|
Post by Subu'atai on Dec 8, 2008 16:42:22 GMT 3
Hehe, I have plans of my own in regards to our "strong leader", I'm not certain one may exist amongst our present generation. But we can of course, as parents of our future generation - MAKE SURE AS HELL HE IS BORN
|
|
|
Post by nomadi on Dec 8, 2008 16:47:15 GMT 3
singup my websiteeee
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Dec 8, 2008 17:10:13 GMT 3
Ok ok I will lol
|
|
|
Post by nomadi on Dec 8, 2008 17:14:34 GMT 3
ok
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Dec 8, 2008 21:47:03 GMT 3
Welcome Nomadi to the SHF. Good luck for your board. But this is a common mistake and enemy propaganda(E.U, America and Israel) that Anatolian Turks mixed too much with other nations. If you come and travel Turkey, You will see that It is a big lie. I'm sorry about it our members also have redone this mistakes several times. Race-Mixing is in the high in the big metropols not the whole country.(For Turkey and Anatolia) I can bet for everything that race mixing is more than Turkey in Central Asia. Especially Kazakhs are culturally Half Russians. Most of them cannot speak their own language and married with Russians, Ukraines etc. It's anything but true. Kazakhs together with Kyrgyz are perhaps the most "nomadic" (I mean their mentality) people of Central Asia. Intermixing with Russians and others happens but it's not common. Also depending on a region of Kazakhstan the level of the Russian influence varies. North-East - Russian influence is visible. South-West - Russian influence is weak. In fact, Southern Kazakhstan is one of the few places of the former USSR where Russians and the others (even some Germans) speak Kazakh. 90% of Kazakhs know their geneology for many generations. Do many other Turks know that as well? In some parts of Uzbekistan you cannot see clear Turkic faces because of the heavy race-mixing with native Tajiks, Sogdians and other Iranic elements. Other problem in Central Asia is Tribe Nationalism. Historically people had some conflict and they are still going on. Soviet policy and propaganda made these conflicts deeper and Turkic Identity, Culture was destroyed by Soviet Imperialism too. What is Turkic faces? How you determine Turkic? A person can look Mongoloid like Kul-Tegin and be Turkic at the same time he can be light skinned with blue eyes like Ataturk and be Turkic as well. Turkicness is defined by the culture, by self-consciosness, by mentality etc. Otherwise if you define it by some racial traits you will always be confused and will come up with nothing I believe that only a strong leader like Modun Shanyu, Chinghis Kaghan or Amir Timur can united Turks and Mongols together. However, it seems that there is no attention about this union from these countries so it seems as a dream for the current situation. I don't think that there should be some one like Amir Timur etc. who will be uniting everybody with fire and sword. One must emphasize the rich history, culture and beautiful language and build on this, rather than looking for another mega-hero. If Turkic countries stay close together and feel their unity they can unite naturally like Europe did. But this picture is too idealistic and there are many obstacles to overcome. But in any case, any kind of coersion on this way will make it even worse.
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Dec 8, 2008 22:12:31 GMT 3
Greetings Nomadi, welcome aboard.
Even though I don't like pan-ideologies to cause trouble in my place, I still allow such other sites to become our partners (like the Pan-Mongol Forum). So I will add you to our Partners List.
Btw, you should get rid of your thought regarding the non-Turkicness of Anatolian Turks. We have plenty of threads here where we have discussed this issue in detail.
And another note: I noticed that you have boards in Turkish and Mongolian. Proboards does not allow any non-English languages, so if they see your site, they probably would close it down without a warning, just like what they did to some other history forums I used to moderate. You better should remove all the non-English content, or buy your own site where you have anything in any language you like.
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Dec 8, 2008 22:25:27 GMT 3
Turks say to kazakhs,kyrgyz,uzbeks " You are Turks " They said: " No. We are Turky (Turkic)[Turkic language speaker nations ] " Fighting... ) My Tuvan friends don't understand why Turks in Turkey call the Tuvans "Tuva Turks" speaking "Tuva Turkish". The Tuvans say that the Turks left them. Therefore it should be Turkish Tuvan, not Tuva Turkish! ;D Also, I think it was Sarmat who mentioned that the "Turk" identity is more based on culture, etc. and not race. We can also replace the word "Turk" here with any other ethnicity. On the other hand it must be realized that groups can also be distinguished from each other genetically, although those divisions may not necessarily constitute what encompasses many people's current idea of "race".
