|
|
Post by aykurt on Dec 28, 2006 0:21:07 GMT 3
Cossacks are not Russians!  Cossacks settled along the Ural (Yaik) river and Orenburg was their captial, just because some weirdo Commies made Orenburg capital of some fancy ASSR means nothing...  I was showing how historically the area was inhabited by Kypchak tribes, who formed a majority as well as geographic continuity up until relatively recent times. The Cossacks can claim what they want, its still not theirs  |
|
|
|
Post by Verinen Paroni on Dec 28, 2006 0:55:22 GMT 3
I know them,they louk Turco-Mongolo-Fin =).But today,they are one of the Turkic peoples. I say that they are Turkic+Finnic. |
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Dec 28, 2006 1:13:59 GMT 3
Cossacks are not Russians! Cossacks settled along the Ural (Yaik) river and Orenburg was their captial, just because some weirdo Commies made Orenburg capital of some fancy ASSR means nothing... I was showing how historically the area was inhabited by Kypchak tribes, who formed a majority as well as geographic continuity up until relatively recent times. The Cossacks can claim what they want, its still not theirs yes it is, historically north america was indian lands, today they speak English, times change. |
|
|
|
Post by aykurt on Dec 28, 2006 1:38:54 GMT 3
yes it is, historically north america was indian lands, today they speak English, times change. It was meant as tongue in cheek, however your right, times change, hence why only 50 people claimed to be Cossack in Orenburg. The largest ethnic group is Russian. All the figures ive used are from the 2002 Russian Census. So historically Turkic, and today the largest minority in Orenburg is also Turkic. Cossacks are insignificant. |
|
|
|
Post by BAWIR$AQ on Dec 28, 2006 2:05:43 GMT 3
Cossacks are not Russians! Yes, Cossacks are Russians. Cossacks ( kazachestvo) were a major tsarist-era Russian social class such as the nobility ( dvoryanstvo), the clergy ( duhovenstvo), merchants ( kupechestvo), the petty bourgeoisie ( meshanstvo), or the peasantry ( krestyanstvo). The mixed ethnic origins of Cossacks is not an argument for calling them non-Russians. In the imperial Russia, "Russian" could mean any person who served the tsar and converted to Orthodox Christianity. Many of the non-Russians and non-Slavs were Russified and considered themselves Russians. Great Russian poet Pushkin was of Ethiopian origin, Lermontov was Scottish, Dal' was Danish, Karamzin, Kutuzov, and many of the Russian nobility were of Tatar (Golden-Hordian) origin. The examples of Germans and Jews are numerous. But all of them served the Russian tsar, called themselves Russians, and many were Russian patriots. |
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Dec 28, 2006 2:09:07 GMT 3
yeah OK, they were Russians by nationality but not by ethnicity. Cossacks considdered themselves different from ethnical Russians.
|
|
|
|
Post by BAWIR$AQ on Dec 28, 2006 2:31:49 GMT 3
yeah OK, they were Russians by nationality but not by ethnicity. Cossacks considdered themselves different from ethnical Russians. The real ethnic Russians are probably preserved only in the villages among the peasantry. The imperial status of Russia really changed the definition of the word 'Russian' ( russkiy). It was no longer designated to solely the descendants of Kievan Rus', but to many outsiders. The city population, the nobility and military social classes were all of mixed ethnic origins. Cossacks may have felt different from the Russian peasants, but in their mixed ethnicity they were no different from many other 'Russians'. Anyway, in today's Russia some Cossacks try to play the game of calling themselves a separate ethnic group to get some political priveleges. Duh! This is ridiculous!  Cossacks were simply a military class who accepted almost any ethnic group who followed their rules. Imagine if the French Foreign Legion would proclaim themsemselves a separate ethnic group legionnaires... ;D You get the point. |
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Dec 28, 2006 3:05:43 GMT 3
LOL yes i know, i must admit the modern so called Cossack Revival effort is a little ridiculous to me, espcially because most Cossacks have been killed by the Soviets anyways, and those who did not either migrated or have blended into the Russian society. Cossackdom as a whole is unfortunately a thing only existing in history books nowadays.
|
|
|
|
Post by karakhan on May 14, 2007 3:07:27 GMT 3
The Bashkorts are a mix of Finno-Uralic people, and Turco-Mongols that came with the Golden Horde.
you can obviously see it in their faces.
it depends where you go, some areas have more of the Tatar looking Bashkorts, other areas you see more Mongolic features. But in general Bashkorts look somewhere between Kazakhs and Tatars.
However it should be noted Bashkorts are more similar to Tatars than Kazakhs, especially in the language. Culturally, Bashkorts gave up nomadic life after the Tatars did, but before the Kazakhs did. Many became settled farmers and bee keepers.
