is to lecture and ignore questions, you sometimes put words in my mouth or extrapolate points that I don't make. If it is unintentional, then I forgive you. I consider all haplos found in Conqueror graves as Hungarians, period, regardless of autosomal admix. If we are talking about the tribes that went into making Hungarians pre-Etelköz, that is a different conversation.Quote:
The presence of I2 means the nomad hungarians had very close relationship with east european slavs. R1 is not necessarily turkic but it can be iranic, or slavic or even pre-ugric too, becase this haplo existed among them. How do you know that this haplo must originated from only turkic peoples? This is just your wish. Nomad magyars had closely relationship with slavs, germanics or alans too, not only with turks. But basically the whole east european steppe region was a big mix of various tribes and peoples.
Yet people call Avars Turks today. You know you will not casually go online or into a textbook and find the consensus as "we don't know" but rather that they lean Turkic, with some just stating it outright. Yet, somehow, calling Hungarians even as Uralo-Altaic is a step too far? What I would like to point out is that Uralo-Altatic would be an acceptable description, but yet that "Altaic" part needs to be cut off entirely for some reason? Again, I am not even talking just about language (even though conquerors were bilingual), but in light of genetic studies, cultural studies of old Hungarians, and Tengrist faith as well as origins of many tribes that became part of the Hungarian ethnogenesis, this Uralo-Altaic is still something too far but Finno-Ugric is now replaced with Uralic? That, my friend, is an agenda.Quote:
We have no idea who were the avars exactly, their language is also unknown. We know only their names which were mostly turkic, but nomad magyar names were also turkic and they were uralic speakers, so it means nothing. The haplogroup N is originally siberian not steppe haplo, so its confirms the siberian origin of conquerors. At this time before the russification there were much more uralic people in East Europe, it's very possible that avars were partly uralic. This is the description of N1a1a haplo:
"The subclade N-M178[Phylogenetics 3] is defined by the presence of markers M178 and P298. N-M178* has higher average frequency in Northern Europe than in Siberia, reaching frequencies of approximately 60% among Finns and approximately 40% among Latvians, Lithuanians & 35% among Estonians (Derenko 2007 and Lappalainen 2008).
Miroslava Derenko and her colleagues noted that there are two subclusters within this haplogroup, both present in Siberia and Northern Europe, with different histories. The one that they labelled N3a1 first expanded in south Siberia and spread into Northern Europe. Meanwhile, the younger subcluster, which they labelled N3a2, originated in south Siberia (probably in the Baikal region)(Derenko 2007)."
I do not take offense. There are people who call Szekler Transylvania a shithole and Hungary a shithole; Dunai is one who dislikes Hungary and is embarrassed by the country.Quote:
Don't make me laugh, most hungarians have no any turkic identity (neither uralic btw), they consider themselves just hungarians nothing else. Totally irrelevant that nomad magyars and turkics had same culture 1300 years ago, nobody cares in the 21. century, 90% of hungarians do not care abpout it, but they have european identity and they feel themselves closest to other central europeans i mean culture, history and everything. An average hungarian thinks these countries like Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan etc are poor shitholes. The reputation of turks or Turkey also became more negative because of Orbáns anti-muslim propganda. No offense but this is the truth.
Most Hungarians don't care about anything, walking through the world with an apathy of indifference. This is not something that is even unique to us. I don't think you or Dunai even understand why I call myself a "Turkic Hungarian" in the first place. It is particularly to play homage to the fact that this is an important part of our ancestry that I think is understated and underrepresented not only historically but even still today. This is why I practice what I do as well. Our identity will not die. It is because when I travel to the places that you are calling "shitholes" I am treated as a brother. Of course these places are dangerous at times and have people who wills scam you and stuff. Hungary is no different in some areas of the country. But why did the average person who is not a sociopath treat me well? Because I shared that I was a Hungarian. Why did we have so many lovely conversations? Because our shared history. I have been treated to dinners and weddings for nothing more than a sense of companionship. Turks feel alone sometimes, too, spread out across Eurasia. They find it a relief to see a Hungarian who embraces the shared steppe past. I don't care about the government's claims about Muslims. I am not a Muslim, and they are playing up the "defender of Europe" trope of old, which is fine given that it looks like the Germans are ready to throw us all into another hellish chaos again (my heart goes out to the Germans that care about their heritage and I hope they stand strong against a government who hates them). The Hungarian government also supports Kurultaj with tax dollars, you know.
I never said I could know, in fact posting before that we will never know without extensive genetic testing of the population and still unknown graves, but that doesn't make the admixture less Turkic in Hungarians today. There are people who say my sub-group is not even Hungarian, which I why we score more Turkic, which I disagree with.Quote:
There are some connection but this is only few %, the modern hungarians and nomad magyars are two completely different population. And if a hungarian got few % turkic genetic in the test how do you know it came from the conquerors? It also can be originated from tatars or cumans (13. century), or from ottomans (16-18. century), they also have been here, so what? Its not necessarily conqueror turkic, of courseb it can be but we dont know.
It's disappointing that you just delete your posts about your opinions that Hungarian conquerors were Turkic (you did it in this thread) and completely flip your point of view of things. It makes it seem like you are embarrassed of holding different opinions or don't want people to see that you ever had a different perspective. Also, you are not Dunai, so why are you being his shield right now when he was the one that made the points that I am questioning, and he is so reluctant to answer for his nonsense? Did you also like how he called Hungarians and Central Asians the same via our apparent love of dictators?
Back to the article: it feels amazing when some old and seemingly far-reaching conjectures from the past actually get confirmed thanks to our modern technology & scientific research.
You are making it sound like it is an ethnicity or meta-ethnicity problem with us. For someone who is against racism, I would think that disparaging a group in such a way is against your morals. Also, if you hate the government, imagine calling yourself a "thinking person" then behaving as though a political party that is not even as old as the members that run it represent an ethnic group over 1000 years old. Everything you posts smacks of western apologia; you probably hang out with people who think Hungary sucks and need to prove you are one of the "good Hungarians" to them by extra dumping on Hungary. Sounds to me like you need better friends if that's the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunai
So then, how about you address the rest of the questions from post 114?
