DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - An invitation to Curiouscat, let's discuss genetics on this thread, just me and you

**Thunderzee** · 06-23-2011, 06:04 AM

As much as I appreciate a thread "dedicated" to my opinions, I do think that this should be a part of the thread that Evon posted. However, I shall try to answer as simply as I can for you.

I've noticed you've made an excuse of all the long posts and your confused ambiguity concerning Turkish genetics so I've started this thread to make it clearer and more straightforward, where I ask no one else to become involved so this issue can be settled. Please disregard this part of the post so we can get straight to the point.

What is it you are arguing Curioscat?

The first argument I am making is that people such as myself, who have no identity other than Turkish and speak only Turkish as their mother tongue are ethnic Turks. I have provided a source which you have not even mentioned. When a source is provided, you have every right to reject it, however you must explain why. The Encyclopedia Britannica is a well respected source and agrees with me on the concept of ethnic Turks.

The second argument I am making is that ethnic Turks are considered Turkic, another well-known fact which is supported by the Encyclopedia Britannica.

I would like to know, clearly and directly, what your arguments against my two assertions are?

Thanks kindly for your gesture.
However, I haven't argued anything with you.

I have stated my own opinion, which you have disagreed with.
In my opinion ethnicity can be traced by ancestry.
Others trace ethnicity using genetics.
Other people such as yourself trace ethnicity through historical linguistic association.

As far as I am concerned.

1: The people that make up the modern state of Turkey are not in any significant way genetically linked to the Central Asian Turks.

*see Cinnioglu et al*

2: The majority of people that make up the modern state of Turkey do not have a historical linguistic "Turkic" association.

Turkish only became the state language in 1923 after 600 years of no official use. The elite used Ottoman, whilst the various different ethnicities living in Anatolia and the Ottoman lands used their own languages.

As for your argument, you can Identify as a Turk, however, unless you have a genetic affiliation or a historic linguistic association to "Turkic" you cannot officially be classified so.
You can be a "Turkish National" not ethnically Turkish.
It gets further messy, when we consider for 600 years the term Turk referred to all Muslims under the Ottoman empire.

Your argument is like saying a Congolese man is ethnically Chinese because he is 2nd/3rd generation in China and speaks mandarin and only identifies with his Chinese identity.
That is his personal identification, not a historic nor genetic connection.

As for the 2nd Argument you are making, I have no issue with "ethnic Turks" such as the Uighur, Tatar, Ozbeks are indeed Turkic.

The Turkish people in Turkey are not composed of only "ethnic" Turks. They are a mixture of many different ethnicities.

You are asserting that all people living in Turkey are ethnic Turks. I just stated that the majority of people living in Turkey are not Ethnic Turks.

This is your own quote:

Of course you're confused. You weren't not-confused to begin with. Turkish people, i.e ethnic Turks are native to Anatolia, the Caucasus and the Balkans. You can't swap around 'Turkish' and 'Turkic' at your leisure. Anatolian Turks are still Turks, perhaps not genetically the same as central Asian Turks, but then central Asian Turks aren't genetically identical to Siberian Turks. That is the reason Turkic is a language group and not a genetic marker Do you have proof that people were speaking a Turkic language in Anatolia prior to the Central Asian Turks coming through?
Do you have any proof genetically that the native people of Anatolia were Turks?
(not that it is possible)

If you do, please do share your findings.

In addition, for those of you that tried to deny of any connection to Europe, the Cinnioglu study clearly shows a more significant genetic connection to Europe than to central asia, through the study they produced.

To be honest after I asked you:

Those people include Albanians, Greeks, Assyrians, Arabs, Kurds, Bosnians, Bulgarians among others.

Are you suggesting that these people are to be held under the "Turkic Spectrum"
? and you answered:

Do you know what 'Turkic' is? Do you think it is a genetic term? 'Turkic' is a linguistic term that encompasses the Turkish language of the Republic of Turkey hence it also covers everyone who identifies as an ethnic Turk. So yes, I and every sensible linguist are not only suggesting but also asserting that 'these people' are to be held under the Turkic spectrum. I realised you couldn't decipher the difference between a Turkish citizen of X ethnicity and an Ethnic Turk.

If an Albanian has no historic linguistic link to the Turkic language. If he has no genetic link to the Turk people (central asia) and he is only speaking Turkish since 1925 for example, how can you class him as an "ethnic Turk"?

