did you get my message yakamoz?

Why don’t you try using commonsense, Ravem, that’s a good start, and not be so smug and sure of yourself because there’s enough holes in your claims that if they were a golf course a blind man will be able to get a hole-in-one every time he takes a swing.

And, Ravem, if you do reply at least try to elaborate instead of your single-sentence retorts, eg “Optimatom, genetics proves this— full stop” Learn to elaborate please. And try to address all my points this time.

This is the internet, Ravem, and your saying you’re into anthropology means squat to me, especially since it’s obvious your opinions have more to do with politics then the actual study of human development. And after reading some of your other posts, I can be excused for taking what you say with a grain of salt.

This statement alone proves your ignorance on the subject:

.

Athenians and Spartans belonged to the Ionian and Dorian tribes respectively and they both spoke their own dialects that though different were still Greek. Also, socio-politically their development was a contrast. But going by your logic then that one of two weren’t really Greek.

The same people can develop differently when separated by political boundaries and/or geography. Laps, for example, in different regions of Scandinavia cannot even understand one another’s dialect but they still remain the same people and their various dialects are still considered Lappish. Closer to our region, you only have to look at Italy. The differences there in cultural identity and language is immense in such a small and tight geographical location. And it isn’t even a north and south divide; it’s also evident in adjoining regions all over the peninsular. But they are all still Italians.

Even with your Turkish republic, at its birth there would have most certainly have been the various regional Turkish dialects in Anatolia as well as the “foreign” tongues of the “Turks” whom came from the Balkans and Caucasus. It was the standization of the Turkish language as to why you all speak the same Turkish today. The same happened in Greece and Italy. BTW, I’m friends with Turks in Melb and they’ve told me they have trouble understanding when Turkish-Cypriots speak their island idiom. So does that mean they aren’t really Turkish? Possibly Muslim Greek-Cypriots? Turkkan, are you really one of us!

Listen here, matey, while your “expertise” is restricted to selective internet searches, I’m actually a part of it.

In Australia, one auntie is married to a Thessalian and another uncle is married to lady from Serres in Macedonia (whose family were refugees from Eastern Thrace. Two cousins are married to (Greek) Macedonians. A godbrother is married to a Cypriot. In Greece, an auntie is married to a Cretan and another cousin who lives in Athens is married to a guy also from Kavala. A Greek best mate is an Alexandrian who’s married to a girl from Sterea Ellada. And there’s more! I also am friends with a real Pontian (can speak the dialect and all) who’s proudly married to a Greek girl whose family were refugees from Aivali/ Ayvalik (call him a Hellenized Turk and you better start running, matey). There’s even an Athenian mate of mine (ie born there and came here in his 20’s) who is married to a Turkish-Cypriot girl he met here. When I first met her I never knew she was a TC, which I found out later as she speaks fluent Greek. And I’m also friends with a real Politis (ie Greek from Istanbul who refers to himself as a Hellene and not a Rum). In short, in a very personal level I’m in contact with Greeks from all different regions, so hence why I can dismiss your claim that “Greeks vary greatly from region to region”.

So let’s start again. Are you sure you would like to give me a lesson about my people?

And as for the non-Greek element in Greece today, Vlachs, Armenians, Slavs in the north and Gypsies, along with the Turks and Pomaks in Western Thrace, still remain distinct communities. Most of the Slavs who overran western Greece during the middle-ages were eventually evicted, and those that remained albeit in smaller pockets where eventually absorbed as were the Albanian-speaking Arvanites. And even then their numbers were not overwhelming to permanently change Greece’s demographics/ethnic status quo. And besides, Slavs, Vlachs, Illyrians, Franks, etc, they’re a Caucasian people anyway. But then we have the obvious common denominator, that overall Greeks share the same common Mediterranean characteristics which are consistent for the region we belong in. Because may they have short heads or long, big noses or small, olive skin or fair, black or light hair, there really is nothing strikingly between a Pontian in Thessaloniki to a Cretan as we’re all Greek to everyone, regardless of skin shade or nostril size. And that’s my point.

Well, it is more believable then what you claim. So we Greeks, who’ve been in the region since time immemorial are of questionable ancestry and yet today’s Turks have always been in Asia Minor for the last 40,000 years.