I know, right? It would be more fun to talk about how Hungarians have not only a cultural linkl but now genetic connection to the Huns, which I thought would be the part that really got attention since it was always something so controversial and dismissed as a muth. Note how the Hunnic connection is alongside Turkic peoples as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roy
https://444.hu/2018/04/09/100-ezer-f...int-a-fideszreQuote:
Originally Posted by Dunai
But avars are not in the turkic group, because we have no idea about their language. You can find Árpád's Y haplogroup among the pre-ugric population, or among iranics, or turkics or slavics too, but ypu said it must be 100% turkic, how? There is no evidence for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turul Karom
Actually the r1a-z93 is highest among the afghans, tajiks and kyrgyz peoples, two of these are iranic speakers.Quote:
I never said that R1 is exclusively Turkic, but that it is dominant amongst many groups that are called Turkic today.
How can you exactly classify an ethnicity if you have no idea about their language? This is nonsense and i don't care the turkicist propganda site where everyone is turkic.Quote:
Yet people call Avars Turks today. You know you will not casually go online or into a textbook and find the consensus as "we don't know" but rather that they lean Turkic, with some just stating it outright.
Because the hungarian lenguage is not even altaic so we have no reason to call it uralo-altaic, just because the nomad magyars got significant turkic influence it doesn't mean they were originally altaic. But by this logic the modern hungarians are latins because they have tons of latin name, they use latin writing and they are roman catholic.Quote:
Yet, somehow, calling Hungarians even as Uralo-Altaic is a step too far? What I would like to point out is that Uralo-Altatic would be an acceptable description, but yet that "Altaic" part needs to be cut off entirely for some reason?
I have talked about identity, most hungarians have hungarian identity and nothing else, not turkic, nor uralic.Quote:
Most Hungarians don't care about anything, walking through the world with an apathy of indifference.
I dont care your identity, this is your business, the problem is if you presents your identity as "majority hungarian" identity. This is bullshit. This is our problem.Quote:
I don't think you or Dunai even understand why I call myself a "Turkic Hungarian" in the first place.
What kind of identity? You (and Dunai too btw) all forget that the core hungarian population was the hungarus and not the elite, who lived in their big castles far away from the peoples, whom they looked down as well. If you see the hungarian history the elite (the glorious descedants of counquerors) were the biggest traitors of all time. They always threw Hungary for foreigners because of their interests, however the hungarus commoners were bleeding in the wars to defend Hungary. Yes i identify myselg with the hungarus class more than the rotten elite. I'm proud that i have no any hungarian noble ancestry, but my hungarian part came from the hungarus. So why everyone thinks that old hungarians were only the conquerors? Bullshit.Quote:
It is particularly to play homage to the fact that this is an important part of our ancestry that I think is understated and underrepresented not only historically but even still today. This is why I practice what I do as well. Our identity will not die.
I deleted my pro-turkic comment because i realized this is outdated. But everyone can see my other such comments from the last half years. Yes i changed my mind because of it, as i said million times i don't make identity question about it, i do care only the facts and science, i had no problem when an older source said conquerors were turkic, just like i have no problem with a new source which call them uralic. To be honest i don't identify myself with the conquerors.Quote:
It's disappointing that you just delete your posts about your opinions that Hungarian conquerors were Turkic (you did it in this thread) and completely flip your point of view of things. It makes it seem like you are embarrassed of holding different opinions or don't want people to see that you ever had a different perspective. Also, you are not Dunai, so why are you being his shield right now when he was the one that made the points that I am questioning, and he is so reluctant to answer for his nonsense? Did you also like how he called Hungarians and Central Asians the same via our apparent love of dictators?
I don't care what Dunai said, it's not secret that we don't like each other, and we had tons of debate in other things. There are things we agree on, just like i agree with you sometimes. In this topic Dunai is right about conquerors, but at same time he said tons of bullshit about his political ideas. I dont care, im not anyone's shied, i have an own opinion and world view what is different from yours and Dunai's opinion in general.
Btw i wanted to write a very rougly comment for Dunai yesterday, because i was sick of his another personal attacks on me with no reason, but after half hour thinking i didn't send it. He doesnt deserve such brutal humiliation.
You can remain calm, I won't "infest" your Nationalist circles with my "treacherous" Western morals :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Turul Karom
Actually the r1a-z93 is highest among the afghans, tajiks and kyrgyz peoples, two of these are iranic speakers. [/QUOTE]Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondie
..speakers who have been highly influenced by Turkic genetics.
Apparently we do, because the largest % of Hungarian words are unknown origin, lol. Also you know I don't call everything Turkic. I never quote random blogs or websites as my academic sources, and I certainly never quote wikipedia (which is something that I have encouraged you to stop doing as well for someone who talks about the value of academic sources).Quote:
How can you exactly classify an ethnicity if you have no idea about their language? This is nonsense and i don't care the turkicist propganda site where everyone is turkic.
It has a large Turkic %, but regardless, if the genetics and culture are Altaic in a large part then you would think that this alone would be enough to call the people Uralo-Altaic. This is why the Finno-Ugric has been abandoned in favor of "Uralic" alone. I can share with you that older F-U linguists are not happy about this in the slightest, which is mildly amusing. Plus, other nations call us Uralo-Altaic without question in their classifications. I would be fine with accepting that classification, but the almost pathological fear from the western academia at such an idea reads more like someone who is afraid of a spider than someone who is intellectually honest in their disagreement.Quote:
Because the hungarian lenguage is not even altaic so we have no reason to call it uralo-altaic, just because the nomad magyars got significant turkic influence it doesn't mean they were originally altaic. But by this logic the modern hungarians are latins because they have tons of latin name, they use latin writing and they are roman catholic.
I agree with the assessment that most Hungarians see only themselves, but I think that this is because of isolation in the middle of Europe and have talked already at length about why I am happy to call myself Turkic.Quote:
I have talked about identity, most hungarians have hungarian identity and nothing else, not turkic, nor uralic.
I present it as a growing identity that will one day be a majority in an overt sense. That is what I predict for the future. I always say "more Hungarians than you think" regarding it because most Hungarians are too apathetic to care and are content in their malaise. However, as I said, this is common in the west and not a Hungarian specific problem.Quote:
I dont care your identity, this is your business, the problem is if you presents your identity as "majority hungarian" identity. This is bullshit. This is our problem.
