PDA

View Full Version : Ancestors of Belgians are Turks


axumd
01-04-2011, 11:20 PM
According to this study from a few years ago the Belgians are supposedly meant to be descened from Turks particularly a tribe name the Oguz, but I'm not sure to take it serious.

The Belgian people are descended from a part of the Oguz Turks tribe who settled in the region thousands of years ago, said the head of Gaziantep University’s Department of Medical Biology yesterday.

In a move that is destined to bring Belgians and Turks together as brothers, Professor Ahmet Arslan said that when the Selçuk part of the Oguz tribe formed a state in Central Asia, their capital was called Genk, having the same name as the city of Genk in Belgium.

He also said the symbol of Genk Municipality was a double headed eagle, and added as his conclusive proof, “In the Selçuk tribe, the same symbol was used. One head symbolized Interior Oguz while the other Exterior Oguz.”

Referring to the city of Genk in Belgium, Arslan said: “There are many dark haired, light skinned people there. This is the basic characteristic of the Oguz tribe.”

[...] The molecular genetic studies the department had conducted showed the main migration route from Central Asia followed the north west and west of the Caucasus Mountains, Arslan said. He said there were close blood ties between Europeans and Turks as a result of these tribal migrations.

Link here:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2844

Scala
01-04-2011, 11:30 PM
......

Turcomanian
01-04-2011, 11:37 PM
hmm? when the Oghuz turks came to belgium?

Satyr
01-04-2011, 11:55 PM
Referring to the city of Genk in Belgium, Arslan said: “There are many dark haired, light skinned people there. This is the basic characteristic of the Oguz tribe.”

I thought the Oguz tribe's basic characteristic was not to speak Flemish, a Germanic, Indo-European language ? You can now go back to your studies, good sir.

Kadu
01-05-2011, 12:00 AM
I conclude that this professor has watched too much Poirot.:D

http://blogs.coventrytelegraph.net/passtheremote/68786-hercule-poirot.gif

Satyr
01-05-2011, 12:02 AM
I conclude that this professor has watched too much Poirot.:D

http://blogs.coventrytelegraph.net/passtheremote/68786-hercule-poirot.gif

Poirot, who was Belgian. I mean, Oguz Turk, according to professor Arslan. :D

Kyte
01-05-2011, 12:07 AM
That doesn't sound very feasible. The man obviously has good intentions but his research is dubious at best. Can you find any articles about the research he conducted and his methods?

Turcomanian
01-05-2011, 12:15 AM
I conclude that this professor has watched too much Poirot.:D

http://blogs.coventrytelegraph.net/passtheremote/68786-hercule-poirot.gif

lol he looks oghuz turks of turkey,

when i was in turkey some look like him,

Kadu
01-05-2011, 12:18 AM
lol he looks oghuz turks of turkey,

when i was in turkey some look like him,


I know, that why I posted him.:D

Turcomanian
01-05-2011, 12:37 AM
I know, that why I posted him.:D

This is Oghuz Turks :) and mostly Oghuz turkic peoples has Moustache

Yörük
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2b/Ali_R%C4%B1za_efendi.jpg/225px-Ali_R%C4%B1za_efendi.jpg

Gagauz
http://site.mynet.com/gagauziya/mynet_resimlerim/baba.jpg

Turkish
http://allaboutinformation.in/images/information/turkish-man.jpg

Azeri
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3657/3563869451_828ee4eee4.jpg

Iraqi Turkmen
http://www.buzzle.com/img/articleImages/231308-35622-18.jpg

Dr Tchek
01-07-2011, 04:25 PM
lol he looks oghuz turks of turkey,

when i was in turkey some look like him,

The guy pictured there is David Suchet, an English actor.

Belgians are north-western Europeans and the article claiming that limburgians could be Turkish is laughable

Turcomanian
01-07-2011, 04:27 PM
The guy pictured there is David Suchet, an English actor.

Belgians are north-western Europeans and the article claiming that limburgians could be Turkish is laughable

David Suchet looks like an turks with moustache
:lol:

Colin Wilson
01-07-2011, 05:14 PM
This is Oghuz Turks and mostly Oghuz turkic peoples has Moustache
oghuz turks did not have facial hair i.e nor moustache nor beard, the folks you picture are native anatolians
this "professor" should go again to a serious elementary school because any of the "proofs" he gave do make sense.
the double headed eagle was used well before Turks amongst Hittites,Mesoptamians etc...and nor it nor "genk"(wich is most likely not even built by Turks and not even Turkish word)could be "proofs" for anything
Hittite dated double-headed eagle
http://mirror-uk-rb1.gallery.hd.org/_exhibits/places-and-sights/_more2003/_more08/Turkey-Alaja-Huyuk-Hittite-temple-carving-of-two-headed-eagle-with-two-rabbits-in-its-claws-SEW.jpg

Turcomanian
01-07-2011, 05:57 PM
oghuz turks did not have facial hair i.e nor moustache nor beard, the folks you picture are native anatolians
this "professor" should go again to a serious elementary school because any of the "proofs" he gave do make sense.
the double headed eagle was used well before Turks amongst Hittites,Mesoptamians etc...and nor it nor "genk"(wich is most likely not even built by Turks and not even Turkish word)could be "proofs" for anything
Hittite dated double-headed eagle
http://mirror-uk-rb1.gallery.hd.org/_exhibits/places-and-sights/_more2003/_more08/Turkey-Alaja-Huyuk-Hittite-temple-carving-of-two-headed-eagle-with-two-rabbits-in-its-claws-SEW.jpg

one albanian say double headed eagle is first albanian,


u think gagauz is native anatolian or what? gagauz has nothing with native anatolians,

the turkish peoples who have turanid features is ancestors of central asia like ataturk's great ancestors were turkmen,