And so please, spare me any condescending opinions as well as your endorsement of Fallmerayer’s thesis. And one more time, since you obviously missed it above, I never claimed Greeks are some kind of pure race. It’s you who are applying Nazi generic theories, stating because every modern Greek doesn’t resemble something similar to the Children of the Corn therefore we can’t claim any affinity with out ancestors of antiquity or our own who came as refugees from Asia Minor. Of course we have different physical types, which is consistent with all Caucasoid peoples (it also applies to today’s Turks). The Ancient Greeks were never a unique race, unless in ancient times there existed “Hellenoids”?

From Britannica

And these “physical differences” are obvious in every region of Greece and are not necessarily restricted. Both my parents are Peloponnesian and yet on my mum’s side her family is dark-haired and olive-skinned whereas on my dad’s side his family is light-haired and fair-skinned. So I’ve see these “vast difference” everyday of my life.

either.But you do, when you claim a continuous line from the Hittites to today, which also includes the Greeks of Asia Minor:

I wrote

And your response:

As for the genetics of the Asia Minor Greeks, I found it the same way you found your “genetic evidence” via the internet:

As for the Greeks of Asia Minor, their historical development is just as important since it proves Greek settlements in Asia Minor during antiquity was an extension of the Greek world, just as I stated above, and which you ignored, and once more this is evident from their participation in the ancient Olympics, only open to Greeks, to Athenian support of the Ionian Revolt and the formation of the Delian League, which included the Greek city-states across the coast of western Asia Minor.

But it also just can’t be assumed that all the peoples of Anatolia inter-bred. It’s not only simplistic (as interpreted to fulfill your own nationalistic agenda) but also illogical. The Phrygians, whom is believed migrated from Thrace and the Persians, who came in the wake of the Persian conquest of ancient Lydia, where mainly concentrated in the interior of Asia Minor, whereas the Greeks remained a coast people, areas that remained solid Greek during the Seljuk conquest.

Even with the Hellenization of the “native people” there also came further Greek settlement. Seriously, what was the chance of Greeks from Smyrni and Kaiseri inter-marrying in significant numbers? The only noticeable settlement in that period settlement were Slavs evicted from the western Morea in the early 9th century by the Byzantines and which ironically (to this thread) was repopulated with Greeks from…Asia Minor! As for the Greeks of Pontus, that was a region settled by Greeks in antiquity and not Hellenized. Its geographic position (sea to the north and mountain range to the south) was vital hence why it remained a strong hold of Hellenism until the early 20th century.

The Empire of Trapezountas only fell in 1470, and was not affected by the change of status quo after Manzikert. If there was any inter-marriage by Greeks it would have been with Caucasoid people such as Armenians and Georgians, rather than those from Asia Minor. But yet again, Armenians and Georgians always had their own distinct communities and languages, as well as national heartlands. As for why they spoke a different dialect to the mainland Greeks is because, as I also stated above, was due to politics and more so geography. This explains why the Pontian dialect developed separately from the demotic of mainland Greece. But it’s not a different language. It’s actually considered more closer to the Ancient Greek language especially with its pronunciation. Another difference is, from what I understand, is it also has more Turkish loan words. Even demotic has its Turkish loan words. Centuries of Venetian and Genovese rule also left many Italian and Latin words in the vocabulary of especially southern Greek. Does that mean Peloponnesians, Aegean and Ionian Islanders are actually Hellenized Italians?

So it was possible pockets of homogenous Greek communities did remained even in central Asia Minor.

When I visited Goreme in ’06 a tour guide, after he found out I was Greek, suggested I hire a Vesper and go visit a town called called Mustafapasha (gr Sinasos). I don’t know if you have ever been there but they’re very conspicuous about the town’s Greek past, as seen by signs reading “Greek mansion” and “Greek church”.

I also went on another tour to a village called Cavusin (gr Chora), and where the guide pointed out that you could differentiate the old Greek homes from the Turkish ones, as the Greeks tended to decorate the exteriors with floral etchings. Thus even during the Ottoman period, Greeks remained a distinct community to the Turks.

Oh, I definitely saw that. However, since my argument with you is about the origins and ethnicity of the Asia Minor Greeks, I didn’t deem this relevant to reply to. And what does this show anyway? It’s obvious that most of today Turks are not directly related to the central Asiatic Turkmen (Caucasoid opposed to Mongoloid; a big difference). But also, in your above genetic analysis there is nothing to even slightly hint at unique “native” Anatolian gene in it that includes the Asia Minor Greeks.