The identity that connects Hungarians to the past via a genetic and cultural link that transcends our time in Europe. The idea that Hungarian history should only begin in the last few hundred years is nonsense to me. This "hungarus vs. Conqueror" thing was never something that happened in Hungary. There is no book ever from the time talking about how the "hungarus" hated the conquerors or felt exploited by them before or after Christianity. The feudal system was brutal to all people in Hungary. The Germans, the Italians, Caucasians, etc who settled in Hungary and did not have any special privileges were not treated differently from any other peasantry. One of the reasons why some academics call my sub-group a different Turkic group and not Hungarian is because of Szekler privileges. I don't agree with that concept.Quote:
What kind of identity? You (and Dunai too btw) all forget that the core hungarian population was the hungarus and not the elite, who lived in their big castles far away from the peoples, whom they looked down as well. If you see the hungarian history the elite (the glorious descedants of counquerors) were the biggest traitors of all time. They always threw Hungary for foreigners because of their interests, however the hungarus commoners were bleeding in the wars to defend Hungary. Yes i identify myselg with the hungarus class more than the rotten elite. I'm proud that i have no any hungarian noble ancestry, but my hungarian part came from the hungarus. So why everyone thinks that old hungarians were only the conquerors? Bullshit.
You also have no idea if you have any Turkic genetics or not because you have not taken a DNA test and ran it through various calculators. There is a reason why I am OK to post my results from all the companies I have used on TA because I have nothing to fear from myself. The results will either speak for my points or they will not. Most Hungarian elite class was of mixed groups anyway. Do you think that the Vata pagan Tengrist uprising that placed Andrew on the throne was not a popular uprising among the commoners who clamored for their return to Hungary and they took their offer?
You are allowed to change your mind, it's only more confusing if you accept that you have older posts out there why you would delete factual other academic sources that you posted at the same time. Instead of saying "I changed my mind" you just deleted everything old and immediately went into the new mode of discussion. It seems more like embarrassment and wanting to minimize appearing like you ever changed your thoughts.Quote:
I deleted my pro-turkic comment because i realized this is outdated. But everyone can see my other such comments from the last half years. Yes i changed my mind because of it, as i said million times i don't make identity question about it, i do care only the facts and science, i had no problem when an older source said conquerors were turkic, just like i have no problem with a new source which call them uralic. To be honest i don't identify myself with the conquerors.
You also don't need to care about the conquerors more than what is convenient because as you have said before on TA, you identitfy yourself primarily as a German.
The point was that it sounded like you were defending his perspective or excusing his willingness to ignore questions. It took him until page 11 to admit that his N-haplogroup claim from the first page was based on what is a game of telephone with someone who supposedly has a unique insider position for the Y-DNA results that are yet to be posted. Dunai comes as a lecturer, but is a hypocrite who has barely concealed disdain for his fellow Hungarians (as he eventually said in this thread) because of political reasons. I would respect him more if he just said that he finds being Hungarian embarrassing and shameful more often because then it would at least frame his constant attacks on our country as how he sees it in his heart.Quote:
I don't care what Dunai said, it's not secret that we don't like each other, and we had tons of debate in other things. There are things we agree on, just like i agree with you sometimes. In this topic Dunai is right about conquerors, but at same time he said tons of bullshit about his political ideas. I dont care, im not anyone's shied, i have an own opinion and world view what is different from yours and Dunai's opinion in general.
Btw i wanted to write a very rougly comment for Dunai yesterday, because i was sick of his another personal attacks on me with no reason, but after half hour thinking i didn't send it. He doesnt deserve such brutal humiliation.
Since we are talking about agreements between one another, and I am a fan of building bridges rather than burning them, what are things that you find we agree on? I would like to hear them. Also, do you agree that Szeklers are not a uniquely different Turkic group to Hungarians but rather preserved on average more Turkic genetics?
I would think that Turanism is quite internationalist and opening the door for diverse encounters in many ways, and therefore would not call myself as a pure "nationalist." However, as I believe in the sovereignty of nation states and their agency rather than in bureaucratic empires and anti-Hungarian NGO infiltration, I suppose that this is all it takes to be seen as a nationalist extremist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunai
The questions in post 114 will be waiting for you whenever you're ready.
You can read it here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buusra
http://www.wikiznanie.ru/wikipedia/i...80%D1%8C%D1%8F
The Turkic people call the upper part of the Amu Darya river - Aksu (Uzbek dial. Oksu - white river) because of the rapid flow, the river foams and has a white tint.Quote:
Amu or Amu-Darya (Ox among the writers of classical antiquity, Jaihun among the Arabs, Potsu or Fatsu among the Chinese) is the main river of Turkestan, flowing into the Aral. The upper reaches of A. have other names. The upper reaches of A. are usually considered to be the Aksu River, which flows out at 37 ° 15 'N. sh. and 89° E. from Lake Kulyi Pamir Khurd in Wakhan, at an altitude of about 4200 m. y. m. It flows first to the northeast and north, flows around the Pamirs-Big and Alichur-and then under the name Murghaba flows through Roshan, where at a distance of 420 km. from the source it receives the Pyanj, which is considered by others, especially by the natives, to be the main river. It flows out in the Greater Pamir, at an altitude of 4250 m "from Lake Kul-i-Pamir (Victoria), then, by connecting with another river, the southern Pyanj, flows north-north-west through Shugnan. The connected rivers already bear the name Amu, which flows northwest through Darvaz, where it receives Vanj-ab on the left
The Iranian word "Vaksh" comes from the Turkic Aksu and has no Iranian etymology. However, Hippocrates names the largest river of Central Asia, associated by modern researchers with the Amu Darya), Ag (without the formant "su" - water,river ) , this is an additional argument in favor of the Turkic origin of the Greek name Oxus - 5th century BC
..speakers who have been highly influenced by Turkic genetics. [/QUOTE]Quote:
Originally Posted by Turul Karom
But this haplo is not even turkic but originated from Europe spreaded by indo iranics.
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.Quote:
Apparently we do, because the largest % of Hungarian words are unknown origin, lol.
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?Quote:
It has a large Turkic %, but regardless, if the genetics and culture are Altaic in a large part then you would think that this alone would be enough to call the people Uralo-Altaic.
What kind of nations? Turkmens or khazaks? lolQuote:
Plus, other nations call us Uralo-Altaic without question in their classifications.
The science is more free in West than in eastern countries, like in Turkey where if you are talking about such historical facts like amermenian genocide you will be prisoned.Quote:
I would be fine with accepting that classification, but the almost pathological fear from the western academia at such an idea reads more like someone who is afraid of a spider than someone who is intellectually honest in their disagreement.
Gypsies will be the majority in Hungary and i doubt they will have turkic identity, neither hungarians.Quote:
I present it as a growing identity that will one day be a majority in an overt sense.