"indo"-european never existed,

Turcomanian
01-07-2011, 05:59 PM
oghuz turks did not have facial hair i.e nor moustache nor beard, the folks you picture are native anatolians
this "professor" should go again to a serious elementary school because any of the "proofs" he gave do make sense.
the double headed eagle was used well before Turks amongst Hittites,Mesoptamians etc...and nor it nor "genk"(wich is most likely not even built by Turks and not even Turkish word)could be "proofs" for anything
Hittite dated double-headed eagle
http://mirror-uk-rb1.gallery.hd.org/_exhibits/places-and-sights/_more2003/_more08/Turkey-Alaja-Huyuk-Hittite-temple-carving-of-two-headed-eagle-with-two-rabbits-in-its-claws-SEW.jpg

http://mirror-uk-rb1.gallery.hd.org/_exhibits/places-and-sights/_more2003/_more08/Turkey-Alaja-Huyuk-Hittite-temple-carving-of-two-headed-eagle-with-two-rabbits-in-its-claws-SEW.jpg

every has double-headed eagle symbol

only turks who have wolf symbol ;)

Colin Wilson
01-07-2011, 06:07 PM
Gagauz are native moldavians
IE existed since you now write in IE and use and IE alphabet
The wolf symbol is present in many cultures that predate Turks however the wolf myth was not Turk i.e it was anterior to Turk migrations to Central Asia and all names involved in the wolf myth (böri,börtechine,ashina)are Iranian and Tocharian ones indeed the wolf myth was an IE myth brought to Central Asia by IE's such as Tocharians and Iranians

Partizan
01-07-2011, 06:21 PM
This article isn't logical imo...I've read this article,before.When I saw this title "Belçikalılar Türk mü?/Are Belgians Turks?",I asked:"Hah,which one,Flemish or Walon? :lol:"

As a Turkish nationalist,I must say that doesn't make sense...But if it would say the same about Eastern or Central European peoples,I'd give some credit...But Western Euro,I don't think so :D

Colin Wilson
01-07-2011, 06:27 PM
To say that an European folk descends from Turk it should have both some Altaic genetical input as well as some Altaic cultural input.
Russians do have some Altaic genetical input but what about Turk cultural input in them...? is it very strong?
There are Turkic words and toponyms in Russia and perhaps also some other Turk cultural influences but are they sufficient enough to say that Russians do descend from Turks?!!
I dont think so...

Psycho
01-07-2011, 06:27 PM
Belgians doesn't even slightly Turk. Belgians are mostly Atlantid, West Alpinid and Borreby.

Turcomanian
01-07-2011, 07:24 PM
Gagauz are native moldavians
IE existed since you now write in IE and use and IE alphabet
The wolf symbol is present in many cultures that predate Turks however the wolf myth was not Turk i.e it was anterior to Turk migrations to Central Asia and all names involved in the wolf myth (böri,börtechine,ashina)are Iranian and Tocharian ones indeed the wolf myth was an IE myth brought to Central Asia by IE's such as Tocharians and Iranians

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

gagauz is romanian? them have nothing with them

here is gagauz with turanid looks

http://i1017.photobucket.com/albums/af300/Elbruss/6-4.jpg

http://site.mynet.com/gagauziya/mynet_resimlerim/baba.jpg

http://i1017.photobucket.com/albums/af300/Elbruss/1-17.jpg

Colin Wilson
01-07-2011, 07:34 PM
There is no "turanid" that's an unscienitific obsolet term, gagauz are turkic speaking moldavians the user mazepa posted a hg study of gagauzes that showed 0 turk lineages amongst them

Psycho
01-07-2011, 07:35 PM
There is no "turanid" that's an unscienitific obsolet term, gagauz are turkic speaking moldavians the user mazepa posted a hg study of gagauzes that showed 0 turk lineages amongst them

Yeah, Anatolia is source of Indo-European race.

Colin Wilson
01-07-2011, 07:41 PM
no there is no indo-european race and anatolia is not the source.
indo-europeans are all the people that recolonized europe and central asia after last ice age expanding naturally bringing with them agriculture, pastoralism, metallurgy as well as other IE cultural+religious+mythological systems without forgetting the introduction of domesticated horses as well as spoked wheeled carts by them into the regions they recolonised

Turcomanian
01-07-2011, 07:45 PM
There is no "turanid" that's an unscienitific obsolet term, gagauz are turkic speaking moldavians the user mazepa posted a hg study of gagauzes that showed 0 turk lineages amongst them

Ofc there is,

the gagauz who been mixed with moldavians like ancient eygpt were black or white or other races who mixed with black and white,so every think acinet eygpt is white or black like you

gagauz singer who look turkmen of turkmenistan than gagauz

http://i1017.photobucket.com/albums/af300/Elbruss/1-17.jpg

when i come to turkey i seen many peoples has turanid look ;) also my turkish cousin who look little mongoloid than turanid ;)

you think every Is NO turk? like turkish,gagauz,azeri and iraqi turkoman and many more?,

u been brainwashed by anatolianism propaganda who say gagauz are not turk or turkish are not turk,

Turcomanian
01-07-2011, 07:46 PM
Yeah, Anatolia is source of Indo-European race.

LoL dont believe this guy is still lying

before he saying there is no turanid races today he saying there is no "indo-european race"

Colin Wilson
01-07-2011, 07:47 PM
I am not brainwashed the problem is that you confuse look with race with ancestry with ethnicity etc...
Molodavia was not empty there was only a language shift
there is no seriously accepted turanid race
turk input in anatolia and moldavia is near 0 that's all

Turcomanian
01-07-2011, 07:48 PM
I am not brainwashed the problem is that you confuse look with race with ancestry with ethnicity etc...
Molodavia was not empty there was only a language shift
there is no seriously accepted turanid race
turk input in anatolia and moldavia is near 0 that's all

yes you are brainwashed by anatolianism because you are working with them

Colin Wilson
01-07-2011, 07:49 PM
LoL dont believe this guy is still lying
before he saying there is no turanid races today he saying there is no "indo-european race"
it's you who are bringing lies since you joined this forum all your posts are lies wake up from your syndroms ("stokholm+kopenhag+helsinki")

Colin Wilson
01-07-2011, 07:51 PM
yes you are brainwashed by anatolianism because you are working with them
there is no such thing as anatolianism and I am not working with anything what's this them
you are only wasting my time please stop posting unfounding lies and other self delusional material!