Another genetic study states similar to the Greeks:

But all this haplotypes, halpgroups and halpkeramidia really make us much a sense to me as to what’s written on a family doctor’s prescription, mind you how its actually written makes us much sense to me as Arabic script. But what I have figured out that precise genetics is still inconclusive that’s why it’s still interpreted as general rather then specific. So give it a rest because we’re not trying to split the atom in this thread.

BTW you need to do is put your money where you mouth is for a change and elaborate and explain what the distinct physical features of an Anadolids (pics would be good), percentage of total population and if the Kurds are also included in this group.

From Britannica:

This sums up the development of the modern Turks. But note that unlike in the Ottoman Empire, the Hungarian realm had only one dominant faith, Catholicism, which most of the subject adhered to. Hence, why there remained the different groups with their own ethnicity. It was similar with the Greeks of Asia Minor. And also, the Hungarians came to the region (actually invaded). They don’t claim they are indigenous to the region, whom can claim a 40,000 year lineage and just adopted the Hungarian language and custom.

As for the large cultural impact of the Seljuks, whom themselves were largely influenced by Persian and Arabic anyway, I don’t dispute their arrival marked the Turkification of Asia Minor in earnest. But what I’m curious is how you interpret “cultural impact”. The Seljuks introduced the Turkish language and culture, fair enough, but yet when the Greeks settled Asia Minor 1800 years prior they, on the other hand, adopted the local customs etc.

But this brings to mind a series of documentaries I saw years ago about Italy from north to south. In Calabria they interviewed an old man who was talking about the regions past glory, and he added (words I’ve never forgotten), “..but back then we spoke Greek.” And will you also be the first to say of pre-Turkish Asia Minor, “But back then we used to speak Greek and adhered to the Greek Orthodox faith?”

I wrote:

And your reply

But you did:

“Most” usually implies “the overwhelming”. I don’t know when the Tartars from the southern Ukraine settled in Turkey but the first Turkic tribes where the Seljuks, Oghuz and Danishmend. After Manzikert the Seljuk conquests opened the region to others from the near east whom followed in their wake and there was considerable movements of the old population as a result. It’s also been mentioned the Celts, who only ever numbered 20,000, as having a major impact on Asia Minor’s demographics. And yet you insist the impact of the Seljuk and other Turkmen settlers was obscure or minimal at best. You’re arguments really lack consistency.

Returning to Binder, it was posted: Anthropologist Timuçin Binder had objections to the thesis that Anatolia became Turkish after the year 1071.

So when, according to him as well as to you, did Asia Minor actually become Turkish?

According to the Turkish general staff:

I’m no fan of your generals (or any other to be quite honest) but their interpretation is still believable. Like everyone else, Turks also have a begin. They didn’t spring up from the ground in Asia Minor. Even we Greeks originated far from the Greek peninsular and Aegean. But the ramifications are actually quite big for the Turkish identity as it will mean a revision of your entire history as well.

If I’m correct, it’s widely believed that Ataturk’s family is directly descendent from the Ozguk tribe. Will you be the first to renounce this as a fallacy?

It’s all about keeping one’s heritage believable. When you try to talk about a 40,000 gene, direct decadency with the Hittites, such is the flaw your claims can easily be taken to so many different directions and not end up to the same conclusion.

For example, if the people of historic Anatolia are the same today, does the same also apply to the Balkan peninsular? Because there were three long periods where the Balkans was under the one rule: Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman. That you claim of a single Anatolian gene, then you must surely apply the same theory to the Balkanites. Right?

As for the actual genetic make-up or origins of today’s Turks, to be honest, I’m not really concerned about. Physically you are not racially related to the Kazaks or Tadjiks; that is obvious.. But when you start claiming that the Greeks of Asia Minor mixed with the Phrygians and hence are indisputable related to today’s Turks, then you need to do more than post your single-sentence responses.

As far as I can see all you’re trying to do is absolutely the same the Skops recently did was play with genetic theories to negate the Greek link to ancient Macedonia by implying the southern Greeks were actually not from the region but shared the same genes as Sub-Saharan Africans.

But this does confirm the well-established pattern Turks have when referring to Greeks and Greek Asia Minor, especially with the different terms (Yunan for Greeks in Greece proper. Rum for whatever is left of the Greeks in Turkey and Cypriots, and Grek for the Ancient Greeks) so to ethnically differentiate Greeks by implying three different people whom have absolutely no relation to one another.