I have never said that.Quote:
The idea that Hungarian history should only begin in the last few hundred years is nonsense to me.
It happened but hungarus = köznép in the hungarian society and this is a scientific term in the hungarian academy.Quote:
This "hungarus vs. Conqueror" thing was never something that happened in Hungary.
Then you should read the Gesta Hungarorum.Quote:
There is no book ever from the time talking about how the "hungarus" hated the conquerors or felt exploited by them before or after Christianity.
The noble class were mixed of course, but they considered themselves as descedants of counquerors, they claimed it, not me.Quote:
Most Hungarian elite class was of mixed groups anyway. Do you think that the Vata pagan Tengrist uprising that placed Andrew on the throne was not a popular uprising among the commoners who clamored for their return to Hungary and they took their offer?
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.Quote:
You are allowed to change your mind, it's only more confusing if you accept that you have older posts out there why you would delete factual other academic sources that you posted at the same time. Instead of saying "I changed my mind" you just deleted everything old and immediately went into the new mode of discussion. It seems more like embarrassment and wanting to minimize appearing like you ever changed your thoughts.
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.Quote:
You also don't need to care about the conquerors more than what is convenient because as you have said before on TA, you identitfy yourself primarily as a German.
For example we agree that the human rights are okay in Hungary, or the western media is always lying about this country, etc.Quote:
what are things that you find we agree on? I would like to hear them. Also, do you agree that Szeklers are not a uniquely different Turkic group to Hungarians but rather preserved on average more Turkic genetics?
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.
Btw Dunai as Julio at 15:43 lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8y5...st=LL&index=10
I dont take the opinions of a person coming from gut feelings on historical facts seriously. You dont even know Avars spoke Turkic language lol read Harmatta at least and keep quiteQuote:
Originally Posted by Blondie
The term Ural belongs to Turkics noone can show me another nation that keep it alive in their society and culture and it represented only proto-Turks. Hanty and Mansi, both Ugrics, overall 30-40.000 in number cannot have influenced the toponym more than Turkics who were natives, ruled the area for centuries and left their heritage there with ethnic Turkic names and Ugors are our relatives too, that is coming fast
Keep dreaming, Mongolian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buusra
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:
Originally Posted by Blondie
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:
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.
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).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?
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.
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:
What kind of nations? Turkmens or khazaks? lol
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:
Gypsies will be the majority in Hungary and i doubt they will have turkic identity, neither hungarians.
It wasn't an accusation.Quote:
I have never said that.
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:
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.
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:
The noble class were mixed of course, but they considered themselves as descedants of counquerors, they claimed it, not me.
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:
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.
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.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.
Teutone has been very friendly with me, and I appreciate some of his insight on certain topics.
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.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.
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?
Harmatta never claimed that avars were 100% turkic speakers, read his original source if you know hungarian:Quote:
Originally Posted by Buusra
http://regi.smmi.hu/publikaciok/rege...6_harmatta.pdf
Ural not belongs to turkics because they were just foreign invaders here. Proto turkics lived in altay not in Ural.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buusra
Actually she is half arabic (middle eastern).Quote:
Originally Posted by Token
Q is an original altaic marker, but proto-turkics had other haplogroups like C, R1, or N1, but doesn't matter we are talking about N1 and R1 haplo among pre-magyars. In the case of magyars why we should consider the siberian N1 marker as non siberian turkic if we can consider it siberian ugric? Why? Or why we should consider the R1 haplo as turkic if proto-ugrics also had this haplo? Its like if you would find a cup of tea in your mom's kitchen and you would think she ordered it from Romania because there are tea in Romania too, no, it makes no sense. The most realistic version is this tea was made by your mom in the kitchen 10 minutes ago. Why should we prefer a foreing influence instead of local answer?Quote:
Originally Posted by Turul Karom
I ask you again, how can you classify an ethnicity linguistically if you don't know their language? Just because some profs thinks the avars were most likely turkics it doesn't mean it's 100% sure or something, because we don't know their language.Quote:
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.
No, most hungarians do care about the conquerors, but they don't make about it a turkic identity quoestion like you do.Quote:
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.
Okay, Hungary is not full member of Turkic Council just an observer member, and Hungary will leave it for sure if Orbán goes, simple because modern hungarians have nothing to do with them.Quote:
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.
And it's a very nice thing if turks like hungarians, but hungarians don't care about it in general, neither West Europe btw. Hungarians compare themselves to austrians (or other central euros), not only because the historical relations, but Austria is the idol of most hungarians economically, that we must reach their economic level, this rivalization is also existed in the Monarchy.
Doesn't matter your opinion in this question, Hungary will be gypsie majority just like other neighbor countries if the government won't do anything.Quote:
I disagree, and I know we will not see eye-to-eye on this future about demographics.
Wrong, the elite vs commoners identity existed before the feudal hungarian state. The hungarian nobility always claimed that they are descedants of counquerors, but commoners (hungarus) are not, so they don't belong to the hungarian nation. It was the thinking in medieval Hungary and later until the national awakening. And nobody talked about any racial thing.Quote:
It is no different than the feudalism of the Lords vs. the pedantry. You are framing it in a racial light.
Man... i deleted only 2 post, and now you present me like i always do it, bullshit. I have already said why i deleted it, i realized this is obsoleted, thats all. It's not my problem if you don't understand it.Quote:
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).
Yes i know in TA the genetic test is like Bible, but i said million times why i don't do genetic test. First of all i don't trust in these companies who store you personal datas, secondly the language, culture and identity does matter not this cheap genetic test what is basically just playing with numbers, i have seen such genetic map which claimed such nonsense things like hungarians are closer to swedes than finns, or you will get different results almost in every test, sorry i can't take it seriously.Quote:
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.
Attila's haplo is irrelevant, it can be bantu-negro too does not matter, because he was hun and he will always be hun regardless of his paternal origin. And of course the hungarian academy is ugric oriented because the hungarian language is ugric, that's why. Its not a difficult thing, but i have never seen any hungarian prof who denied the significant old turkic influence. Neither me, nor Dunai don't deny that.Quote:
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.
No, székelys are not turkic peoples, they are hungarians, but an unique hungarian subgroup with most likely old turkic origin. Btw if you really interested the origin of székelys you should buy the rubicon "A székelység története" historical magazin, 20 page only about it, they analysed every theory. Very interesting.Quote:
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.
https://marvin.bline.hu/product_imag...003885480P.JPG
In my opinion, székelys are descedants of huns, and they lived in Transylvania since the huns, and later they adopted the hungarian language somehow. Of course this is just my subjective opinion.