Turcomanian
01-07-2011, 07:53 PM
there is no such thing as anatolianism and I am not working with anything what's this them
you are only wasting my time please stop posting unfounding lies and other self delusional material!

yes there is


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolianism#History_of_Anatolianism

Hilmi Ziya Ülken, one of the founders of Anatolianism, was against the Ottomanism, Islamism and Turanism. Between 1918 and 1919 he published the periodical Anadolu with Reşat Kayı. In 1919 Ülken wote a book titled Anadolunun Bugünki Vazifeleri (Present duties of Anatolia), but it was not published. In 1923, Ülken and his friends published the periodical Anadolu. They worked to form an alternative thought to Ottomanism, Islamism and Turanism, and they opposed the specificity of Turkish history traced origins outside of Anatolia. Their conclusion was Memleketçilik.

Psycho
01-07-2011, 07:59 PM
If you think Turanid doesn't exit, then Polovets and Turk wouldn't be exist. :P

Psycho
01-07-2011, 08:02 PM
LoL dont believe this guy is still lying

before he saying there is no turanid races today he saying there is no "indo-european race"

Wow! That's strange, isn't it ?

Turcomanian
01-07-2011, 08:14 PM
Wow! That's strange, isn't it ?

he is an liar because now he saying there is no anatolianism :lol::lol:

search Anatolianism on wikipedia,

Turcomanian
01-07-2011, 08:15 PM
If you think Turanid doesn't exit, then Polovets and Turk wouldn't be exist. :P

you are right

if turanid never existed so my ancestors and me will never existed without turanid races :)

Satyr
01-07-2011, 08:15 PM
Yeah, Anatolia is source of Indo-European race.

I thought Indo-European was a language family...

Psycho
01-07-2011, 08:20 PM
I thought Indo-European was a language family...

It is.

Turcomanian
01-07-2011, 08:21 PM
It is.

some source say indo-european never existed

Psycho
01-07-2011, 08:24 PM
some source say indo-european never existed

Which source ? It is a language group. Some could say there is IndoEuropean race. Indo-European race = Nordid. :rolleyes:

Turcomanian
01-07-2011, 08:28 PM
Which source ? It is a language group. Some could say there is IndoEuropean race. Indo-European race = Nordid. :rolleyes:

"Indo"-european

indo means india lol

Psycho
01-07-2011, 08:28 PM
"Indo"-european

indo means india lol

Yeah.

Turcomanian
01-07-2011, 08:31 PM
Indo= Indian. :)

if european is indo-european

all european should be dark or brown like middle east lol,

also i heard indo-turk :lol::lol:

Indo-turks never existed,

Psycho
01-07-2011, 08:32 PM
if european is indo-european

all european should be dark or brown like middle east lol,

also i heard indo-turk :lol::lol:

Indo-turks never existed,

Indo-Turk ? That's stupid i've ever heard. :lol:
I dont think there is such thing as Indo-European race, Collin think it is. :D

Turcomanian
01-07-2011, 08:40 PM
Indo-Turk ? That's stupid i've ever heard. :lol:
I dont think there is such thing as Indo-European race, Collin think it is. :D

Gypsy peoples should be Indo-european because The gypsy were from india to europe :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_people#Origins

http://www.google.se/search?sourceid=navclient&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ACAW_svSE383SE383&q=Indo-European+don%27t+exist.

Psycho
01-07-2011, 08:41 PM
Gypsy peoples should be Indo-european because The gypsy were from india to europe :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_people#Origins

http://www.google.se/search?sourceid=navclient&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ACAW_svSE383SE383&q=Indo-European+don%27t+exist.

Yeah, i agree.

Colin Wilson
01-08-2011, 12:01 PM
yes there is
I am not anatolianist but only seeking a true identity
have you ever seen zulus claiming to be angles or nederlanders?

Colin Wilson
01-08-2011, 12:04 PM
you are right
if turanid never existed so my ancestors and me will never existed without turanid races
Are you serious!!!!????
:eek::eek::errr::errr::mad2::mad2::skep::skep::loc o::loco::shrug::shrug::shakefist::shakefist::eekk: :eekk:

Colin Wilson
01-08-2011, 12:05 PM
there is no turanid nor you are turanid nor your ancestors are turanid!
turanid is unscineitific inaccurate term

Colin Wilson
01-08-2011, 12:07 PM
"Indo"-european
indo means india lol
yes indo means india what's the matter!!!!!?????
how old are you proudtobeturk I fear you are something like 8-10 years old?

Colin Wilson
01-08-2011, 12:08 PM
if european is indo-european
all european should be dark or brown like middle east lol,
:mad2::mad2:

Colin Wilson
01-08-2011, 12:09 PM
Indo-Turk ? That's stupid i've ever heard. :lol:
I dont think there is such thing as Indo-European race, Collin think it is. :D
I already wrote that there is no indo-european race!?

Colin Wilson
01-08-2011, 12:10 PM
http://www.google.se/search?sourceid=navclient&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ACAW_svSE383SE383&q=Indo-European+don%27t+exist
This is how proudtobeturk works he searched "indo european dont exist" in google then conclude that "some sources say indo-european dont exist"

:mad2::mad2:

David Noi
01-08-2011, 06:42 PM
According to this study from a few years ago the Belgians are supposedly meant to be descened from Turks particularly a tribe name the Oguz, but I'm not sure to take it serious.

don't take it serious. Its a hidden secret under serious historians: You must not take any turkish source serious.

Partizan
01-08-2011, 06:46 PM
don't take it serious. Its a hidden secret under serious historians: You must not take any turkish source serious.

You are good at trolling.

Goupil
01-08-2011, 07:01 PM
You are good at trolling.

In France there is a Sinologist named Xavier Walter who told that Uygurs were arrived with Tamerlan in Xinjiang and this one has killed 60 million of Christians (Nestorians) in 25 years. Apparently he is interested on Chinks because he see them as potentially Christianisable because of similitudes with Confucianism.

Partizan
01-08-2011, 07:12 PM
In France there is a Sinologist named Xavier Walter who told that Uygurs were arrived with Tamerlan in Xinjiang and this one has killed 60 million of Christians (Nestorians) in 25 years. Apparently he is interested on Chinks because he see them as potentially Christianisable because of similitudes with Confucianism.