The word yunan, they got from the Persians, since they were trading with the persians.
The word "Rum", they got it from the Hellenes themselves, since in that time, the Hellenes called themselves "Romans", at the time the Turks invaded.
The word "Grek", they got it from the Europeans, since in the newer times, the Europeans started to look for the cilivisation of the "old-Greeks".

Off course, the turks got a little confused by it, and therefore choose to talk about 3 different folks. But that made the confusion even greater.

But also the Europeans and historians contributed to that confusion.
By apointing the Greek-Roman empire as Byzantine empire.
If you would ask in that time to anyone "Are you byzantine?", he would look at you and ask : "are you an imbecil?"

[QUOTE]According to the Turkish general staff:

QUOTE
The history of the Turks whose political order was developed in line with its military order dates before 4000 years. This long story, started in Central Asia, which spread throughout all the major continents as a result of the great immigrations. The Khun, Kokturk and Uighur nations in the East and the first Turkish state, namely the Great Seljuk Empire founded by Turks of the Oghuz origin, in 1040 in the West were instrumental in introducing the Turks to the World.

Entering Anatolia thanks to Malazgirt victory in 1071, the Turks founded many provinces (called as Beylikler), The Anatolian Seljuk State and the Ottoman Empire, one of the most significant states of the Turks. Language, religion, custom and traditions were the common elements of these Turkish communities.

http://www.tsk.mil.tr/eng/genel_konular/tarihce.htm


In someway he is correct. There has never been a Seljuk tribe.
The "seljuk" name is revived by the Oghuz tribe.
After the Oghuz tribe, were driven away by the Persian king, who didn't want the turks in his kingdom, they settled more westwards.
In these regions they came in contact with greeks, armenians, kurds, assyrians etc ..., and they heard there ever was a great empire of the Seleucid.
They (mis)used that very well and could unite all those people in a new empire and new ideology of the "Seljuk Turks".

i have been 6 times in turkey and i want to say that i find a huge variety of "faces" . some look very similar to greeks (or we look similar to them , thats up to you) while others have completely unfamiliar characteristics.
My grandparents all come smyrni and Aivali FYI.

But hell yes pontians in greece and turkey are one and same race

I showed a genetic -*test*-('") confirming this

Thats your opinion

Actually the cultural differences which exist in Northern/southern Italy are so strong that many northerners and southerners view each other as completely different nationalities. It even goes into politics. You have the Lega Nord who want to cut Italy in half and create a separate Northern state and you have the Lega Sud who want to create an independent southern state.
The cultural differences go hand in hand with genetics. Northern Italians genetically cluster strongly with the French and central Europeans whilst Southern Italians cluster strongly with Greeks and Near Easterners.

before the Risorgimento there no such thing as Italy. It was a forced union of different peoples who had little in common with one another and these differences may well one day lead to its dissolution in the future so the point you were trying to make through using it as an example is void.

Turkish Cypriots speak Ottoman Turkish therefore making it difficult to understand for mainlanders where the language evolved over time.

btw i am a TC myself but was born in Izmir so i can speak both "dialects" and the differences arent that great.

no matey it isnt

I am in London now, north London to be exact which is teeming with Greeks and I say otherwise.

You contradict yourself here

"so hence why I can dismiss your claim that “Greeks vary greatly from region to region”

in order for all Greeks to have the exact same phenotypes irregardless of where they come from a certain degree of "purity" is required isnt it?

It’s you who are applying Nazi generic theories, stating because every modern Greek doesn’t resemble something similar to the Children of the Corn therefore we can’t claim any affinity with out ancestors of antiquity or our own who came as refugees from Asia Minor.

I never said this.

What about the non-Greek Anatolian Lycians and Trojans? they lived on the coastlines where the Greeks settled. How can you completely rule out large numbers of them becoming Hellenized and assimilating into the Greek populations?

why do you dismiss the theory of Greek settlers mixing en masse with the Aboriginal Anatolians so easily? Give me some REASONS for once!

There is no such thing as an "unique" Anatolian gene. looking at the different subraces usually makes more sense than reading genetic studies at times.

I brought genetics into this thread initialy to counter one of your posts. You know the one when you dismissed my claim of the Seljuks making a minor demegraphic impact in Anatolia as "silly".

2 good examples of Anadolids (a subrace which is native largely to Anatolia)

Aristotle Onassis:



Stelios Kazantzidis:



and guess what, they are both Anatolian Rum!