In fact, Ural are full of Ugric toponyms / hydronyms, even in the south. They are adjacent to the Turkic one. The most interesting thing is that there are many non-Turkic toponyms / hydronyms in Altai and the word Altai itself is probably not of Turkic origin, in contrast from Kazakhstan, where there are practically only Turkic and Mongolian toponymsQuote:
Originally Posted by Buusra
Mongolian is better than being dumbass and illiterate like you and you think you are aryan in your dreams? Ural is Turkic and it is in academia already, some people are not just gossiping and masturbating over facts like you do hereQuote:
Originally Posted by Token
says the attention freak of TA who has many socks ahaha this is all you can do, spreading lies about people according to your gut feelings wikipedia troll. I have shared my DNA results and none of them had none ME in the least and I have even many red hair in my family but I am sure you have a lot of gypsy in yours its apparent from the blonde avatar pictures you keep sharing so desperately lolol. All you write is always shit and have no academic base and others are applausing this autism since you are anti-Turk and entertaining them monkeying aroundQuote:
Originally Posted by Blondie
Ural has never been turkic, and you have no any real argument just personal attacks. Why am i attention freak? I have never maked any thread about me, i have no any sock, i posted the original Harmata source from the academy to refute you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buusra
You havent refuted anything and you never rely on academia. I have shared many scientific arguments, mostly with evidence, but you are not even interested like many other trolls here. If I made a personal attack on you its because of your own personal attack on me in the first place, like the one above, what the hell is it, a scientific argument lol it is bad-faith. Know your place and dont ever quote me again, I will not eitherQuote:
Originally Posted by Blondie
What is this know your place? :D You are on european forum although you are not even european, and you are on hungarian thread but you are not even hungarian... I dont care what are you doing, if you continue these personal attacks and lyings i will just report you to Loki and you will be banned thats all. Kivan and Itilvolga was right about you, they said everything about your sneakly behaviour. These guys like you is the reason why turks have mostly negative reputation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buusra
You didn't post anything, firstly you said Ural has turkic name, i posted a native ugric name "urala", after that you quoted Harmata, i posted the original source not even from wikipedia what refuted you :rotfl:
I feel like this is getting into the territory again of "what is a proto-ugric/proto-turkic?" The problem is that several hundred or a few thousand years, and these people were totally different already from one another. For example, the Conquering Hungarians were very different from the proto-Ugrics/Turkics just like modern Hungarians are genetically different from the conqueror-era graves. None of these people are going to be identical to their ancestors from 500, 1000, etc years ago. Especially on the steppes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondie
I understand your tea example, but I feel like this tea example would be better for explaining the philosophy of haplogroup and admixture diversity while still showing common origin in my mind:
There is a tin of tea A. Over time, tea A is used and supplemented in the same container with tea B. Then tea C is added once that blend of A and B gets smaller. Over time, tea A is replaced to the point where it is now a minority of the blend. However, every time you make the tea, you can always taste the subtle flavors of tea A. Would you not say that the tea is therefore a "tea A blend?" I would, and most people would imo. The only time that you can effectively call into question if that is true is if the old blend is removed entirely to the point where there is no more tea A in the tin.
Don't ask me. Ask the academics that all say it. You know that even a casual search will say Avars were Turkic.Quote:
I ask you again, how can you classify an ethnicity linguistically if you don't know their language? Just because some profs thinks the avars were most likely turkics it doesn't mean it's 100% sure or something, because we don't know their language.
More than you think. Also, I'm more interested on the commonality of the steppe legacy shared today and what we can do with it in the future. That is showing promise as well. Conqerors having Hunnic admix should be the highlight of the conversation. This has been asserted by academics in a few studies now, but it seems like people don't know quite how to frame a response to it. It is almost an eerie quiet..Quote:
No, most hungarians do care about the conquerors, but they don't make about it a turkic identity quoestion like you do.
Full vs. Observer status had nothing to do with my point. Nothing at all, and you know it. The point was that the Turkic Council members say we are Uralo-Altaic, and you asked for countries, so I gave them to you. If Hungary left, they would still say the same thing, because the member states said it even before the Turkic Council was a thing. Your tangent about future membership is irrelevant to your original question since the member states will still call us Uralo-Altaic, which is a much fairer assessment than Finno-Ugric.Quote:
Okay, Hungary is not full member of Turkic Council just an observer member, and Hungary will leave it for sure if Orbán goes, simple because modern hungarians have nothing to do with them.
I am not interested in economic things on the meta sense. There are things more important than money to me. I take care of my fiances just fine. Rivalry with Austria is cringe in the 21st century. The only reason Austria is doing better is because it was on the "free" side of the Iron Curtain.Quote:
And it's a very nice thing if turks like hungarians, but hungarians don't care about it in general, neither West Europe btw. Hungarians compare themselves to austrians (or other central euros), not only because the historical relations, but Austria is the idol of most hungarians economically, that we must reach their economic level, this rivalization is also existed in the Monarchy.
You seem to think that I am somehow spooked by these numbers. What matters if the Hungarians will do something about it. Are you going to do something about it to help us, or are you going to just be sad that Roma are having kids and Hungarians aren't? If kids matter to people, then they have them, if not, they won't. Outside of ignorant mistake pregnancies or some form of rape, children are born when two people want them. A nation that wants no kids wants no place in the future. Thankfully, there will always be Hungarians interested in having a family, and not for stupid demographic reasons but because a family makes them whole. If you cannot see this, then maybe you either need time to think about things outside of the material, or maybe you don't want a kid. I don't know. It's all your choice.Quote:
Doesn't matter your opinion in this question, Hungary will be gypsie majority just like other neighbor countries if the government won't do anything.
You are missing the point. I asked you, during the Vata Tengrist Pagan uprising, the "commoners" could have any king. Yet, they restored the founding dynasty to the throne. Why? Because they wanted a Hungarian ruler, not a foreign one. It is your words that make it sound more of a racial difference thing (commoners being different and therefore tension between them and conquerors).Quote:
Wrong, the elite vs commoners identity existed before the feudal hungarian state. The hungarian nobility always claimed that they are descedants of counquerors, but commoners (hungarus) are not, so they don't belong to the hungarian nation. It was the thinking in medieval Hungary and later until the national awakening. And nobody talked about any racial thing.
