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

**dogdesign** · 06-23-2011, 06:34 AM

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 linguistic association and self identification.

You can't have an opinion on what an 'ethnic Turk' is. It is a definition. It's like arguing that 'my opinion is that soldier means someone who cooks food in restaurants'. It's not up for debate, it is a definition. 'Ethnic Turk' is a term defined by reliable sources such as the Encyclopedia Britannica.

What you don't understand is I'm not arguing my opinion, I'm arguing in favour of a clear cut, objective definition.

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. This can be argued, though it does not alter the meaning of 'ethnic Turk'.

2: The majority of people that make up the modern state of Turkey do not have a historical linguistic "Turkic" association. Please define 'historical linguistic Turkic association'. Are you implying that language is passed on through blood?

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. Ottoman was structurally a Turkish language, just with many more influences. Turkish as spoken in Turkey is relatively new in its final form, but then so is modern English, are you implying that just because ethnic English people spoke a different form of English prior to this form that they cannot be considered 'ethnic English'?

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. So you believe the Encyclopedia Britannica is mistaken? Please explain why.

Its 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. That's not what I'm describing at all. The Congolese would have to be the ruling class of China who had introduced their language and culture over a stretch of 1000 years for what I'm saying to be anything similar. Every person who has only a Turkish identity in Turkey and is native to Anatolia is an ethnic Turk. This is a definition, it is not based on opinion.

Let me give you a better example of what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that the biological descendant of a Viking in Yorkshire is considered ethnic English regardless of his ancestry. What you're arguing would imply that every single person in the world needs to take a genetic test and turn out to be overwhelmingly part of one ethnicity to consider themselves 'ethnic' anything. That is unfeasible and contradicting of the term 'ethnic'.

As for the 2nd Argument you are making, I have no issue with "ethnic Turks" such as the Uighur, Tatar, Ozbeks are indeed Turkic. They are not 'ethnic Turks', they are ethnic Uygurs, ethnic Tatars or ethnic Ozbeks. The only nationality that refer to themselves as 'Turks' is that of the Republic of Turkey. Every person belonging to the majority of that country is an ethnic Turk by definition.

The Turkish people in Turkey are not composed of only "ethnic" Turks. They are a mixture of many different ethnicities. You're still disputing the meaning of 'ethnic Turk'. Ethnic Turk is a term that does not confine ethnicity to genetic ancestry. Do you think every other country in the world is genetically homogeneous apart from Turkey?

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. Well that is a wrong statement. I'm not stating opinion while you are. I'm stating clear cut definition, as stated by the Encyclopedia Britannica, you're insisting that the Encyclopedia Britannica is wrong, with no explanation as to why, while you've also admitted that you're arguing your opinion. That's all well and gravy, if of course we weren't arguing about an accepted definition of something. If this is your stance you must clearly state that you oppose the universal definition of 'ethnic Turk'.

These are your own quotes:

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) No, because I'm not saying that at all. Again you're confusing the meaning of 'ethnic Turk'.

Another quote of yours:

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:

and you answered:

I realised you couldn't decipher the difference between a Turkish citizen of X ethnicity and an Ethnic Turk. No, it's you that cannot differentiate between an ethnic Albanian and an ethnic Turk of Albanian descent. Please refute what is said by the Encylopedia Britannica. There is no progress to this discussion if you cannot understand the concept we are discussing.

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"? Assuming you mean someone with only a Turkish identity of Albanian descent; because he has lost his Albanian identity completely. Ethnic Turk refers to the ethnic majority of the Republic of Turkey, not to Kazakhstan.

The major problem in this discussion is you refuse to acknowledge the formal meaning of ethnic Turk. If you reject the universal definition of ethnic Turk there is nothing to argue, but you're not even aware that you are arguing opinion against fact.

06-23-2011, 06:34 AM	#7
dogdesign Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 374 Senior Member	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 linguistic association and self identification. You can't have an opinion on what an 'ethnic Turk' is. It is a definition. It's like arguing that 'my opinion is that soldier means someone who cooks food in restaurants'. It's not up for debate, it is a definition. 'Ethnic Turk' is a term defined by reliable sources such as the Encyclopedia Britannica. What you don't understand is I'm not arguing my opinion, I'm arguing in favour of a clear cut, objective definition. 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. This can be argued, though it does not alter the meaning of 'ethnic Turk'. 2: The majority of people that make up the modern state of Turkey do not have a historical linguistic "Turkic" association. Please define 'historical linguistic Turkic association'. Are you implying that language is passed on through blood? 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. Ottoman was structurally a Turkish language, just with many more influences. Turkish as spoken in Turkey is relatively new in its final form, but then so is modern English, are you implying that just because ethnic English people spoke a different form of English prior to this form that they cannot be considered 'ethnic English'? 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. So you believe the Encyclopedia Britannica is mistaken? Please explain why. Its 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. That's not what I'm describing at all. The Congolese would have to be the ruling class of China who had introduced their language and culture over a stretch of 1000 years for what I'm saying to be anything similar. Every person who has only a Turkish identity in Turkey and is native to Anatolia is an ethnic Turk. This is a definition, it is not based on opinion. Let me give you a better example of what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that the biological descendant of a Viking in Yorkshire is considered ethnic English regardless of his ancestry. What you're arguing would imply that every single person in the world needs to take a genetic test and turn out to be overwhelmingly part of one ethnicity to consider themselves 'ethnic' anything. That is unfeasible and contradicting of the term 'ethnic'. As for the 2nd Argument you are making, I have no issue with "ethnic Turks" such as the Uighur, Tatar, Ozbeks are indeed Turkic. They are not 'ethnic Turks', they are ethnic Uygurs, ethnic Tatars or ethnic Ozbeks. The only nationality that refer to themselves as 'Turks' is that of the Republic of Turkey. Every person belonging to the majority of that country is an ethnic Turk by definition. The Turkish people in Turkey are not composed of only "ethnic" Turks. They are a mixture of many different ethnicities. You're still disputing the meaning of 'ethnic Turk'. Ethnic Turk is a term that does not confine ethnicity to genetic ancestry. Do you think every other country in the world is genetically homogeneous apart from Turkey? 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. Well that is a wrong statement. I'm not stating opinion while you are. I'm stating clear cut definition, as stated by the Encyclopedia Britannica, you're insisting that the Encyclopedia Britannica is wrong, with no explanation as to why, while you've also admitted that you're arguing your opinion. That's all well and gravy, if of course we weren't arguing about an accepted definition of something. If this is your stance you must clearly state that you oppose the universal definition of 'ethnic Turk'. These are your own quotes: 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) No, because I'm not saying that at all. Again you're confusing the meaning of 'ethnic Turk'. Another quote of yours: 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: and you answered: I realised you couldn't decipher the difference between a Turkish citizen of X ethnicity and an Ethnic Turk. No, it's you that cannot differentiate between an ethnic Albanian and an ethnic Turk of Albanian descent. Please refute what is said by the Encylopedia Britannica. There is no progress to this discussion if you cannot understand the concept we are discussing. 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"? Assuming you mean someone with only a Turkish identity of Albanian descent; because he has lost his Albanian identity completely. Ethnic Turk refers to the ethnic majority of the Republic of Turkey, not to Kazakhstan. The major problem in this discussion is you refuse to acknowledge the formal meaning of ethnic Turk. If you reject the universal definition of ethnic Turk there is nothing to argue, but you're not even aware that you are arguing opinion against fact.
	Quote