Nationalism and secularism

[kılıç_mehmet]

In case you just can't bear to read that,

I did read a lot on that subject already.
This is a generic answer that we usually get from people who oppose Turkic unity. That there is no "genetic relationship" between our peoples.

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.

Oh. And with how many people this said genetical comparison was made?
I don't remember me participating in this test. Nor have I heard of any of my relatives, friends or their relatives participating in this test.
Besides, we have historical evidence of a large migration of Turks to Anatolia.
If you want to read, read. Else, begone.

That there is no pure "Turkic" current of blood in Turkey.

It rather depends on what you define as pure. In your terms, there is probably no "pure" Turkic blood anywhere. In this long period of Turkic migration from Mongolia to central asia to the Balkans, Turks have intermarried with locals.
However, from the first two migrations, this being the Huns, Avars, Bulgars and Khazars simply disappeared into nowhere. They are no more, they have been fully absorbed by the people they have come across.
The same did not occur with the second Turkic migration of z-type Turkic speakers. By your accord, the Turkish presence within anatolia should have been a short breeze just like the Hunnic presence in Europe. They came, raided, looted, and forced entire hosts of peoples to migrate into Europe. But they vanished into thin air.
How did we, managed to survive, and thrive in this environment of people, with no other Turkic people around to relate with?
The answer is simple. A constant trickle of Turkic migration. There is no other explanation. History shows that Turkic people are generally very bad at assimilating locals, and individually, prone to assimilation themselves, linguistically, ethnically and culturally.
The Bulgars, who were a Turkic speaking tribe, have only left their name for the current Bulgarian nation, which is ethnially, culturally and linguistically a slavic people. Same with the Cuman presence in Hungaria.
More than a hundred thousand Cumans are said to have migrated to Hungaria during the Mongol Invasion, leaving behind place names, but little else. Their contribution to the cultural mark of Hungary is near-zero.
It can be said that the Austrian presence left a greater mark.

So, where does this lead us to? The Turks of Anatolia must be descendants of the same Turks who have come into Anatolia, throughout the Turkic migrationary period, which extends to as long as the early stages of the Ottomans.
Believe it or not.

However, Turkification did occur, but it occured only through intermarriages. And if the children from this intermarriage, married with another Turk, and if the children of that marriage married with another, that one, two or three foreign ancestor is rather irrelevant on determining the purity of the blood of that Turk, even if the progenitor himself was a male of non-turkic ancestry.
From our part, we make no such distinction.

This would explain the absolute lack of archaeological, historical, or linguistic evidence we would expect to find from such a thing.

What kind of an archeological, historical or linguistic evidence would you expect? There are mosques, dating back to Seljuk times. The time where Turks arrived to Anatolia.
Historically, Turkish presence in Anatolia is well documented. Depictions of Turks of that time, and forward are also in consistency with history.
Linguistically, we speak the Oghuz branch of the Turkish language, closely related to Azerbaijani and Turkmen.
What sorts of evidence do you expect?

13%, that would be the number that the researchers arrived at with regards to Anatolia specifically.

13% of the Total population is of Turkish ethnicity? I guess that these researchers you speak of have taken blood samples of 100% of the total population in Turkey to make such a ridiculous statement.
Labeling our peoples as a foreign, barbaric horde of the east was a popular statement of the past. Now, labeling our peoples as not a foreign, barbaric horde is a popular statement, as we have seen it fit to forge connections with our equally, barbaric relatives of the east.
Politics, nothing more.

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.

Well, *you* don't assume anything. We, and by we, I mean the Turkic world, know for a fact that the Huns were a collection of Turanic peoples, mostly Turks that spoke r-turkic dialects, were the Huns that have ravaged Europe. This can be seen from the tribes that have continued their existence there without using the collective name that the Huns gave themselve.
Onogurs, Kutrigurs and other tribes, many of those who have joined the Hungarians, later, the Bolgars, Avars and Khazars, were relatives of the Huns in terms of the dialects of Turkish they spoke.
You come in here with your limited knowledge about Turkic history and seek to undermine me. I laugh.

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).