Never said that you "always" do it. It was about this thread. Don't feel so attacked by it. It isn't like it matters in the long-term on TA. The only reason I type a conversation so many pages back is to do just that: have a conversation. I don't think that too many people will even make it this far in the thread.Quote:
Man... i deleted only 2 post, and now you present me like i always do it, bullshit. I have already said why i deleted it, i realized this is obsoleted, thats all. It's not my problem if you don't understand it.
Then why trust genetic tests at all? Why not get your genome fully sequenced and keep that DNA data? That is the most scientific data you can get. I agree that some companies aren't as good as others regarding their quality, but there is no way that on one hand you use genetic data in your arguments then say that you don't take it seriously at all. Or else why are you even here?Quote:
Yes i know in TA the genetic test is like Bible, but i said million times why i don't do genetic test. First of all i don't trust in these companies who store you personal datas, secondly the language, culture and identity does matter not this cheap genetic test what is basically just playing with numbers, i have seen such genetic map which claimed such nonsense things like hungarians are closer to swedes than finns, or you will get different results almost in every test, sorry i can't take it seriously.
You are so close to understanding the perspective I am attempting to share about the Conquering Hungarians with that sentence. R1, N, etc, should not even matter that much in the end, but it does when people say nonsensical claims like Dunai stating because there is so much N that therefore Hungarians have a close connection with Mansi origins while R1 is dominant. The Conquerors are not Mansi, or Oghuz, or Kabar, etc. They are a unique blend that makes the Hungarians.Quote:
Attila's haplo is irrelevant, it can be bantu-negro too does not matter, because he was hun and he will always be hun regardless of his paternal origin. And of course the hungarian academy is ugric oriented because the hungarian language is ugric, that's why. Its not a difficult thing, but i have never seen any hungarian prof who denied the significant old turkic influence. Neither me, nor Dunai don't deny that.
Dunai certainly did make such anti-Turkic claims, and many other anti-Turan TA posters have in the past on the forum. They will always say, "Hungarians had nothing to do with Turks" but now those voices have gotten much more quiet, and for good reason.
It is a very interesting topic. I have multiple books about the subject from the 1990s to today and watch the evolution of the theories. I have a small collection on my bookshelf of my favorites. Some say we have a Turkic origin, some say we have a resettled Hungarian origin. I have stated my opinion here about my own thoughts.Quote:
No, székelys are not turkic peoples, they are hungarians, but an unique hungarian subgroup with most likely old turkic origin. Btw if you really interested the origin of székelys you should buy the rubicon "A székelység története" historical magazin, 20 page only about it, they analysed every theory. Very interesting.
I want you to clarify this:
No, székelys are not turkic peoples, they are hungarians, but an unique hungarian subgroup with most likely old turkic origin.
So are you saying that you think the origins are different from the Hungarians via the European Hunnic origin, and that makes the subgroup Turkic? Also, it seems contradictory that if you say a group is "most likely old Turkic origin" but then say that they "are not a Turkic peoples." You will need to clarify this.
Does this mean that you don't think that the Huns of Europe spoke Hungarian if my subgroup picked up Hungarian at some point? Because if Szeklers are Huns, and are not a part of the conquest from Asia but adopted the Hungarian language, then there must have been a different language; I would assume you would think it is Turkic? One of my favorite books is from Róna-Tas regarding Hungarian history during the conquest up to the establishment of the kingdom in 1000. In this, he says that while the name "Székely" is unique, he cannot state that the name alone is enough to differentiate from the Hungarians as a whole, and that settling on the frontier is not a good enough example, either. He says that a different origin is possible, but he believes that current evidence is inconclusive, and linguistically there are no differences in Szekler-Hungarian speech.Quote:
In my opinion, székelys are descedants of huns, and they lived in Transylvania since the huns, and later they adopted the hungarian language somehow. Of course this is just my subjective opinion.
Of course everything is your subjective opinion. It's what makes talking fun.
lol troll lets inform Loki and see his decision ok? You are the nasty one who attacked on me without any evidence and what I wrote was just an innocent reply :) You surely love Turkish losers like Kivan and İtilvolga bc they lick the boots of 'europeans' like you (lol) and I would never do that. I am a Eurasian and I have every right to be here since my heritage is all around Europe! I very proud of my ancestors and who I am, and I only talk with latest scientific findings and evidence,whatever I write here is supported by academia but you dont want to hear, then its your prb. I am only interested in truth and you can keep monkeying around just keep away from my postsQuote:
Originally Posted by Blondie
Kivan and Itilvolga were two decent member, and not even bootlickers, but i don't care this personal argument, let's talk about these "facts". Can you post any non turkic source which proves what you claims?Quote:
Originally Posted by Buusra
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondie
>http://www.agos.com.tr/tr/yazi/20712...emek-suc-degilQuote:
The prosecutor's office decided that there is no basis for prosecution regarding the three members of the İHD, who were detained for carrying banners mentioning the Armenian Genocide in the press release, which was not authorized on April 24. In its decision, the Prosecutor's Office drew attention to the fact that the word "genocide" should be evaluated within the scope of freedom of thought.
>Newspaper belongs to armenian minority.
Representing future of Germany= a Serbo-Gypsy neonazi, a religious black hole and hopeless youth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondie
This person is the most mysterious person in this forum and i still dont know why shes here, whats her purpose and where she wants to reach...Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondie
Can someone post coordinates of K2-52 or closest distance? I cant seem to find t.
Too much blah blah, and you still didn't answer that if the hungarian language is ugric then why we should suppose a foreign genetic influence instead of local when these paternal origins have been found among the pre-ugrics too. It makes absolutely no sense. And yes the Academy is ugric oriented because the hungarian language is ugric.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turul Karom
I love your style when the Academy proves you that you love the Academy and if they don't (like in the case of pre magyars) you ignore them :D But nope, only the turkic academy claims that avars were turkic without any linguistic proof. But this is a source from the Academy what you like so much:Quote:
Don't ask me. Ask the academics that all say it. You know that even a casual search will say Avars were Turkic.
http://www.rmki.kfki.hu/~lukacs/AVARS.htmQuote:
The language of Avars is practically unknown; but educated guesses tell that it may have been Old Turkish, or something between Turkish and Mongolian
So avars cannot be classified, these are just speculations.