The Turkish actress Berguzar Korel is also a good example despite being partially Mediterranid:



if i were to go into the distinct physical characteristics i have a feeling I will get a "we're not trying to split the atom" kind of response from you.

As for Kurds, a minority of them are Anadolid but the vast majority of them are subracially Iranid/Irano-Afghan indicating their Iranic background.

any Hungarian who isnt a Pan-Turanist wacko will tell you exactly that as that is what happened.
I would post a genetic -*test*-('") confirming this but....you know.

Yes i would say that

Actually it is you who lacks consistency. In this exact same post of yours you said:

"And what does this show anyway? It’s obvious that most of today Turks are not directly related to the central Asiatic Turkmen (Caucasoid opposed to Mongoloid; a big difference)."

If the Seljuks had a major impact on the demographics of Anatolia than modern day Turks would be genetically similar to the Turkmen of Central Asia, since they're not it would suggest the Seljuk invasion had a minimal impact on the population.

The native population of Asia Minor became Turkicized after the battle of Manzikert.

The generals are blinded by Pan-Turanist infulenced nationalism. their symptoms are similar to yours. You are 2 sides of the same coin.

It is not for me to say. It is not impossible that he was.

You are confusing yakamoz's posts as mine

Yes I do. The Serbs, Macedons/Skops and Bulgars are largely descended from native Thracians and Illyrians who were Slavicized hence they are phenotypically largely Dinarid and Mediterranid as opposed to Nordid/Baltid which the true Slavs, the Russians, Poles etc are. Ironically the Serbs are closer to their arch nemisis the Albanians then they are to their Russian "brothers"

When you dismiss this theory with facts and statistics rather than wishful thinking I will stop making this claim

You interpretational skills are poor to say the least

Your ignorance of histroy is astonishing but not surprising. I suggest you read bukefalos' post.

Here is an Islamic fundamentalist blog post:

Compare this to Ataturk's eternal mission:

Fundamental Islam: If someone does something un-Islamic it is up to the ummah to prevent them
Turkish nationalism: Even your government may be traitors, it is up to you prevent them and save the Turkish independence

Very similar.

Turkish nationalism is not a European nationalism. It is the worst meld of Islam and the most fascist aspects of European nationalism.

Ataturks comments are easy to understand when you take into consideration what he was up against during the war of independance with a sultante that had firmly surrendered to the western powers and had given out orders under their name to dismantle the army, a task ataturk himself was given partial responsibility for but never followed. He is obviously warning the future turkish generation that if in the future there was ever such a scenario as the one that existed on the dying days of the empire the civilians should have the right to disobey the state and go against it.

The message i stongly beleive is noble, now you can argue all you want that the potential is there for these words to be abused by institutions such as the millitary for the sake of supposedly protecting the republic from 'traitors' but the whole comparison with a random blog from a jihadist webpage is utter rubbish.

nike,

what are you?

a new monkey of the forum?

anyway, turkkan gave the answer to you.

A survey carried out by KPEE, a Greek research agency, has revelaed that a large proportion of Greeks believe that the following regions are Greek territories that should be liberated:

Istanbul -37.9%
Turkish Aegean region- 36.2%
Turkish Black Sea coastal areas- 31.2%
and a staggering 60% regard Cyprus as theirs.
The Greek claims also extend to the southern part of Albania and the south west of the Republic of Macedonia.

This is confirmation by the Greeks themselves that the idea of Megalo Idea still has a large grouping of Megalo Idiot followers!

However, only 67% of the population are 'proud to be Greek' and a majority of the Greeks (60%) dont believe that they are a continuation of the Ancient Hellenes!

Food for thought for the Greek supremacists and the Hellenism fanatics on this forum!

Furthermore 35% of Greeks would not want tp live next door to a Gypsy, Muslim or Jew!

PS: The research was made in May 2007.

Buradaki ezik bir şekilde kendilerini bunlara yalakanan Türklere de sözüm var, devam edin. Tabii bana da faşist diyebilirsiniz, daha rahat edeceksiniz

Trojan, at least you should have changed it a bit if you were trying to pass it as your own post.

Anyway, here is the actual survey by KPEE taken in conjunction with Bilgi University in Istanbul in Turkey

http://www.enet.gr/online/online_text/c=11...245100,34135404

It’s in Greek, but the results are as follows:

Biggest external threat

For Greeks
Turkey 77,7%
Albania 5,6%
Fyrom 2,3%

For Turks
USA 35,6%
Kurdish state in N. Iraq 25,8%
Greece 9,5%.