Convenient, they were. A horde, they were. A tribal confederation, they were. However, you are also ignorant on Turkic customs of dividing the country amongst the sons from the first consort of the Khan. The country was simply divided. They did not disappear. However, the majority of the tribes that made up the confederation have joined up with other tribes that followed the Huns. The Bolgars, Avars and Khazars are some of these. And I guess you're going to dispute the ethnicity of those too, eh?
I'm giving weekly lectures in our fraternity on Turkic history. I've read and reserached far extensively than you did with your short mind on this subject.

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.

Well, how well did this common language theory apply to the Turkish speaking Greeks in Anatolia? They wrote in Greek letters, they dressed like Turks, however, they did not practice a large number of Turkish customs, and they were *known* to be different from the rest of the Turks in the area for that regard. During the population exchange of after the War of Independence, these Greeks who self-identified as Greeks, even though they spoke Turkish, and dressed Turkish, were the first ones to mount to boats that went to Greece.
Or the Bosniaks of the Balkans, similar to the Turk in most aspects of religion, custom and culture, even called "Turk" by their christian slavic neighbors, revolted against the authority of the Turk, from whom they are indistinguishable in terms of religion and culture?

These are only a few examples of how languge, religion or culture, are not enough to make up a people. This is why I know that the empty insult of "Bastard" that you throw at our nation is simply another desperate attempt to keep us from communicating with our brethren in the east.

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.

Lingua franca? Did you know that the lingua franca of the Seljuk empire constituted of Persian and Arabic? The Seljuk rulers never spoke their native language in court, or in public. They adressed to their servants in Persian only, while handling religious matters in Arabic.
Similarly, if we take a look at the Turks of Cyprus, we can see that many of them speak perfect Greek, even though all know their native language aswell. However, from regional accounts, I know that the number of Greeks who speak perfect Turkish was very, very rare, just like the numbers of ethnic Kurds who spoke Turkish was very very rare back in the days of the early Turkish republic. The common folk simply did not bother with it, even now, there are many elderly people who did not receive primary education in Turkish schools, who cannot speak a single, Turkish word.
The Greeks, on the other hand, who lived in Urban populations, were a minority. Those who lived in rural areas, however, were very like the kurds, people who did not speak Turkish. Their heads of the village spoke Turkish, and only to communicate with locals in the Bazaars.
And the Turkish speaking Greek of Karaman still identified himself as a Greek.
There are many many such examples how how Turkish did not qualify as a lingua franca anywhere in the middle east. It was only spoken by ethnically Turkish people, and those who had to meet Turks on a regular basis, mostly by people in urban areas.

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?

I've already disproved your little *study* that claims to have the gene map of Turkey. I know that they do not have such a thing.
Your claims that Turkey's Turks are a result of a small band of mounted archers that came and went as a breeze, leaving no genetic marks but somewhat managed to culturally assimilate the whole lot of the place is simply ridiculous. And even the fact that Turkish was used as a pidgin or lingua franca doesn't really change this fact. Greek was the lingua franca of the world during the times of Alexander. No Greek populations can be found in the far wide corners to which his empire spanned.
So was Latin, and now, English. Yet you don't call yourself english, just as the Irishmen who can't speak a single word of Irish doesn't call himself english. Really, give me a break.

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.

Of course, of course. There is no, no link whatsoever. I don't really understand these attempts to discredit us of our rightful heritage. I guess people are a bit too scared when they think of Turkey leading the spearhead of a Turkic union, they attempt to break our bonds by claiming that we have no rights to lead such a union, as we're not Turkic anyways.
And a year ago, Sarkozy said that Turkey has no rights to be in the EU, as we're not European anyways. Really, what's the point? They did the same to the Hungarians, but they could not simply discredit them from their part of the European heritage, so they try to undermine their heritage that links to Attila's Huns.
But people always know who they are. No matter how many lies you bring before them, how many inconsistent policies you try to apply against them, it does not work.

Seems you folks have been fucking the locals with every step you took from wherever the hell you came from.

Oh, I guess someone is very mad. Even if we fuck a local, that local becomes the part of the local community. We do not allow bastards to remain within our communities.

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.

As you never bothered with reading Turkic history, I guess it's rather easy for you to diss everything I bring forth as folk and fairy tales. However, these are well documented "folk and fairy tales" by other resources. My blood is still the same, pure Turkish blood. Our family history goes a long way. These are enough to prove my purity and worth to myself, and my people. You can believe the fairy tale like *study*, which conflicts with history and sociology you've quoted here as much as you want.