|
|
|
Post by ALTAR on Dec 9, 2008 2:37:35 GMT 3
It's anything but true. Kazakhs together with Kyrgyz are perhaps the most "nomadic" (I mean their mentality) people of Central Asia. Intermixing with Russians and others happens but it's not common. Also depending on a region of Kazakhstan the level of the Russian influence varies. North-East - Russian influence is visible. South-West - Russian influence is weak. I mean that part and metropols of Kazakhstan. Almati(ex-capital) has still sizeable Russian population too. Although It is in the south of Kazakhstan. Many Kazakhs in the northern regions married with Russians. They dont like Southern Kazakhs, Uzbek or other Turkic Nation. 90% of Kazakhs know their geneology for many generations. Do many other Turks know that as well? ;D It is necessary for Kazakhs who still live in the steppes and the countryside of the country. Its related with their clan system(named taipa in Caucasus or Chechenya). In Turkmens and Anatolian Turks have also strong info about their ancestry, family history, region and etc. Its not an only situation for Kazakhs. What is Turkic faces? How you determine Turkic? A person can look Mongoloid like Kul-Tegin and be Turkic at the same time he can be light skinned with blue eyes like Ataturk and be Turkic as well. Turkicness is defined by the culture, by self-consciosness, by mentality etc. Otherwise if you define it by some racial traits you will always be confused and will come up with nothing Its your opinion. I respect but dont agree with you some points. You cannot convert a Jew, Russian or American to a Turk with only speaking Turkish or cultural knowledge. About physical apperance, I add only two pics for you. Two of them are racially pure Turks from different places. A Tuvan girl from Mongolia, Tsengel Region Ataturk, Founder of Turkey, A Balkan Turk(descendand of Yoruks, Nomadic Turcomans who were settled Balkans by the ottomans from Anatolia) Turkicness isnot related with skin colours, lightness, darkness. I mentioned the physical differences btwn Iranians and Turk. You understand the differences at the first sight btwn a Turk and a kurd in Turkey. Another point, Iraqi Turcomans have a bit dark skin than Anatolian Turks, but you can understand them that they are different from Arabs and Kurds of Iraq. I don't think that there should be some one like Amir Timur etc. who will be uniting everybody with fire and sword. One must emphasize the rich history, culture and beautiful language and build on this, rather than looking for another mega-hero. If Turkic countries stay close together and feel their unity they can unite naturally like Europe did. But this picture is too idealistic and there are many obstacles to overcome. But in any case, any kind of coersion on this way will make it even worse. You got the point wrong. I dont mean that the new leaders will do the same things like the ex ones but they must be powerful like them in every situation(politics, military and the most important economy). I dont mention sword, gun, weapon and other similar things. Without a strong and faithful leader or leaders, Turkic Unity seems impossible. Its my opinion and historical facts are supported me.
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Dec 9, 2008 4:56:17 GMT 3
sarmatI'm rather surprised by your answer bratan, I expected something more, 'nationalist' heh
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Dec 9, 2008 11:29:09 GMT 3
*Agrees with Altar Yabġu*
|
|
|
Post by nomadi on Dec 9, 2008 13:03:14 GMT 3
Greetings Nomadi, welcome aboard. Btw, you should get rid of your thought regarding the non-Turkicness of Anatolian Turks. We have plenty of threads here where we have discussed this issue in detail. My thought regarding not Turkicness of Anatolian Turks. . So delete this thread. I closed my site. My website not good. ( My firs experience )
|
|
|
Post by H. İhsan Erkoç on Dec 9, 2008 18:34:00 GMT 3
Allright. Done.
|
|
|
Post by Temüjin on Dec 9, 2008 20:19:13 GMT 3
Two of them are racially pure Turks from different places. that's bullnuts, racial pureness does not exist, it does not exist in the Steppe and it does not exist in the 20th century. the Steppe is the least pure region in the whole world due to the nature of Steppe Nomads who moved form one place to the other and stole and bred with captured women. to claim Steppe people are pure is like claiming rivers don't flow! and what exactly is "pure" anyways? like inbreeding? do you know how inbreds look like? anyways, here's some pictures for you of "pure" africans: and not to claim they are just albinos, here's what albinos look like:
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Dec 9, 2008 23:24:47 GMT 3
Two of them are racially pure Turks from different places. that's bullnuts, racial pureness does not exist, it does not exist in the Steppe and it does not exist in the 20th century. the Steppe is the least pure region in the whole world due to the nature of Steppe Nomads who moved form one place to the other and stole and bred with captured women. to claim Steppe people are pure is like claiming rivers don't flow! Wow, those photos are interesting. Where did you get them? *edit* By the way, is this supposed to be a serious discussion? I don't want to get into a useless argument. I'd rather agree to disagree. I'll just sum up my position by saying I agree with Temujin. If that Tsengel Tuvan girl is supposed to be representative of a "racially pure Turk" then I suppose that means all Turks are Scythian-Mongol mutts? Hey, maybe that ain't far from the truth?
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Dec 9, 2008 23:38:33 GMT 3
I complitely agree. Racial purity is useless nonsense. The one who practices it will end up with imbreeding and genetic disorders. Good example is Ashkenazi Jews who have a number of crazy diseases which are only specific to them and developed due to the desire to keep "racial purity" which of course resulted in inbreeding. My impression is that Nomadic people these natural laws very well, that's why they by all means avoided the marriages within their own clans and tried to get women from other clans or steal them from their enemies.
|
|