Perhaps...

Goupil
01-08-2011, 07:15 PM
Perhaps...

He is not a "serious historian source" to me, even if he is very pretentious and touchy. His perception of Xinjiang is just idiotic. It's clear that Tamerlan can't killed 60 million Christians since he was mostly in war against Muslim powers and that Central Asia was mostly Islamized in 14th Century.

Turcomanian
01-08-2011, 07:42 PM
This is how proudtobeturk works he searched "indo european dont exist" in google then conclude that "some sources say indo-european dont exist"

:mad2::mad2:

YOU MAD BRO
haha

just search it on google ;)

dsong2006
01-08-2011, 08:04 PM
You are good at trolling.

Well sources with a Pan-Turanist or Turkish Nationalist source with a clearly political agency should not be taken as a legitimate academic source because there is often a hidden agency.

Partizan
01-08-2011, 08:09 PM
Well sources with a Pan-Turanist or Turkish Nationalist source with a clearly political agency should not be taken as a legitimate academic source because there is often a hidden agency.

Well,he said "Turkish sources" and blamed whole Turkish scholars,that's trolling...BTW despite many of them are stupid,Eurocentrist and biased history is known and accepted,for today...

Turcomanian
01-08-2011, 08:10 PM
Well sources with a Pan-Turanist or Turkish Nationalist source with a clearly political agency should not be taken as a legitimate academic source because there is often a hidden agency.

u still talking about turanist or some?

the chinese stealing Manchu,mongolian and Uyghur history!

dsong2006
01-08-2011, 08:42 PM
u still talking about turanist or some?

the chinese stealing Manchu,mongolian and Uyghur history!

How are we stealing their history, Manchus conquered us, and subjugated China until 1912. By that time even the royal family and their bannermen(Manchu military) had forgotten their own language and replaced their own culture with Chinese culture. To certain degree the same can be said about the Mongols, but we did drive them out after 100yrs. I don't think you understand the concept of what is meant to be Chinese and what is meant to be Han Chinese.

Chinese=Anyone of any ethnicities including ethnic minorities like Uyghurs, Mongols, and Manchus that build empires within the borders of the geographical confines of Modern China. Being Chinese carries the same meaning as being American. You can be Mongol Chinese or Manchu Chinese etc. etc like you can be African American or Turkish American. China has always been cosmopolitan and consisted of many many different ethnicities ever since the antiquity.

Chinese History=Any empire or dynasty that was build within China's boundaries, whether "Han" Chinese or none Han-Chinese. This includes the Mongol, Manchu, and many other Altaic Northern and Daic/Hmong/Mien/Austroasiatic Southern Minorities.

Han Chinese=A fluid concept of a people originating from the mythical Huangdi and Yangdi, descendents of the Huaxia tribe and Dongyi tribe. However also include a significant number of assimilated minorities, many Turkic/Tungusic/Mongolic like the Xianbei, Touba etc. etc.

Therefore, we did not steal history from Manchus or Mongols. As soon as they conquered China and decided to become Chinese themselves, they become part of Chinese history. No one is claiming anything other part of Mongol history aka before they took over China. With Manchu history, the Qing dynasty is one of the most quintessentially Chinese dynasties even though the rulers were not ethnically Chinese. Manchus themselves, like so many other nomadic peoples in the past, adopted all Chinese customs, language(although mandarin has manchu influences), changed their names to Chinese and intermarried with Chinese people. Therefore, they assimilated on their own accord because they were the subjugators. However, it goes both ways. Northern China has also has been influenced by Mongols and Manchu in many ways. With Uyghurs is much more complicated and you can open a new thread on that lol there's too much politics involved. But just remember, Uyghurs are mixed Tocharian, Turkic, proto-Sino-Tibetan as indicated by their HGs. But the same logic follows, Uyghurs are within China's borders, Xinjiang was part of China for over 1000 yrs albeit on and off. So at least part of Uyghur history is a subset of Chinese history.

Chupa Chups
01-08-2011, 08:45 PM
If Belgians are Oghuz then French are probably Khazars :rolleyes:

Turcomanian
01-08-2011, 08:48 PM
How are we stealing their history, Manchus conquered us, and subjugated China until 1912. By that time even the royal family and their bannermen(Manchu military) had forgotten their own language and replaced their own culture with Chinese culture. To certain degree the same can be said about the Mongols, but we did drive them out after 100yrs. I don't think you understand the concept of what is meant to be Chinese and what is meant to be Han Chinese.

Chinese=Anyone of any ethnicities including ethnic minorities like Uyghurs, Mongols, and Manchus that build empires within the borders of the geographical confines of Modern China. Being Chinese carries the same meaning as being American. You can be Mongol Chinese or Manchu Chinese etc. etc like you can be African American or Turkish American. China has always been cosmopolitan and consisted of many many different ethnicities ever since the antiquity.

Chinese History=Any empire or dynasty that was build within China's boundaries, whether "Han" Chinese or none Han-Chinese. This includes the Mongol, Manchu, and many other Altaic Northern and Daic/Hmong/Mien/Austroasiatic Southern Minorities.

Han Chinese=A fluid concept of a people originating from the mythical Huangdi and Yangdi, descendents of the Huaxia tribe and Dongyi tribe. However also include a significant number of assimilated minorities, many Turkic/Tungusic/Mongolic like the Xianbei, Touba etc. etc.

Therefore, we did not steal history from Manchus or Mongols. As soon as they conquered China and decided to become Chinese themselves, they become part of Chinese history. No one is claiming anything other part of Mongol history aka before they took over China. With Manchu history, the Qing dynasty is one of the most quintessentially Chinese dynasties even though the rulers were not ethnically Chinese. Manchus themselves, like so many other nomadic peoples in the past, adopted all Chinese customs, language(although mandarin has manchu influences), changed their names to Chinese and intermarried with Chinese people. Therefore, they assimilated on their own accord because they were the subjugators. However, it goes both ways. Northern China has also has been influenced by Mongols and Manchu in many ways. With Uyghurs is much more complicated and you can open a new thread on that lol there's too much politics involved. But just remember, Uyghurs are mixed Tocharian, Turkic, proto-Sino-Tibetan as indicated by their HGs. But the same logic follows, Uyghurs are within China's borders, Xinjiang was part of China for over 1000 yrs albeit on and off. So at least part of Uyghur history is a subset of Chinese history.