Asked if Greeks believe there are “lost homelands” outside the current border, 75% said yes. Regions, however, considered as “lost homelands” are as follows:

59.95% Cyprus
40% Northern Epirus
22.1 Macedonia (I assume Monastiri) and Pontos

But when asked if force should be used to retake them 80.35% said no and 17.7% said yes.

Re Nationalism

A scale of 1 to 10 (1 being “by no means nationalistic” and 10 “very nationalistic”)

1-4 Greeks 43.2%/Turks 12%
7-10 Greeks 31.2%/Turks 62%

How Greeks and Turks describe/view themselves

Greeks
Citizen of Greece 49.1%
Patriot 33.5%
Citizen of the world 25.1%
Citizen of Europe 19.9
Nationalist 6.7%

Turks
Patriot 50.8%
Citizen of Turkey 41.7%
Nationalist 36.4
Extreme nationalist 15.6%
Citizen of the world 20.4%


73.3% of Turks prefer Turkish products even if they are more expensive, while the figure was 58.8% for Greeks.

A majority on both sides of the Aegean are convinced they do not have friends:

"The Turk does not have other friend than the Turk" 71.3% agreed
"the Greeks are “nation of brothers”* (*έθνος ανάδελφο- someone please give the proper translation) 54.5%


“Characteristic that are not compatible with our identity/values”

For the Greeks,
Anti- democratic 47%,
extreme nationalist 29.4%,
Muslim, Jew or other doctrine 20.9%

For Turks
Atheist 45.1%
Christian or Jew 38,1%
homosexual” 23.1%
communist 20.8%
fanatical muslim 19.4%


Ideal historical period

Greeks
Classical antiquity 47.5%
Byzantium 13.4%
Greek enlightenment and revolution 11.8%
National resistance 6.7%
Change of regime 6%

Turks
Ottoman empire 74.6%, which 56.7% see the Turkish Republic as its continuation.


And no question was asked if Greeks view themselves as a “continuation of the Ancient Hellenes”

What is so great about European nationalism? Two world wars! Has any other nationalism surpassed this yet? So far every radical or fanatical form of nationalism has been born in Europe. Turkish nationalism has not been ineffective as a derivative form of European nationalism either, but it is just not possible to accept that European nationalism has mostly been benign.

And about Islam, its very close relatives are Christianity and Judaism and look at their track record.

You would probably prefer to see Turkey as something that doesn't belong to the "Western" civilization, but unfortunatley (to you) it is very much the part and product of the "great western civilization".

So, I repeat one more time that every nationalism is bad. A weak nationalism is not a good nationalism, it is simply the kind of nationalism that has not had the chance and the strength to force upon others its destructive power.

History has not proven anything, since it cannot prove anything. History interprets, creates stories. Where did you get the idea it also proves things. The western world would have probably come up with another ideology to support its politics whether or not Darwin had his theory.

What does science to you? Something that cures diseases? Science can and does teach about human behavior, how groups, societies and etc form and many other stuff about human interactions. It may prevent us making from the same foolish mistakes. The wars, genocides and similar acts do have their roots also in lack of knowledge. Ideological phenomena are about knowledge. There is not some social structure that is away from us and controlling our behavior. The social structure is us. We form our own structures and with better knowledge, we can understand better what we are in, what we are forming and how to form these structures for better results. But believe it or not, science has been intervening for a while anyway. There are many good results as well. But science has still not risen above the primitive ethnical mentality and its afects in some countries.

I did not say that I do not doubt these studies. The thing is that so far there has been no scientific study that showed that the modern Turks were much closer to Turkic tribes in Central Asia and that the so called Turkish migration was a huge movement. When such a study appears I will read it and take it into consideration. So far it hasn’t. The difference between you and me on this topic is that I am already at the point where you want me to be and you don't seem to have enough knowledge about it. Every time I say something you go to internet and try to come up with something that will support your argument. I am aware of the Bologna paper and it is already mentioned in the Virgül article. This paper leans towards the 1% rate every 40 generations and this is exactly what I am saying: there was no big massive migration. The figure of 30% does not change anything much either, because, first of all, this still leaves us with 70% (that is about 49 million people) and secondly, there is something that almost none of these papers has taken into consideration: the forced relocations in the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century which might have changed the genetics of Turkey or of some of her regions considerably.

