Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2006 9:43:10 GMT 3
Then I say I'ma bigger and badder asian HAhahahahha
|
|
|
Post by bigmonkey2382 on Jan 15, 2007 7:18:18 GMT 3
I'm an oddity, being part white. I can grow a beard, but at age 24 I'm still bare in spots, so the only beard that would look anything good would be a goatee.
|
|
|
Post by temur on Jan 15, 2007 17:11:48 GMT 3
My mongol brother. My father's side is Mongol and my mom's side belong to Chinese. Hug you my brother. I'm an oddity, being part white. I can grow a beard, but at age 24 I'm still bare in spots, so the only beard that would look anything good would be a goatee.
|
|
|
Post by Atabeg on Jan 15, 2007 19:36:11 GMT 3
hmm I'm 19 and the beard is realy comming(chest hair 2 ) but it's mostly of the fact that my heritage is part likely gerogian as for the fact that my greatgrandfather comes from Ahiska(modernday georgia) and blond hair and blue eyes are verry common in our family well nor that we all have blue green eyes and blond hair. My mothersgrandfather is from bitlis(in turkey) who went to the dogu cepesi to fight(east front) and settled there. Don't feel less important to be mixed be rpoud of you highlander herritage from all the european people I feel clossest to the schots or i like yhem the most
|
|
|
Post by altaicmongol on Jan 30, 2007 13:08:27 GMT 3
Turks/Tyrks before the mongol invazion we bright color people! Kypchaks for example and most of Kazaks (Other Tyrk tribes that uniter in 15 century) had green eyes, light brown hair and white more yellow skin. While kyrgiz looked: tall, blue eyes and white more european. You can still find people like that in kazakstan and Kyrgistan. After mongols most of Tyrks are medium height, dark hair, brown eyes, dark skin! The winner takes the best land, women and horses!!! I don't mean to be rude, but that is the stupidest comment I have ever read. It shows your complete lack of respect for proper research and historical account. You know nothing about the history of GokTurks or Mongols. You know absolutely nothing it astounds me, it makes me think twice about the average intelligence of the internet user. Your claims are so wrong on so many levels. First of all, Turk and Mongol were never ethnic groups, NEVER. They were military confederations that united many people of the steppes, all of whom had many different languages, cultures, traditions, and ethnicities. Turk and Mongol are basically similar to German, the group that united all the Germanic tribes into a powerful German state. Second, various DNA tests prove that modern day Kazaks, Kyrgyz, and Mongols descend from the same Huns, Turks, and Mongol confederations. In other words, while the there were various ethnic groups in all three military confederations, the predominant race was MONGOLOID/YELLOW/ASIATIC/ETC. Not only DNA tests, but various artifacts, ancient statues, historical drawings, and sculptures show that Turks were a predominantly Mongoloid race. The Orkhon statues in Mongolia of the old GokTurk leader KulTegin is Asiatic. Third, you were right that the former people in Central Asia were not Mongoloids. They were Indo-European Sogdians. However, they did not speak an Altaic language like the Turks did, but a langauge similar to other Iranic languages. Their culture and religion and racial character was very different to the maurauding Turks. After Genghis Khan annihilated the rest of the Sogdians, Central Asia became a primarily Altaic Asiatic land, no longer Indo-European. Fourth, many Kazaks and Kyrgyz can successfully trace their lineage back to the times of Genghis Khan. They are the rightful heirs to the ir nations as they are the descendents of Genghis Khan's soldiers as 90% of the army were of former Turkic allegiances. So basically, any Kazak that talks crap about the Mongols during the 13th century is basically talking crap about themselves. Even Tamerlane, a hero to many Central Asians pledged allegiance to Genghis Khan and the Mongol Empire and saught to re-emulate its former glory. His statues portray him as a Mongoloid Asiatic and he was actually quite tall, like Genghis Khan. If you need more info, feel free to get owned in a little game of history before you write about things where you have no idea what you're talking about.
|
|
|
Post by altaicmongol on Jan 30, 2007 13:15:53 GMT 3
Furthermore, more proof to quell your worries. "From the 3d century B.C., Central Asia experienced nomadic expansions of Altaic-speaking East Asian-looking people, and their incursions continued for hundreds of years, beginning with the Hsiung-Nu (who may be ancestors of the Huns), in 300 B.C., and followed by the Turks, in the 1st millennium A.D., and the Mongol expansions of the 13th century. High levels of haplogroup 10 and its derivative, haplogroup 36, are found in most of the Altaic-speaking populations and are a good indicator of the genetic impact of these nomadic groups. The expanding waves of Altaic-speaking nomads involved not only eastern Central Asia, where their genetic contribution is strong, as is shown in figure 7d but also regions farther west, like Iran, Iraq, Anatolia, and the Caucasus, as well as Europe, which was reached by both the Huns and the Mongols. In these western regions, however, the genetic contribution is low or undetectable (Wells et al. 2001), even though the power of these invaders was sometimes strong enough to impose a language replacement, as in Turkey and Azerbaijan (Cavalli-Sforza et al. 1994). The difference could be due to the population density of the different geographical areas. Eastern regions of Central Asia must have had a low population density at the time, so an external contribution could have had a great genetic impact. In contrast, the western regions were more densely inhabited, and it is likely that the existing populations were more numerous than the conquering nomads, therefore leading to only a small genetic impact. Thus, the admixture estimate from northeast Asia is high in the east, but is barely detectable west of Uzbekistan." www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v71n3/023927/023927.html?erFrom=-6182819269366451666GuestDNA evidence right there for you, modern science prevails over wishful thinking and propaganda! Science confirms history, the fight is over.