There was a cultural and linguistic continuity between Kazakhs and Tatars.. based on that Tatarstan and Bashkortostan should connect to Kazakhstan, but of course, the Soviets made Orenberg and all the other neighboring provinces to be non ethnic oblasts. had they became independent, they would've at least connected to Kazakhstan.
In anycase, only the Tatars are really independent minded and to a limited degree.
There's some rivalry between Tatars and Bashkorts, especially since they are so similar and live near each other, yet compete for influence. Bashkorts in general, aren't too independent minded, but more on autonomy within Russia. You will not find too many Turanists.
|
|
|
|
Post by nisse on May 14, 2007 17:53:16 GMT 3
is it really truth , what evidence do you have, or fact to support it
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 15, 2007 8:09:26 GMT 3
I'm sure some have mixed with Fins but this doesn't make them "Turkic+FInnic", they are Turks, that's it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Verinen Paroni on May 15, 2007 21:17:51 GMT 3
I'm sure some have mixed with Fins but this doesn't make them "Turkic+FInnic", they are Turks, that's it. Not Finns but Finnic. |
|
|
|
Post by karakhan on May 15, 2007 23:26:57 GMT 3
The Finnic group is quite large, Estonians and Finnish people belong to one sub group of the Finnic group. The Volga Tatars and Bashkirs are mixed with the Finnic group that contain the Permyaks/Mordvins, Mari, etc. If you look at a map, these finnic groups are neighbors to the Bashkirs, Tatars and Chuvash, so there is alot of mixing between them. In general, the Tatars and Chuvash tend to look very similar to the Mari and Mordvins, while say the Kazakhs (another Kypchak ethnic group) look the most Asiatic. the Bashkirs are somewhere inbetween Tatars and Kazakhs when it comes to looks. Keep in mind that before the Soviets started creating the framework of ethnicity, Turkic peoples were a gradient. the transition from Tatar to Kazakh was very blurry with Bashkirs being somewhere in the middle. Likewise transition between Kazakh to Kyrgyz, Kazakh to Uzbek, Kazakh to Turkmen, also existed. But I won't get into too much details about that because that is unrelated to this thread. Some pics of modern Bashkirs, you can see both the Turco-Mongol and Finnic features   ![]() konkurs.yeshlek.ru/data/media/18/P1050735.JPG[/img] |
|
|
|
Post by BAWIR$AQ on May 20, 2007 5:18:21 GMT 3
In anycase, only the Tatars are really independent minded Bashkorts in general, aren't too independent minded, but more on autonomy within Russia. You will not find too many Turanists. I do not agree. Many Bashqorts are nationalistic and proud people. Traditionally, Bashqorts were more independent and warrior-like than Tatars due to their semi-nomadic lifestyle and national-liberation struggle. There's a long and impressive history of centuries-long struggle of Bashqorts against the Russian empire full of numerous revolts and uprisings. One of the national symbols of today's Bashqortostan is Salawat Yulayev, a rebellious leader who fought against imperial Russia.  Bashqort people gave the Turkic world such a brilliant mind like Zeki Velidi Togan, a prominent Turkologist, pan-Turkist, and a Bashqort revolutionary leader.  Bashqorts deserve as much appreciation and respect as Tatars. Today, Moscow uses the rivalries between the two nations to prevent any union among them and separatist sentiments. I read many topics where Tatars and Bashqorts argued among themselves. It's really ugly.  |
|
|
|
Post by karakhan on May 20, 2007 21:13:04 GMT 3
There's nothing to disagree with, my comments are based on Bashkorts of today, not the ones of the past like your examples. Perhaps I should've detailed that. Yes, there were many great Bashkort nationalists. But nowadays its a bit different. There's a big rivalry between Bashkorts and the Tatars of Bashkortostan. as you know, the Tatars are fiercely independent minded and proud, but this really annoys many Bashkorts who nowadays, view themselves as distinct from the Tatars, and do not want to get involved in any idea Tatar nationalists conjure up (like the recreation of a Idel-Ural republic). I say this because I am part Bashkort and that is what I experience when I visited Ufa and the surrounding areas. Personally, if you ask me, I always consider Bashkorts and Tatars to be the same, the only key difference is that the Bashkorts settled down later and thus did not mix with Finnic people as much as the Tatars did. Unfortunately, i also find your average Bashkort to not have any Pan-Turkic sentiment at all, they do not have strong views towards Turkey, Kazakhstan, or any of the other Turkic countries or regions |
|
Cossacks settled along the Ural (Yaik) river and Orenburg was their captial, just because some weirdo Commies made Orenburg capital of some fancy ASSR means nothing... 
Cossacks were simply a military class who accepted almost any ethnic group who followed their rules. Imagine if the French Foreign Legion would proclaim themsemselves a separate ethnic group legionnaires... ;D You get the point. 
