Some people say "races are socially constructed but ethnicities are not" but...

[Dušan]

Some ethnicities are not biological categories, but cultural, political, linguistic and religious. Like Italians and Turks for example. There is a huge genetic difference between Italians from Tyrol or Veneto and Sicilians, or between Balkan Turks and Turks from eastern Turkey or Cypriot Turks.
In Italy exist even huge linguistic difference by regions. From linguistic point of view Neapolitan and Sicilian are more separate Romance languages than just dialects of Italian language.

True, few days ago Balkan Turkish member Thracian posted his K13 list.
If I remember well, his distance to Anatolian Turks was 21, the same as that I get to Belarussians and to Thessalian Greeks.

[Varda]

True, few days ago Balkan Turkish member Thracian posted his K13 list.
If I remember well, his distance to Anatolian Turks was 21, the same as that I get to Belarussians and to Thessalian Greeks.

Some Turkish members here say that most important genetic link between Balkan and Anatolian Turks for them is mongoloid admixture in both. Of course there are some genetic overlaps, and not only in mongoloid dna. Still Balkan and Anatolian Turks are quite different genetically.

Turkish members say Balkan Turks are descendants of Anatolian settlers who took domestic Balkan women and because of that they are different from Anatolian Turks autosomally. It's not full true. Some Balkan Turks of course have Anatolian paternal lines, colonization of Anatolian Turks (mostly Yörüks) in parts of Bulgaria, Greece and North Nacedonia is historical fact. But large part of Balkan Turks have also native Balkan paternal lines, they are descendants of islamized and turkfied local Balkanites. Kaspias once posted y dna of Balkan Turks and they have high amount of "Balkan" haplos.

[Kaspias]

Some Turkish members here say that most important genetic link between Balkan and Anatolian Turks for them is mongoloid admixture in both. Of course there are some genetic overlaps, and not only in mongoloid dna. Still Balkan and Anatolian Turks are quite different genetically.

Turkish members say Balkan Turks are descendants of Anatolian settlers who took domestic Balkan women and because of that they are different from Anatolian Turks autosomally. It's not full true. Some Balkan Turks of course have Anatolian paternal lines, colonization of Anatolian Turks (mostly Yörüks) in parts of Bulgaria, Greece and North Nacedonia is historical fact. But large part of Balkan Turks have also native Balkan paternal lines, they are descendants of islamized and turkfied local Balkanites. Kaspias once posted y dna of Balkan Turks and they have high amount of "Balkan" haplos.

What you stated is true, but I would like to light up the issue with more detail. There are many migration waves from Anatolia to the Balkans. The first waves were settled into Balkans probably around the 1350s in masses, having roots from various Beyliks and this regular migration continued until the 1550s as a state policy. At this time period, many other migration waves from the Khwarezm-Khorasan region to the Balkans took place due to Mongols pushing Turkic tribes towards the West, so many of them were also directly settled into the Balkans without even settling in Anatolia. After the 1600s which Celali Rebellions shook the empire, a great amount of the Anatolian Turkish population were transferred to the Balkans, and these had a genetic profile similar to Ottoman MA2196, presumably. Irregular migrations continued until the 18th century also. On the other side, Crimean Tatars were prominent in the region since the 1350s, and in the 1500s those Tatars were like 1/3 of the Turkish population. Then they melted in the same pot as Turks. Following the Crimean War and Russo-Turkish War, a great amount of the Tatar population were also settled together with Turks.

These Turks who were settled in the Balkans were still nomads at the period they were settled. So, they were actually the major manpower in the army. I would predict that the population who settled earlier quickly melted easily due to the constant wars. Some time after they started to leave nomadism and Ottomans realized that they also need Christians to supply the army with manpower. This resulted in the Turkification of Balkan men. This was not necessarily through religion, and at one time almost the whole of Bulgaria, especially Eastern and Central regions, were speaking Turkish despite some of them were still Christians. Towards the 17th Century Islamification increased due to the rights given to the Muslims and cultural replacement within the Christians who have been serving in the army and the barrier between ethnic Turks and the Balkan population started to disappear. In a time period from one to three-generation, modern Balkan Turkish ethnogenesis was formed. Although it is a common story that Turkic men took Balkan women, this usually happened in both ways. And in fact, the DNA results suggest that Balkan Turks have more Mongoloid-related mt-DNA compared to their Y-DNA. Anyway, in the current situation, even if both mt and Y DNA is Balkan related, we still see a legit Turkic influence in the autosomal DNA suggest that the ethnic-creating process lasted more than a generation. Finally, as a general evaluation, y and mtdna possibly suggest around 20-25% of the clades belong to the Turkic(C.A.) ancestor, while the rest is a combination of Anatolian and Balkan, Balkan probably being like 60-65% and Anatolian being around 10% -these are just my predictions based on the data I have, can change in the future-. Simultaneously, autosomal data shows that all these Turkic types who were migrated to the Balkans were melted in the same pot and individuals has the characteristics whichever is dominant, and this is highly variable, but in terms of averages dominant Turkic admixture comes out as "MA2196-like" and Balkan Turks bear from 5% to 60% MA2196 admixture, average being around 30%. In this regard, Balkan Turks have an overlap with Anatolian Turks in terms of Y and mtDNA (amount of the overlap is around 20% to 30% when also adding Anatolian and excluding alien Turkic admixtures present in the Balkans?) and also in terms of autosomal the Turkic admixture have the same origin as Anatolian Turks, with an addition of Tatars despite it looks like couldn't create a genetic shift in the average. The thing you should consider here is Medieval Anatolian Turkish was not the same as today's Anatolian Turkish presumably modeling like half actual Oghuz and take into account that other migrations from CA and Crimea, and that's why modern Balkan Turks do not model with Anatolian Turks in the oracles but receive straightforward Central Asian populations. Multiplication of Turkic and Balkan ancestry through generations led to the disappearance of Anatolian admixture in the autosomal DNA in most cases, while some still have traces of it despite being negligible. Eventually, you can imagine that there was a form of Ottoman Turkish(Early Yörüks) who was the ancestor of both Balkan and Anatolian Turks, but then both groups continued to mix with natives in the different regions and were able to carry their identity in both of these regions, therefore, the distance between both populations extended enormously due to the genetic difference between Balkanians and Anatolians. However, for example, in terms of Dodecad K12b, they still have overlap on North European, Gedrosia, Siberian, East Asia, Southeast Asia, and South Asia components. Even the Gedrosia being an indicator important as much as Mongoloid scores. So that's all about the situation, had to explain the case largely otherwise it is a bit too confusing.