I dont care what politicians says, and i dont care the opinion of dictatorships where the scientific life is not even free. Like it or not the hungarian language is finno-ugric, uralic and not altaic, neither partly.Quote:
The point was that the Turkic Council members say we are Uralo-Altaic, and you asked for countries, so I gave them to you. If Hungary left, they would still say the same thing, because the member states said it even before the Turkic Council was a thing. Your tangent about future membership is irrelevant to your original question since the member states will still call us Uralo-Altaic, which is a much fairer assessment than Finno-Ugric.
I have talked about hungarians in general not about you, and hungarians compare themselves to austrians or other central euros, not to turkmens or kazakhs.Quote:
I am not interested in economic things on the meta sense. There are things more important than money to me. I take care of my fiances just fine. Rivalry with Austria is cringe in the 21st century. The only reason Austria is doing better is because it was on the "free" side of the Iron Curtain.
What do you want with it? The commoners were not even foreigners, of course they wanted the Árpád dynasty.Quote:
You are missing the point. I asked you, during the Vata Tengrist Pagan uprising, the "commoners" could have any king. Yet, they restored the founding dynasty to the throne. Why? Because they wanted a Hungarian ruler, not a foreign one.
The case of pre magyars are totally different, and these analyses are far more thorough than these cheap tests from the street.Quote:
Then why trust genetic tests at all? Why not get your genome fully sequenced and keep that DNA data? That is the most scientific data you can get. I agree that some companies aren't as good as others regarding their quality, but there is no way that on one hand you use genetic data in your arguments then say that you don't take it seriously at all. Or else why are you even here?
The genetic relations does matter if we want to prove that premagyars connected to the uralic peoples. Attila was just one person, he doesnt represent all hun. And according to these sources what Dunai also posted these tests confirms their uralic origin.Quote:
You are so close to understanding the perspective I am attempting to share about the Conquering Hungarians with that sentence. R1, N, etc, should not even matter that much in the end, but it does when people say nonsensical claims like Dunai stating because there is so much N that therefore Hungarians have a close connection with Mansi origins while R1 is dominant. The Conquerors are not Mansi, or Oghuz, or Kabar, etc. They are a unique blend that makes the Hungarians.
The real reason is others have no time to discuss with such fanatics like you especially many hours per day, because it makes no sense. You are a fanatic beliver, and doesnt matter what others or the hungarian Academy says, your opinion will never change, because you make identity question about it. This is the real reason. The academy and the scientific world consider hungarians as uralic, and you personal opinion doesnt matter.Quote:
Dunai certainly did make such anti-Turkic claims, and many other anti-Turan TA posters have in the past on the forum. They will always say, "Hungarians had nothing to do with Turks" but now those voices have gotten much more quiet, and for good reason.
Germany has no future, neither Hungary or others. The only white countries will be Poland, Ukraine and Belarus. Im not hopeless, i have tons of goal in my life what i want to reach.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hektor12
The Uralic people's genesis is not as clear as many people think. Previously, the Proto-Uralic people were associated with pit-comb ceramics, and this was based, among other things, on the anthropological factor:there were the origins of the Lapponoid anthropological type, which is common among Western Uralic people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turul Karom
Here is a description of the anthropological type of people of the Lyalovo culture (part of pit-comb culture ,4th thousand BC, Moscow region).
link
.Quote:
Anthropological appearance is usually characterized as a mixed Mongoloid-Caucasoid and even Laponoid
Hg N was not found in the pit-comb culture, but a now extinct subclade of the haplogroup R1a was found. Perhaps this was the proto-Uralic marker. But if the hg N is found in the pit-comb culuture, then it will be possible to say with greater certainty that the hg N is a proto-Uralic marker. Now it is believed that the N hg -Uralic people arrived in Europe in 2-1 thousand BC. But then it turns out that the Mongoloid (Lappanoid) element in the Western Uralic people is not from proto- Uralic people, but from the Indo-European R1a.
Then just ignore my point. I answered you, and you don't get it, so the point is closed. Oh well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondie
You are the person who appeals to the academy. Hence the irony. The idea that many in academia say Avars are Turkic, but the majority of haplos in graves are N, while saying N indicates Uralic ancestry, while the Conqueror graves are R1, is silly. That is the entire point behind this. You are straying from the points being made by Dunai on page one and then admitted ten pages later that he was not even directly quoting because of his "inside source."Quote:
I love your style when the Academy proves you that you love the Academy and if they don't (like in the case of pre magyars) you ignore them :D But nope, only the turkic academy claims that avars were turkic without any linguistic proof. But this is a source from the Academy what you like so much:
http://www.rmki.kfki.hu/~lukacs/AVARS.htm
So avars cannot be classified, these are just speculations.
Nice. So I guess no matter the country, if it ever had autocratic control over the people, then that means the science is tainted. I guess that means that all work done under the Hapsburgs or by the Nazis were all garbage, too. What a silly claim. Like it or not, Turkic brothers see us as such, and do not abandon us. You don't need to care; they are working towards our camaraderie and brotherhood every day. You will not stop it by plugging your ears.Quote:
I dont care what politicians says, and i dont care the opinion of dictatorships where the scientific life is not even free. Like it or not the hungarian language is finno-ugric, uralic and not altaic, neither partly.
I am talking about the philosophy about valuing something more than that of your neighbor. More than material goods. If you can't appreciate that, then too bad.Quote:
I have talked about hungarians in general not about you, and hungarians compare themselves to austrians or other central euros, not to turkmens or kazakhs.
What do you want with it? The commoners were not even foreigners, of course they wanted the Árpád dynasty.
Hah, you think I am an advocate for anything less than a full genome sequence for those that can get it? The prices lower all the time, too. The idea that the tests are somehow impossible to obtain is laughable. My Szekler 50% was from my WGS, and the Turkic results (Uyghur, Kyrgyz, Chuvash, Turk Anatolia, Tatar, etc) were from the same. If you can't understand the value of even the more basic tests for haplos and other raw data (looking at individual SNPs, which has nothing to do with a company's ethnic calculator) then you are FAR behind on the times.Quote:
The case of pre magyars are totally different, and these analyses are far more thorough than these cheap tests from the street.
"Their" who? Because they are a mix. Page two of this thread has the map of pre-Hungarian contributions.Quote:
The genetic relations does matter if we want to prove that premagyars connected to the uralic peoples. Attila was just one person, he doesnt represent all hun. And according to these sources what Dunai also posted these tests confirms their uralic origin.