06-23-2011, 06:04 AM	#5
Thunderzee Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 421 Senior Member	As much as I appreciate a thread "dedicated" to my opinions, I do think that this should be a part of the thread that Evon posted. However, I shall try to answer as simply as I can for you. I've noticed you've made an excuse of all the long posts and your confused ambiguity concerning Turkish genetics so I've started this thread to make it clearer and more straightforward, where I ask no one else to become involved so this issue can be settled. Please disregard this part of the post so we can get straight to the point. What is it you are arguing Curioscat? The first argument I am making is that people such as myself, who have no identity other than Turkish and speak only Turkish as their mother tongue are ethnic Turks. I have provided a source which you have not even mentioned. When a source is provided, you have every right to reject it, however you must explain why. The Encyclopedia Britannica is a well respected source and agrees with me on the concept of ethnic Turks. The second argument I am making is that ethnic Turks are considered Turkic, another well-known fact which is supported by the Encyclopedia Britannica. I would like to know, clearly and directly, what your arguments against my two assertions are? Thanks kindly for your gesture. However, I haven't argued anything with you. I have stated my own opinion, which you have disagreed with. In my opinion ethnicity can be traced by ancestry. Others trace ethnicity using genetics. Other people such as yourself trace ethnicity through historical linguistic association. As far as I am concerned. 1: The people that make up the modern state of Turkey are not in any significant way genetically linked to the Central Asian Turks. see Cinnioglu et al 2: The majority of people that make up the modern state of Turkey do not have a historical linguistic "Turkic" association. Turkish only became the state language in 1923 after 600 years of no official use. The elite used Ottoman, whilst the various different ethnicities living in Anatolia and the Ottoman lands used their own languages. As for your argument, you can Identify as a Turk, however, unless you have a genetic affiliation or a historic linguistic association to "Turkic" you cannot officially be classified so. You can be a "Turkish National" not ethnically Turkish. It gets further messy, when we consider for 600 years the term Turk referred to all Muslims under the Ottoman empire. Your argument is like saying a Congolese man is ethnically Chinese because he is 2nd/3rd generation in China and speaks mandarin and only identifies with his Chinese identity. That is his personal identification, not a historic nor genetic connection. As for the 2nd Argument you are making, I have no issue with "ethnic Turks" such as the Uighur, Tatar, Ozbeks are indeed Turkic. The Turkish people in Turkey are not composed of only "ethnic" Turks. They are a mixture of many different ethnicities. You are asserting that all people living in Turkey are ethnic Turks. I just stated that the majority of people living in Turkey are not Ethnic Turks. This is your own quote: Of course you're confused. You weren't not-confused to begin with. Turkish people, i.e ethnic Turks are native to Anatolia, the Caucasus and the Balkans. You can't swap around 'Turkish' and 'Turkic' at your leisure. Anatolian Turks are still Turks, perhaps not genetically the same as central Asian Turks, but then central Asian Turks aren't genetically identical to Siberian Turks. That is the reason Turkic is a language group and not a genetic marker Do you have proof that people were speaking a Turkic language in Anatolia prior to the Central Asian Turks coming through? Do you have any proof genetically that the native people of Anatolia were Turks? (not that it is possible) If you do, please do share your findings. In addition, for those of you that tried to deny of any connection to Europe, the Cinnioglu study clearly shows a more significant genetic connection to Europe than to central asia, through the study they produced. To be honest after I asked you: Those people include Albanians, Greeks, Assyrians, Arabs, Kurds, Bosnians, Bulgarians among others. Are you suggesting that these people are to be held under the "Turkic Spectrum" ? and you answered: Do you know what 'Turkic' is? Do you think it is a genetic term? 'Turkic' is a linguistic term that encompasses the Turkish language of the Republic of Turkey hence it also covers everyone who identifies as an ethnic Turk. So yes, I and every sensible linguist are not only suggesting but also asserting that 'these people' are to be held under the Turkic spectrum. I realised you couldn't decipher the difference between a Turkish citizen of X ethnicity and an Ethnic Turk. If an Albanian has no historic linguistic link to the Turkic language. If he has no genetic link to the Turk people (central asia) and he is only speaking Turkish since 1925 for example, how can you class him as an "ethnic Turk"?
	Quote