For the OP's question, Turkishness(so do Greekness, when thinking about it) is both ethnic and cultural group. Ethnic Turkishness covers Balkan and Anatolian Turks due to obvious reasons, while the identification "Turk" may cover all former Ottoman subjects due to shared culture, history. Modern Turkey and Greece despite being nation-states in their essence, accepted their historical companions as part of their nation which sources from their mutual imperial heritage. This is what makes it confusing while talking about ethnic groups. Genetic is the natural determiner of the ethnicities which creates the differentiation between the nations and such strict classifications are a must in the genetic community, so aruncaz is wrong in that regard. However, as there is no such discrimination in social life, better not to stick with it that much.

[reboun]

It seems you are complexed for not being true ethnic Turk, but Bosnian Muslim immigrant to Turkey.

If you are so concerned, you should find ethnic Turkish woman, as same should do your offsprngs for a couple of decades, and then you get grandchildren who will be by autosomal genetics 75% Turks and only 25% Bosniaks.
Simple as that.

I don't think I am very complexed but the fact that I have immigration background (like most Turkish people) might also be a factor that I think DNA doesn't solely determine one's ethnicity or identity.

[VikLevaPatel]

a. Purity of Blood: A Normative Category
b. Purity of Blood: A Social Category
c. Purity of Blood: A Discursive Category

Racism & Modernity: https://www.stefanieaffeldt.net/text...mModernity.pdf

"All is Race"

What made Disraeli's politics truly 'imperial' was his grasp of the dialectic of the empire 'out there' and the empire 'at home'. Already in Sybil he had argued that only a limited class in England had participated in "the riches of the world". His one-nation-vision depended on an expanding economy of empire ruled by an imperial race and invited those exploited at home to see themselves as the rulers of all these alien people abroad.

Disraeli sensed that the golden age of religion was past. The new god was science. The German philosopher Kant had pointed to the significance of race for human history. Disraeli mapped the empire according to race. Indians belonged to diverse races; some of them were considered to be of Aryan descent. Disraeli was always more interested in India than other parts of the British Empire. He felt that in Canada, First Nation people, the Australian Aborigines, or the Maori of New Zealand could be neglected, since they were not a threat to the maintenance of Empire. People of African descent, however, occupied his attention.

5zmu73.jpg

https://www.grafiati.com/en/literatu...ions/disraeli/
https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/19283/
https://www.semanticscholar.org/pape...2415c0b36576e8

[Supercomputer]

Some people say "races are socially constructed but ethnicities are not" but I think the other way around. Races and sub-races are biological but ethnicities are socially constructed in my opinion. For example, I guess there are many Germans who are in Northeast European cluster. When they find out they are not in Germanic cluster but in Northeast European cluster, I don't think they will begin to identify as Slavic or non-German. Another example, when I found out that I am most probably in Southern-European/Balkan cluster, I didn't give up identifying as Turkish.

Do you also think that races and sub-races are biological but ethnicities are socially constructed?

That's totally true. The idea of ethnicity is a construct of language and national identity which is artificially maintained with things like flags and national anthems. Language is 100% socially constructed. You are not born predisposed speaking a certain language. The idea of races being social construct is totally misunderstood. What is social construct is how you name, divide and group races. Human biodiversity is not a social construct. The same with colours. How you divide, name and categorize them is, but not spectrum of wavelength itself which our brain interprets as colours.

[SouthDutch7991]

How you divide, name and categorize them is

I wouldn't even go that far, there is an objective set of genetic "super clusters" worldwide that have a greater correlation than any other grouping. You can actually prove this on a genetic level, that globally this grouping of humanity into 5 mega-admixtures has the greatest and most balanced division. This is not something you will ever see in a widely published scientific journal, but they know of it, because you can't avoid it, and you'll hear them use certain terms to refer to them without giving away the reality of the structure. West Eurasian, East Eurasian, Sub-Saharan African, South Eurasian, and American Indians can be treated as their own clusters. I know because I did the work myself, and I did it fully expecting to have race proven "wrong" to me.

[Tellmewhy]

You identify as Turkish. It doesn’t necessarily mean that you are ethnically Turkish. Turkish is both an umbrella term and an ethnicity.