Nationalism and secularism

[The Grand Nudger]

Mehm asked me to point out "untruths" in his posts. Yours gave me a great place to start.

Back to our bigot. Everytime you invoke you "Pure" blood and superior ethnicity I can't help but erupt into bouts of belly-laughter, so my "playing comedia" is perfectly understandable.

---

Anthropology & Archeology of Eurasia
Issue: Volume 50, Number 1 / Summer 2011Pages: 6 - 42

DOI: 10.2753/AAE1061-1959500101
Who Are the Anatolian Turks?A Reappraisal of the Anthropological Genetic Evidence
Aram Yardumian and Theodore G. Schurr

Abstractue to its long-term geographic position as gateway between Europe and Asia, the genetic constitution of Anatolia is highly complex. In spite of its overwhelming diversity, most citizens of the Republic of Turkey are firstlanguage Turkish-speakers and consider themselves ethnic Turks. This was not the case during the early Middle Ages and the time of the Byzantine Empire. Although we are able to identify four successive Turkic empires, Islamicization, and post-World War I nationalization as the essential steps toward ethnic homogenization, from historical texts alone we cannot determine to what extent mass migration from Central Asia and Siberia is responsible for Turkish dominance in Anatolia today. To assess the extent of gene flow from lands east of the Caspian, we examined the patterns of genetic variation in Turkic-speaking populations from Anatolia to Siberia. This analysis allows us to build the case for incommensurable, long-term, and continuing genetic signatures in both Anatolia and Siberia, and for significant mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome divergence between the regions, with minimal admixture. We supplement the case against mass migration with correlative archeological, historical, and linguistic data, and suggest that it was irregular punctuated migration events that engendered large-scale shifts in language and culture among Anatolia's diverse autochthonous inhabitants.

---

In case you just can't bear to read that, in case you would rather ignore it, the paper states in no uncertain terms, based upon Y-Chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA that this massive turkish migration and empire fairy tale you love so much simply does not seem to have occurred. That there is no pure "Turkic" current of blood in Turkey. This would explain the absolute lack of archaeological, historical, or linguistic evidence we would expect to find from such a thing. 13%, that would be the number that the researchers arrived at with regards to Anatolia specifically. The Huns you blather on about so boastfully are in a similar position. We have no reason to assume that they were some single, united ethnicity. We have every reason to assume that they were a convenient horde of disparate cultures and ethnicities that formed an alliance as quickly as they were able to break it (and this might explain why "The Mighty Huns" disappear less than a year after Atilla's death). A collection of different peoples all united under the banner of a charismatic leader. This "turkish identity", this "turkish blood" that you seem to feel is so superior to the rest of ours is that of migrants, and mixed ethnicities. The only thing that bound all of these people together was a "somewhat" common language. The turkic language became the lingua franca of the steppes in the same way that english is now the lingua franca of business (and the world). It's easy to see how this occurred. You wanted to be able to at least attempt to talk the little raiding band of mounted archers out of raping your daughter (clearly, by the study above..it didn't work). So, which 13% of Turkey (or anywhere else) would you like to claim by right of blood today? You know, the paper goes on, further stating that no link can be found between "turkish" peoples and their supposed origins all the way back to the steppes of Mongolia. Seems you folks have been fucking the locals with every step you took from wherever the hell you came from. Your blood is so damned mixed we can't even tell for sure anymore. All we have are folk stories and fairy tales of dubious quality.

Since we've handled the "pure" bit, lets move on to the "superior" bit. I haven't seen you point to anything beyond the Huns, Khanate, and Ottomans in support of this, so it would seem to me that you feel that military prowess (even if it is a thing of the past, currently melted away, is what gives ones ethnicity "superiority" over the others). Well, let me show you a couple of little maps.







Each of these empires seems to have been at least as "great" as your own, and in the case of the Huns specifically, they actually had an empire whereas the Huns did not, they could never establish any sort of system of governance with which to rule (something Attilla is said to have been very disappointed with) They simply had a large swath of land where people were terrified of being shot in the back by a coward with a bow on a horse in the middle of a faceless horde (you see my ancestors fought like men, on foot, with short spears hooah!).

Each of these empires (in addition to being vast and powerful) contributed to the sciences and humanities in ways that anything even resembling a Turkish Empire has never been able to match. The greatest claim to fame from a turkish anything would be agriculture, which happened 10,00 years ago, and unfortunately, was driven by people who were not Turks, by your definition. Even the crumbling little fiefdoms of Europe which your migrant ancestors so easily overran (and let's not ignore the effect of their infighting on how easily this was accomplished, even if only temporarily) were able to contribute more to your very own existence than your ancestors were able to muster.

So, pure? Not a chance in hell. Superior? Doesn't look to be the case. How about different? By what metrics? Nucleotide diversity between human beings is .1%. Copy number, .05%. If you want to invoke blood genetics is all you're invoking. You are my brother, and it embarrases the shit out of me to know this. So tell me just a little bit more how my simpletons mind is incapable of grasping the "truth" of this massive list of bullshit you've pinned your pride and dreams on? Why is it that I seem to be so much more interested in our "blood" and our history? Interested enough, at least, to desire a factually accurate picture of who we are, where we came from, and how we got where we stand now. Why are you so satisfied with fairy tales? Rhetorical, they allow you to smugly state your personal superiority without having to actually accomplish or contribute anything, bigot. They allow you to draw an imaginary line between yourself and these "noble" warriors you so desperately wish that you could be, civilian. Is your present so dismal, your lot in life so meager, that you have to manufacture a fantasy to get you through your day to day? Are you so disenfranchised, so dissatisfied? Maybe you should work on that, rather than wasting your time with this sort of bullshit. You might just end up happier, and I can almost guarantee that you would come across as a whole hell of a lot less ignorant.