Ofc chinese stealing it


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4zyJjruMCo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_dlMV3Absw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LH9cPc8LO8M

dsong2006
01-08-2011, 09:15 PM
For video #1: No academic in China claims Genghis Khan as a Chinese ruler because he played no part in Chinese history. However, Inner Mongolians and other Mongol influenced/Mongol admixed people have every right to claim him has an ethnic hero. Are they not Chinese? As for Yuan Dynasty, it was a Chinese dnyasty. The Mongol empire was splited into pieces, each of them are unique and localized. In each case the Mongols assimilated to some degree. A good example would be the Hazara in Afghanistan. As for Manchus, they did become Chinese. You cannot separate a Manchu person from a Chinese person today because Manchu customs and Chinese customs are the same. The national dress of China is the Qipao and is of Manchu origin. There is really no way to differentiate these two ethnicites and many Chinese people are mixed Manchu and many Manchu are mixed Chinese. Like I said the Qing Dynasty is Chinese even though the rulers are Manchu. If its not then the Mughal dynasty in India is not Indian.

For video #2, look up Mogao Caves(which is where those "Uyghur" paintings come from) They are Buddhist and very Chinese. The depictions are of Buddhist figures, Buddhism came to China from India via Afghanistan, so many of the figures look non-Chinese because the religion is foreign.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mogao_Caves

For video #3, Those are from tribes that were later assilimated into the Chinese population or became southern minorities. During the Shang dynasty the concept of Chinese or Han Chinese did not exist. In fact China was not united until the Qin dynasty, centuries later. But those sites are still indisputably Chinese.

Partizan
01-09-2011, 10:59 AM
If Belgians are Oghuz then French are probably Khazars :rolleyes:

:lol:
I dunno but as T-Dominator wrote before(in ABF),region of "Calais" in France is etymologically Turkic/Hunnic.(Of course it doesn't mean that they are Huns :D )

Heraus
01-09-2011, 11:03 AM
You mean Calais, that formerly Dutch-speaking French city known as Calesium in medieval Latin (probably from Celtic caleto- "strong") the neighbouring villages of which are named Marck, Sangatte, Offekerque, Balinghem, Hervelinghen, ... ?

Partizan
01-09-2011, 11:10 AM
You mean Calais, that formerly Dutch-speaking French city known as Calesium in medieval Latin (probably from Celtic caleto- "strong") the neighbouring villages of which are named Marck, Sangatte, Offekerque, Balinghem, Hervelinghen, ... ?

Yeah I mean there...But T-Dominator knows more about this issue,I must ask him when I'll see online him on MSN or Facebook,so...

Heraus
01-09-2011, 11:15 AM
Yeah I mean there...But T-Dominator knows more about this issue,I must ask him when I'll see online him on MSN or Facebook,so...
Surely he knows more about the Turkic origin of Calais and the whole of Calaisis.

Partizan
01-09-2011, 12:12 PM
Surely he knows more about the Turkic origin of Calais and the whole of Calaisis.

:lol:
By Turkic origin he just meant etymology,he wrote something about it in ABF but I can't exactly remember.

Colin Wilson
01-09-2011, 12:18 PM
The problem is that siberian altaic hordes of those times did not build cities but were rather famous for their destruction of cities and massacres against civilians
The Huns were not Turk , in fact hun is an indo-iranian unmbrella term of confederation of mulltiethnic tribes consisiting of indo-iranians, yeniseians, altaics, germans etc...
Atilla itself has a germanic name "atella=little father in Germanic"
However according to waht I read the most plausible theory is that the core of the Huns were of Yeniseian ethnicity...

Heraus
01-09-2011, 12:43 PM
:lol:
By Turkic origin he just meant etymology,he wrote something about it in ABF but I can't exactly remember.
I don't doubt that his claim is well documented : after all, it's logical to explain an early medieval French placename Calesium thanks to Turkic languages.

Kyte
01-09-2011, 01:00 PM
I can't believe this thread has reached it's 8th page.

PlanAustral
01-09-2011, 10:41 PM
I actually agree with Proudtobetruk on China stealing the history of other countries, as bad as the Genghis Khan issue is the Goguryeo issue, claiming an ancient Korean kingdom as Chinese because much of its territory is now territory of China.

dsong2006
01-10-2011, 01:01 AM
I actually agree with Proudtobetruk on China stealing the history of other countries, as bad as the Genghis Khan issue is the Goguryeo issue, claiming an ancient Korean kingdom as Chinese because much of its territory is now territory of China.

Omg please don't even go there with the Koreans, they are literally claiming everything Chinese to be Korean. They're claiming Confucius is Korean, Jin dynasty(they shameless call it Kim dynasty) is Korean because the Jurchens were Korean, Qing dynasty is Korean because the Manchus are Korean, the mythical Chiyou is the Korean ancestor, Genghis Khan is Korean, Duanwu Festival(Dragonboat festival) is from Korea, rice dumplings are Korean, Chinese national dress is Korean origin, Chinese herbal medicine is Korean origin, dog eating is korean...okay they can have that one lol

Talk about cultural insecurity and cultural thievery.

Turcomanian
01-10-2011, 01:06 AM
The problem is that siberian altaic hordes of those times did not build cities but were rather famous for their destruction of cities and massacres against civilians
The Huns were not Turk , in fact hun is an indo-iranian unmbrella term of confederation of mulltiethnic tribes consisiting of indo-iranians, yeniseians, altaics, germans etc...
Atilla itself has a germanic name "atella=little father in Germanic"
However according to waht I read the most plausible theory is that the core of the Huns were of Yeniseian ethnicity...

blablablabla u still saying all time like you say every is not turk!