You sound upset. There is no reason to get so flustered about something as basic as a conversation. Though if you are so against genetic testing because your are anxious about the accuracy of the results (even though you can always look at your raw SNPs, even on cheaper tests) then I understand how it could be daunting to read longform science. Plus, lol at "many hours per day." Have you seen our post count differences and TA join dates?Quote:
The real reason is others have no time to discuss with such fanatics like you especially many hours per day, because it makes no sense. You are a fanatic beliver, and doesnt matter what others or the hungarian Academy says, your opinion will never change, because you make identity question about it. This is the real reason. The academy and the scientific world consider hungarians as uralic, and you personal opinion doesnt matter.
You're also ignoring the Szekler questions.... along with others. Don't start adopting Dunai's tactics, now. It makes you seem like a bot.
....and here we are. The most truthful you have been about your despair so far in the thread. I understand your apathy for your ethnic background, but we who believe in the future will win. Also, as you have said, who cares about "white?" Europeans care about ethnicity focuses more. Hungary is ours because we are the nation. You may have hope in your private life with whatever it is you intend, but Hungary will be just fine in the hands and hearts of those who believe in themselves. I don't care if the whole world is different and outnumbers Hungarians. To those believe they have a place under the sun, they will travel and fight to stay underneath the warmth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondie
https://i.ibb.co/M9ZQG5Y/transylvani...way-poster.jpg
Hello, I don't think we talked before, but good to chat with you. I'm sure if you have been reading this thread, you're aware of some of my positions already.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chelubey
I am not going to pretend that I know a lot about pit-comb culture because my focus is on populations after 0 AD, considering that specifically the "Hungarian" identity is newer than paleolithic cultures. Since ethnic groups are always expanding and contracting throughout history, it would seem that there are always new haplogroups being added. I don't think that, at this time, it is possible for ethnic groups that form later in history (such as after 0 AD) to have one "core" haplogroup unless they are from a very isolated area. Considering that the Huns, Turkic, Ugric, and eventually Hungarian tribes all spent time on the steppes, then this mixing will be even greater. This is why I put emphasis on the haplogroups of the founding dynastic families, as they are going to have the greatest chance at being representative of the founding population's origins because people don't follow those who do not have respect and power. The only challenge is, with steppe tribes and exogamy, the haplogroups change at a more rapid rate as a population merges, collapses, steppe empires fall, wars, etc because of the nature of rapid assimilation on the steppe.
I think that it gets too esoteric when people start going to far back that we are talking about R* or I* as generally we don't even know much about who these people were since they have dissolved as a coherent ethnic identity. Especially as it relates to modern Hungarians.
If I might ask, what is your ethnicity and how do you identify?
Excuses me but if you don't care about genetics or race, what is your problem with the Hungarian citizens of Romani origin? They were born in the country, their parents, grandparents and so on (the Roma have been documented in Europe since the 14th century), they speak Hungarian (last time I checked Romani was only marginally spoken by Hungarian Gypsies, unlike in some other countries), they are Christians or at least not Muslims and they even have seemingly strong family values (doubt gays and lesbians are widely accepted in their community).Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondie
But I personally doubt globalization will not change them. They will be hit by it too, sooner or later. It's a matter of time.
Volga TatarQuote:
Originally Posted by Turul Karom
...
I have never said that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leto
You know its very boring that you always quote Dunai while you are talking with me. I have nothing to do with this guy, if you are problem with him and his opinion, quote him, not me. I already said my opinion on avars, its not impossible that they were partly siberian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turul Karom
Its not a silly claim, thats fact in a dictatorship the science and the academy is not free. What do you want with nazis? They were such idiots that they kicked Einstein out from Germany who was the biggest genius of all time, just because he was jewish. That's saying everything about the "free" scientific life in the nazi Germany.Quote:
Nice. So I guess no matter the country, if it ever had autocratic control over the people, then that means the science is tainted. I guess that means that all work done under the Hapsburgs or by the Nazis were all garbage, too. What a silly claim.
And im talking about the reality that most hungarians dont even care about turkmens or other central asians, but they want better living standards and economy.Quote:
I am talking about the philosophy about valuing something more than that of your neighbor. More than material goods. If you can't appreciate that, then too bad.
I am not geneticist so i dont know that scientifically, but are you geneticist? I just see these tests which shows always a different result. And i dont care anymore this topic.Quote:
Hah, you think I am an advocate for anything less than a full genome sequence for those that can get it? The prices lower all the time, too. The idea that the tests are somehow impossible to obtain is laughable. My Szekler 50% was from my WGS, and the Turkic results (Uyghur, Kyrgyz, Chuvash, Turk Anatolia, Tatar, etc) were from the same. If you can't understand the value of even the more basic tests for haplos and other raw data (looking at individual SNPs, which has nothing to do with a company's ethnic calculator) then you are FAR behind on the times.
I have talked about the proto-magyars, and these haplos are existed among proto ugrics, so we have no reason to consider it turkic.Quote:
"Their" who? Because they are a mix. Page two of this thread has the map of pre-Hungarian contributions.
No, this is the reality. Doesn't matter how many source we give you, your mind don't change and never will. You dont care about the facts you just want certify your identity as a fanatic, that's all.Quote:
You sound upset.
Because i dont care székelys, they have nothing to do with this topic. You also ignored tons of things what i said, for example by your logic modern hungarians are latins, because they are roman catholics, they use latin writing, roman laws, latin names etc, i mentioned that why we should prefer turkic origin instead or ugric while these haplos have been found among ugrics, you just wrote a very long text about nothing. This is your tactic, if someone mention an awkward thing what refute you then you start to speak a totally different thing in a very long comment.Quote:
You're also ignoring the Szekler questions.... along with others.
Who is this we? Living in a dream world wont save you, because the gypsie birth rate is 3x higher than hungarian birth rate, this is the cold reality, and your beloved Orbán don't do anything except stealing the EU money. Also you have no idea about my generation. Once leave the retirement home and go to a house party or a college party with university students (even the conservative youth too) what do they think about Hungary and the world, or what are they doing in these parties, and finally at the end if you survive the tons of cocaine, alcohol and the bisexual orgies then you will have a little idea about the nihilist reality among the young generation.Quote:
I understand your apathy for your ethnic background, but we who believe in the future will win.
What do you want with this Transylvania poster? :D You are far away from the reality and you live in dream world. You are dreaming about Transylvania when the romanians have 4x bigger army and this crippled robbed little country is going to extinction.
BTW i love these date base errors, fortunatelly if i a write a very long comment, i always save it in a text file before sending ;)