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.

Our superiority isn't just in our empires.
You still have not grasped this, and will never grasp it with your simple mind.

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.

And? Where are they now? Where is their presence in those lands?
Besides, their contributions are nothing to me. They are simply tools that we can use to further our own greatness. Besides, our starting positions and the conditions we have lived in differed entirely from those peoples you have mentioned, who lived sedentary, settled lifestyles, on lands they can plough, and cities they can build. They can afford to busy themselves in the arts of science. We came from the steppe, a hostile environment, where tribal warfare and competition for grasslands were common.
Even in that state, we have fought, defeated and forced the Chinese to pay tribute to us. Then, we migrated, a long time after the Roman empire had it's prime and came into contact with those cultures.
We were able to outlast those given the conditions we lived in.
Now, we live on a vast area, spreading from the Balkans to Siberia.
These enough are alone to prove our superiority to me. To prove our superiority to you, we'd have to mop the floor with your heads one more time. But we're tired of fighting and war. We want to live our lives in peace and develop in harmony.
But I guess people do not want this, as they are trying every way possible to discredit us from our heritage.

So, pure? Not a chance in hell. Superior? Doesn't look to be the case.

From the point of a mixed-blood such as yours, superiority and purity lose their meaning. Even if you saw a *study* that proved our purity and superiority you'd still bitch and moan on how we're impure and inferior, just because we dare to say it and be proud of it.

You are my brother, and it embarrases the shit out of me to know this.

You are not my brother. A friend, maybe. But brotherhood is only in blood.
I ought to be of the same womb as the other to claim brotherhood. We Turks are of the womb of Turan. You are of another. You have not proven to me the brotherhood of humanity today. In fact, you've shown me how much this brotherhood of yours is nothing more than crap, laid forward by people of your make-up.

Why is it that I seem to be so much more interested in our "blood" and our history?

There is no common blood and history to speak of. Your words don't even ring true for nature. Even there, there are tribes, customs.
I only call those with whom I have more similarities beyond having a similar body my brothers.

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?

You're still calling historical facts "fairy tales". I guess it just causes some sort of trouble in your mind that we might just be what I am telling you what we are.
We are Turks, we were Turks, and we will be Turks in the future.
It just baffles me that a non-turk reserves himself the right to tell a Turk that he isn't one. Leave this to us, as we can make this distinction properly.

Rhetorical, they allow you to smugly state your personal superiority without having to actually accomplish or contribute anything, bigot.

There you are wrong. I am constantly trying to contribute to the wellbeing of my people and the furthering of my ideology.
There is nothing personal here. If I were to boast my personal superiority, I'd talk of my physical strength and academic accomplishments.
I feel no such need, as those two are only means to serve my people.
I have no vanity in that regard.

They allow you to draw an imaginary line between yourself and these "noble" warriors you so desperately wish that you could be, civilian.

But that is who I am. I come from a family of soldiers. Unfortunately, I was the one to break the line of soldiery, as my family wanted me to go to a university. I will still perform my military service, and hopefully, go against our enemies, maybe fall in battle.
But in purely social terms, I'm a civillian, but in spirit, I am a warrior.
Just as my forefathers.
Being a civillian in spirit, is to be nothing more than a slave. I try to awaken the warrior spirit amongst my people, not to propagate the civillian mentality.

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?

Nothing could be farther from the truth. My lot in life is to serve my own kind. What greater lot could be there? I lead a good life, I have no complaints, on a personal level. But I am dissatisfied with the present day affairs for my own kin. I hold no personal griefs, nor do I hold personal vendettas in anything.

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.

Yes, so as others tell me. "Live your life" they say. I hope that my grandchildren will be able to live their lives as good as I do, with this sort of thinking. I see ignorance in that. I see ignorance in seeing life as nothing more than "living through it", rather than "living meaningfully".
My life has a purpose, a meaning. That purpose stems from my blood, my heritage. I don't think there is anything more normal than this.

Calling my people a people of bastards is an insult I will not hold against you. You are ignorant, you know no history, nor do you know much about the geography or the people that we have to live with in these parts of the world to speak much truth in your words.