So, to conclude, I am neither waving just four studies (there are many), nor claiming that the final word has been said. So far I have just stated what these studies say about this specific migration. In order to deny the findings of these studies, you or someone else needs to come up with something showing that we need to doubt these results. You want to wait until the last word is said? Good luck! You may never see that day, but then, you should perhaps say nothing about the whole subject of Turkish migrations either, since the final word has not been said in historical research either. With this logic, you simply cannot talk.

Yakamoz, as i said in my previous post, obviously you cannot understand what i am saying either because you dont want to understand or because i am unable to express myself clearly in english. When i wrote "history has proven that this "connection" can lead to dangerous acts" you keep avoiding the real issue. You are writting "History interprets, creates stories. Where did you get the idea it also proves things. The western world would have probably come up with another ideology to support its politics whether or not Darwin had his theory. " Dont try to lecture me please about the pusproses of history..You know damn well what i am saying. Science in the past has been used to serve different masters and this is historically proven. As for what Western world could have come up, just lol.

Most obliged for letting me know what science is...I will pass your irony again for the sake of "discussion". Clearly, you have no idea what ideological phenomenon is. Somehow, in your dreamed world, people will stop killing eachother when they stop being ignorant. Nationalism as an ideological phenomenon didnt appear because of the lack of knowledge. Communism, liberalism, even fascism didnt appear because of ignarance. Sure, they used and deed ignorance for theeir followers because ignorance makes people obedient but their roots cannot be found in ignorance. Religion as an ideological phenomenon doesnt exist today because of ignorance. The naive perception that ideological phenomena are formed by people that possess or donot knowledge as if knowledge itself even science isnt an ideological phenomenon, is very old and outdated. There are thousands of pages written for this issue and i would strongly reccomended to take a look to Bakhtins works. Your views on social structures are also too mechanistic and simplistic. What does it mean "The social structure is us. We form our own structures and with better knowledge, we can understand better what we are in, what we are forming and how to form these structures for better results. Do you actually believe taht social structures are the total of all people grouped together? People (who are they actually? All the poeple within a society, a nation, a country? All people who share the same beliefs etc? All people who have the ability, the strength to shape the stractures? What is a structure? Everything that all people create together?) tend to shape structures but in the same time sructures force them to change too. There is a dialectic connection between them. But also, people they "create" structures not suddenly out of the blue. Its not just "knowledge" that made them shape the structures since "knowledge" is a structure itself (about knowledge as a structure please refer to works of strucuralists). Your views "smell" idealism from A to Z and a good example of this is But science has still not risen above the primitive ethnical mentality and its afects in some countries.. A good dream but you bet on the wrong horse, mate...


As for the rest i will comment briefly since i am in a hurry.

"I did not say that I do not doubt these studies."
Really?

"The difference between you and me on this topic is that I am already at the point where you want me to be and you don't seem to have enough knowledge about it. "

Again, really?

"Every time I say something you go to internet and try to come up with something that will support your argument. "

Lol, are you sure? Do you have a presecution complex or something? I am sorry your highness, it wont happen again...Reread the whole thread and stop being like that. From the first time i posted a comment here, you went ballistic. Clear your head first and then post...

Again, just in case, i quote what i wrote in my previous post: They talk about a sustantial immigration from central asia. I am not saying that these papers are contradicting the paper that was presented here but if you are interested in these kind of things, then you should probably know that we are far from saying the last word regarding these kind of things. Not to mention that there are also problems with the correct association between haplogroups and geographical areas or groups of people.

Obviously for you "doubts" is to be "silent and wait". Did i say anything like that? Of course not. But being a mind reader you obviously interpret my thoughts and my opinions. You have a distorted view of "doubts". You read published studies with fanaticism and dogmatism trying to prove something that i dont undestand. But you know what.... Good luck to you too friend.

Thanks for the impromptu history lesson, but my point is not the historical development of the three terms but the political connotations associated with them. Why do you think Raven refers to the Greeks of Asia Minor as Anatolian Rum? Polites, on the other hand, claims the Greeks of Istanbul prefer the word Rum:

The above is a load of bollocks. I’ve met actual polites in Melbourne and in Istanbul as well, and they’ve all said the same thing to me: “Eimaste Ellhnes. Rum eine ti mas onomazoun oi Tourkoi”. Now what they want to the Turks to hear has much to do with the events of 1955 rather then a wanting to belong, as which was being implied.