Ofc Hunnic were Turks (Uighur).

to much propaganda that you are brainwashed by them

dsong2006
01-10-2011, 01:29 AM
blablablabla u still saying all time like you say every is not turk!

Ofc Hunnic were Turks (Uighur).

to much propaganda that you are brainwashed by them

wait what? Uighurs aren't even an entitiy until after the Huns migrated westwards. The Uighur Kaghante was founded in the 8th century AD, Huns have been in Eastern Europe since the 2nd century AD.

And he's right about Huns being an umbrella term. The Huns absorbs a lot of different tribes just late the Mongols centuries later.

Turcomanian
01-10-2011, 02:07 AM
wait what? Uighurs aren't even an entitiy until after the Huns migrated westwards. The Uighur Kaghante was founded in the 8th century AD, Huns have been in Eastern Europe since the 2nd century AD.

And he's right about Huns being an umbrella term. The Huns absorbs a lot of different tribes just late the Mongols centuries later.

so u know nothing about Uyghurs

Uyghur had More Empires than Turkish empires

if u want learn more about uyghur empires so buy james churchward's book or read it on google book,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49f_kOCA050

dsong2006
01-10-2011, 02:23 AM
so u know nothing about Uyghurs

Uyghur had More Empires than Turkish empires

if u want learn more about uyghur empires so buy james churchward's book or read it on google book,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49f_kOCA050

This is a joke right?

Turcomanian
01-10-2011, 11:12 AM
This is a joke right?

No This is not a JOKE


if Hunnic were not turkic (Uighur)

the uyghur should not have the Hun song

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLM_LL5_bA4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2pf2SlVLz0


Kushan
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/KushanHead.jpg

do they looks iranian or uyghur? no they look Uighur than Iranian

Hephthalite

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/HephthaliteCoin.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:White_Hun.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/HunCoinDerivedFromSassanianDesign5thCE.JPG

tell me how do they look like?

this guy colin think attila were indo-iranian if attila were iranian,Turks should not have name Attila,
colin were brainwashed by Western Propaganda and Anatolianism.

Colin Wilson
01-10-2011, 12:11 PM
blablablabla u still saying all time like you say every is not turk!

Ofc Hunnic were Turks (Uighur).

to much propaganda that you are brainwashed by them
Huns predate Turks and were a multiethnic confederation with most likely a core yeniseian ethnicity

Raven
01-10-2011, 12:14 PM
I don't believe it, because the Gagauz are the western most of the Oguz tribe.

Colin Wilson
01-10-2011, 12:15 PM
No This is not a JOKE
if Hunnic were not turkic (Uighur)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLM_LL5_bA4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2pf2SlVLz0
Kushan
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/KushanHead.jpg
do they looks iranian or uyghur? no they look Uighur than Iranian
Hephthalite
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/HephthaliteCoin.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:White_Hun.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/HunCoinDerivedFromSassanianDesign5thCE.JPG
tell me how do they look like?
this guy colin think attila were indo-iranian if attila were iranian,Turks should not have name Attila,
colin were brainwashed by Western Propaganda and Anatolianism.
Hephtalite and Kushans are east iranians.
Atilla is a germanic name.
the uyghur should not have the Hun song
:eek: are you serious if zulus sung a song called hun are they huns.
Besides why are you so interested with huns they were raiding nomad hordes that made big harm to your ancestors if you would end with 2-3% altaic that a resulted of forced unwanted unnatural admixture and you cannot associate yourself with your own repressors=>that is called stokholm syndrome

Colin Wilson
01-10-2011, 12:17 PM
I don't believe it, because the Gagauz are the western most of the Oguz tribe.
the oghuz turks were very few nomad hordes that disappeared by dilution into the settled populations they conquered.
gagauz do largely descend from native europeans who underwent language shift

Turcomanian
01-10-2011, 12:21 PM
Huns predate Turks and were a multiethnic confederation with most likely a core yeniseian ethnicity

Dude, you can't say Hunnic were not turkic if hunnic were not turk,turkish peoples should not have the name Attila.


Next Time you gonna say Alp arslan,Osman I and seljuk and ottoman are not turks.

Colin Wilson
01-10-2011, 12:26 PM
turks have th arabic name osman as well the persian name fereydun and the french name onur so what!!!???
also turks have the yeniseian names tigin, kaan, kağan, hakan so what!!!
they have east iranian names böri,istemi...so what!!!???

Turcomanian
01-10-2011, 12:31 PM
Hephtalite and Kushans are east iranians.
Atilla is a germanic name.

:eek: are you serious if zulus sung a song called hun are they huns.
Besides why are you so interested with huns they were raiding nomad hordes that made big harm to your ancestors if you would end with 2-3% altaic that a resulted of forced unwanted unnatural admixture and you cannot associate yourself with your own repressors=>that is called stokholm syndrome

LOL why i cant find an german who have the name attila?

White huns and kushans were Uighur empries and the CCP propaganda and Western hidded the truth,

Colin Wilson
01-10-2011, 12:34 PM
white huns and kushans were iranian empires and I already posted serious scholar papers about that, they will not became Turk when you say that they are Turk.
LOL why i cant find an german who have the name attila?
are you serious!!???
why there is no german called Odin!!!???

Colin Wilson
01-10-2011, 12:35 PM
anyway let's end OT you are wasting my time
I will post a thread about internal muslim wars then I have to go

Turcomanian
01-10-2011, 12:38 PM
white huns and kushans were iranian empires and I already posted serious scholar papers about that, they will not became Turk when you say that they are Turk.

are you serious!!???
why there is no german called Odin!!!???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attila_(name)

Attila is a popular name for boys in both Hungary and Turkey. Another version of Attila in Hungary is Etele,[1] the female equivalent of which is Etelka. Other versions of Attila used in Turkey are Atilla and Atila because consonant repetitions like "tt" in "Attila" are actually very seldom and difficult to pronounce in modern Turkish language.