|
|
|
Post by Saran on Jan 30, 2007 15:01:52 GMT 3
^Well done, Altaicmongol. You posted a couple of the most accurate posts I've ever read on the steppes.
|
|
|
Post by balamir on Jan 30, 2007 16:40:01 GMT 3
altaic mongol,Turks are not confederation of many peoples,you are talking about theories.
|
|
|
Post by BAWIR$AQ on Jan 30, 2007 17:29:31 GMT 3
I couldn't login there. Could you please copy the content here?
|
|
|
Post by aca on Jan 30, 2007 18:20:58 GMT 3
I couldn't login there. Could you please copy the content here? Yeah, me too
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Jan 30, 2007 21:45:59 GMT 3
AltaicMongol, the Turks and Mongols were both political confederations and ethnic groups. It's very wrong of you to say that they were never ethnic terms.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Jan 30, 2007 22:08:38 GMT 3
First of all, Turk and Mongol were never ethnic groups, NEVER. They were military confederations that united many people of the steppes, all of whom had many different languages, cultures, traditions, and ethnicities. Turk and Mongol are basically similar to German, the group that united all the Germanic tribes into a powerful German state. there never was a state that unified all Germanic tribes, nor does or did a tribe with the name "German" exist. the tribes of the present German state were unified by the Franks under Charlemagne.
|
|
|
Post by altaicmongol on Jan 31, 2007 1:42:45 GMT 3
I couldn't login there. Could you please copy the content here? There is too much content, you don't have to login, it's a public site. Try copying and pasting the whole link into your web browser again. www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/issues/v71n3/023927/023927.html?erFrom=-6182819269366451666GuestAnd for the people who insist that Mongol and Turk were not military confederations, alas. "In modern scholarship the names by which barbarian peoples are designated are usually thought to refer to racially, linguistically, and culturally defined ethnic groups (with "culture" often being just a label for the way of life of a linguistically-defined group -- e.g. "Polynesian culture"). For a variety of reasons I think that this practice is unhelpful when discussing the steppe peoples. The large steppe confederations such as the Huns or the Mongols were never mono-lingual or racially uniform, but were coalitions of diverse origin. Even the component tribes were mixed: practices such as kidnapping, slave-trading, exogamy, fostering, alliance, adoption and coerced military recruitment meant that bilingualism and intermarriage were highly prevalent. Furthermore, the mobility of the steppe contrasted sharply with the rootedness of peasant families who lived generation after generation in a single village. The steppe world was fluid and frequently-stirred, and by and large the steppe peoples shared a common steppe culture defined by pastoralism and war rather than by ethnicity, and the peoples spoken of in the civilized histories are normally armies: the steppe enemies of the civilized world. For the record, the earliest steppe barbarians were, by and large, Caucasians speaking Iranian languages (the Scythians, et al); but later on East Asian peoples, speaking first Turkish and later Mongol languages, replaced them. But for the reasons given above, to speak of separate Scythian, Turkish, and Mongol cultures is misleading. At any given time there might be difference between the eastern steppe and the western steppe, and over time there were historical changes, but there was no significant systematic contrast between Mongol-ness, Turkish-ness, and Scythian-ness. (To spare the reader, further discussion of this point has been relegated to Appendix One)." www.idiocentrism.com/turan.who.htm
|
|
|
Post by altaicmongol on Jan 31, 2007 1:57:46 GMT 3
First of all, Turk and Mongol were never ethnic groups, NEVER. They were military confederations that united many people of the steppes, all of whom had many different languages, cultures, traditions, and ethnicities. Turk and Mongol are basically similar to German, the group that united all the Germanic tribes into a powerful German state. there never was a state that unified all Germanic tribes, nor does or did a tribe with the name "German" exist. the tribes of the present German state were unified by the Franks under Charlemagne. Actually, they were never fully unified under the Holy Roman Empire and were just referred to as Frankish kingdoms. The Germans were actually united under Bismarck in the 1800's. But you are missing the point. These Germanic tribes were very diverse in origin and culture, and assimilated to many different cultures around it. But they were different on a micro-level compared to other people like the Italians or the British. Germany was basically a union of many tiny Germanic speaking kingdoms and peoples, they were never uniform in language or origin. Only until they were united into one German empire did they begin to assimilate into one unique German people. The same can be seen with Turks. They were the next generation of Huns. The Hunnic empire fell apart and the allegiance to the Hunnu was lost among a lot of steppe people. So they united under the GokTurks and their leader KulTegin. If you want to say that Turk is an ethnic group, then I hope you are fine with the fact that it was one guy or group who coined the Turk name and all the other steppe tribes followed suit. Yeah, really sounds ethnic to me rather than a military confederation. Do you people know anything about steppe history, this isn't Europe you know.
|
|
|
Post by altaicmongol on Jan 31, 2007 2:40:47 GMT 3
altaic mongol,Turks are not confederation of many peoples,you are talking about theories. Balamir, are you ready to get pwned? Are you ready, please don't cry and hate yourself now. Here you go. Gök Türk and the Khazars: 6th - 8th century AD "The first historical mention of the Turks is in Chinese accounts of a great empire established by a confederation of nomads in the 6th century AD. Stretching from north of the Great Wall in the east to the Black Sea in the west, the empire is known to the Chinese as T'u Küe and to the Turks themselves as Gök Türk, meaning Sky Turk." www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=aa98This isn't some geocities hack site so you got nothing, please no more attacks on the messenger rather than the message, it's getting very tiresome.
|
|