Colin Wilson
01-10-2011, 12:42 PM
So what, what does this mean!!???
There are germanic names (atilla) as well as Latin,Arabic,Persian names amongst Turks and Hungarians!!!
The Hungarians use the semtic (arabic for szultan) originated names "szultan,imre,adam,jozef...." are they Semites!!??
Please use your brain

Turcomanian
01-10-2011, 12:44 PM
So what, what does this mean!!???
There are germanic names (atilla) as well as Latin,Arabic,Persian names amongst Turks and Hungarians!!!
The Hungarians use the semtic (arabic for szultan) originated names "szultan,imre,adam,jozef...." are they Semites!!??
Please use your brain

u talk to much bullsh't

use brain ??

and you are BRAINWASHED BY anatolianism who are anti-turkic of anatolia,

History of AnatolianismHilmi Ziya Ülken, one of the founders of Anatolianism, was against the Ottomanism, Islamism and Turanism. Between 1918 and 1919 he published the periodical Anadolu with Reşat Kayı. In 1919 Ülken wote a book titled Anadolunun Bugünki Vazifeleri (Present duties of Anatolia), but it was not published. In 1923, Ülken and his friends published the periodical Anadolu. They worked to form an alternative thought to Ottomanism, Islamism and Turanism, and they opposed the specificity of Turkish history traced origins outside of Anatolia. Their conclusion was Memleketçilik.

Colin Wilson
01-10-2011, 12:45 PM
If I am not mistaken the name Atilla was introduced in Turkey after the birth of "turanism" by some European intellectuals such as Cahun and Vambery(interestingly both were jew) as well as Guignes.
and perhaps it's the same case for Atilla however the name origin is Germanic.

Colin Wilson
01-10-2011, 12:46 PM
It's because your posts dont make sense.
Anyway please end the OT, this thread is about supposed Turkish origin of the Belgians and not about Atilla

Turcomanian
01-10-2011, 12:47 PM
If I am not mistaken the name Atilla was introduced in Turkey after the birth of "turanism" by some European intellectuals such as Cahun and Vambery(interestingly both were jew) as well as Guignes.
and perhaps it's the same case for Atilla however the name origin is Germanic.

Just Go ask an Hungarian Guy if attila name is turkic or hungarian or Germanic,

Brod
01-10-2011, 12:52 PM
Hephtalite and Kushans are east iranians.
Atilla is a germanic name.

Attila is a Turkic name.:)

In turkic languages : Atta - father
For example :
In uzbek language:

Atta - ota - father.

In сhuvash language:

Atta- Атте -father.

Also, Attila - Atil-Itil-Идел-Атӑл-Едiл- word is a Turkic name for the Volga River.

Colin Wilson
01-10-2011, 12:56 PM
Atilla is not a Turkic name but Germanic because it's a Germanic originated word "ata=father illa=diminutive in Germanic"
"ata" as father is not exlcusively Turkic but it's a generalized onomatopeic baby word used to call father or mother.
In Niger-Kongo languages too "ata"=father so are you going to say that "atilla" was an African!?

Colin Wilson
01-10-2011, 12:58 PM
Basque too has "aita" for father=> Atilla is basque!!!!,
Dakota language in USA father=ate=>Atilla is a sioux!!!
etc etc...
Afrikaans: Vader
Bangla: Baba or Abba
Basque: Aita
Bolognese: Pèder
Brazilian Portuguese: Pai
Breton: Tad
Chinese: Ba (Baa)
Cree (Canada): Papa
Croatian: Otac
Czech: Táta, Otec
Dakota (USA): Ate
Dutch: Vader, Papa or Pappie
East African: Baba
English: Father, Dad, Daddy, Pop, Poppa or Papa
Filipino: Tatay, Itay, Tay or Ama
French: Papa
Galician: Pai
German: Banketi or Papi
Hebrew: Abba (h)
Hindi: Papa or Pita-ji
Hungarian: Apa, Apu, Papa or Edesapa
Icelandic: Pabbi or Fağir
Indonesian: Bapa, Ayah or Pak
Irish: Athair or Daidí
Italian: Babbo
Japanese: Otosan or Papa
Judeo: Spanish, Padre, Baba or Babu
Kikuyu: Baba
Kiswahili: Baba
Ladin: Pere
Latin: Pater, Papa or Atta
Luo (Kenya): Baba
Malay: Bapa
Maltese: Missier
Modern Greek: Babbas
Nahuatl (Mexico): Ta'
Nepali: Buwa
Norwegian: Pappa or Far
Persian/Farsi: Pedar, Pitar or Baabaa
Polish: Tata or Ojciec
Portuguese: Pai
Quechua: Tata or Churiyaqe
Romanian: Tata, Parinte or Taica
Russian: Papa
Sanskrit: Tàtah or Janak
Sicilian: Patri
Slovak: Otec
Spanish: Papá, Viejo or Tata
Swedish: Pappa
Swiss German: Vatter
Turkish: Baba
Urdu: Abbu, Abbu-ji, Abbu-jaan
Venetian: Pare, Popà, 'Opà, Pupà or Papà
Welsh: Tad

Turcomanian
01-10-2011, 01:01 PM
Atilla is not a Turkic name but Germanic because it's a Germanic originated word "ata=father illa=diminutive in Germanic"
"ata" as father is not exlcusively Turkic but it's a generalized onomatopeic baby word used to call father or mother.
In Niger-Kongo languages too "ata"=father so are you going to say that "atilla" was an African!?

just ask an hungarian

Psycho
01-10-2011, 01:25 PM
just ask an hungarian

:lol:

dsong2006
01-10-2011, 03:45 PM
No This is not a JOKE


if Hunnic were not turkic (Uighur)

the uyghur should not have the Hun song

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLM_LL5_bA4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2pf2SlVLz0


Kushan
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/KushanHead.jpg

do they looks iranian or uyghur? no they look Uighur than Iranian

Hephthalite

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/HephthaliteCoin.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:White_Hun.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2b/HunCoinDerivedFromSassanianDesign5thCE.JPG

tell me how do they look like?

this guy colin think attila were indo-iranian if attila were iranian,Turks should not have name Attila,
colin were brainwashed by Western Propaganda and Anatolianism.

I'm sorry but you just lost all credibility with the last video. How can you call other people brainwashed if you think Uyghurs build the "Lost Continent of Mu"?

1. You can't call that a Hunnic song, thats like calling an English song Gothic

2. Uyghur have NOTHING to do with Hungarians

3. not sure where you goin with this

4. What do the Hepthalites have to do with Uyghurs? they were an Indo-European(Tocharian or Yuezhi) tribe

Partizan
01-10-2011, 03:49 PM
Attila is a Turkic name.:)

In turkic languages : Atta - father
For example :
In uzbek language:

Atta - ota - father.

In сhuvash language:

Atta- Атте -father.

Also, Attila - Atil-Itil-Идел-Атӑл-Едiл- word is a Turkic name for the Volga River.

I believe Attila comes from "Atyl"(Itil).

Turcomanian
01-10-2011, 04:13 PM
I'm sorry but you just lost all credibility with the last video. How can you call other people brainwashed if you think Uyghurs build the "Lost Continent of Mu"?

1. You can't call that a Hunnic song, thats like calling an English song Gothic

2. Uyghur have NOTHING to do with Hungarians

3. not sure where you goin with this

4. What do the Hepthalites have to do with Uyghurs? they were an Indo-European(Tocharian or Yuezhi) tribe

are you new david noi?,

how can i call an peoples an brainwashed? because this guy reading an false history from Western Propaganda

2. why uyghur has nothing with hungarian? ok then

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsihUADUhvQ
Uyghur has nothing with hungary? what? you are anti-turks in china,

4, indo-european Never existed,INDO means indian and why european nation has nothing with "indo"-european

according to ataturk that turkish peoples were lived in Mu because ataturk agreed with James Churchward,


P.S you know NOTHING about turkic peoples and turkic history

Colin Wilson
01-10-2011, 04:17 PM
4, indo-european Never existed,INDO means indian and why european nation has nothing with "indo"-european
Are you serious,IE exist and you are now using IE language+alphabet as well as have IE culture

according to ataturk that turkish peoples were lived in Mu because ataturk agreed with James Churchward,
That is not a proof for anything, everyone could say what he wants.
Are you gonna believe me if I would say turkish peoples came from the moon!?

Turcomanian
01-10-2011, 04:21 PM
Are you serious,IE exist and you are now using IE language+alphabet as well as have IE culture


That is not a proof for anything, everyone could say what he wants.
Are you gonna believe me if I would say turkish peoples came from the moon!?

LOL

even i heard adam and eve were from venus to earth,

INDO-european Never existed,

European has nothing with INDO-european ;)

what does means IE??

Colin Wilson
01-10-2011, 04:28 PM
Dont believe everything you heard.
Indo-Europeans existed and exist.
IE=Indo-European.
Nearly all Nobel prizes were won by indo-europeans as well as nearly all football world cups.
There are around 3 billions indo-europeans now in the earth, I fear you must indo-europeanize yourself to feel more hapiness than now as you will win not only Einstein and Saladin(who are indo-europeans and not turks as the videos you posted are claiming) but also Newton and Napoleon as well as as high as 3 billion brothers and thousands of famous personalities.
:devil:

Satyr
01-10-2011, 04:30 PM
INDO-european Never existed,

European has nothing with INDO-european ;)

what does means IE??

Actually, "Indo-European" is only a neologism meant to describe the geographical extension area of this language family during historical times. It now should be updated and called Indo-American, BTW.

dsong2006
01-10-2011, 05:44 PM
I'm not anti-Turk, but I'm really sick of this fervently nationalistic Turanism which fabricates false histories, distort historical facts, defies genetic evidences and takes away other people's culture, history and traditions. Did you even look at the video you responded with? I stopped watching after seeing this...

"The Uyghur Empire was possibly the first, and unquestionably the largest, most important, and most powerful of all the colonial empires belonging to Mu. Colonization commenced just north of Burma more than 70,000 years ago."

dsong2006
01-10-2011, 05:47 PM
are you new david noi?,

how can i call an peoples an brainwashed? because this guy reading an false history from Western Propaganda

2. why uyghur has nothing with hungarian? ok then

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OsihUADUhvQ
Uyghur has nothing with hungary? what? you are anti-turks in china,

4, indo-european Never existed,INDO means indian and why european nation has nothing with "indo"-european

according to ataturk that turkish peoples were lived in Mu because ataturk agreed with James Churchward,


P.S you know NOTHING about turkic peoples and turkic history

You think Turkic people came from MU and call other people brainswashed? You sound just like Afro-centrists who claim Egyptians were black, Chinese were black, Mesotopotamia was founded by blacks. You have no credibility left after making that MU statement.

Do all the other Turkish members on this forum agree with the this guy? I'm really curious.

Colin Wilson
01-10-2011, 05:48 PM
I'm not anti-Turk, but I'm really sick of this fervently nationalistic Turanism which fabricates false histories, distort historical facts, defies genetic evidences and takes away other people's culture, history and traditions. Did you even look at the video you responded with? I stopped watching after seeing this...

"The Uyghur Empire was possibly the first, and unquestionably the largest, most important, and most powerful of all the colonial empires belonging to Mu. Colonization commenced just north of Burma more than 70,000 years ago."
The problem is that there are many peoples (including "professors") who believe such stuff and that all civilizations were started by migrating Turks from Central Asia or Mu when in reality the Turk migrations were very destructive and ironically against the ancestors of those same peoples that praise Turks;typical stokholm syndrome affected comatic brain!

dsong2006
01-10-2011, 05:52 PM
The problem is that there are many peoples (including "professors") who believe such stuff and that all civilizations were started by migrating Turks from Central Asia or Mu when in reality the Turk migrations were very destructive and ironically against the ancestors of those same peoples that praise Turks;typical stokholm syndrome affected comatic brain!

Are these types of propaganda support by the Turkish government or is it privately funded and supported? This kinda stuff is like Nazi propaganda and scientific racism in the 21st century.

Kyte
01-10-2011, 05:56 PM
Are these types of propaganda support by the Turkish government or is it privately funded and supported? This kinda stuff is like Nazi propaganda and scientific racism in the 21st century.

Why don't you stop posting on the thread if it bothers you so much? That's what I'm doing and I feel no compulsion to go on rants about it, if you don't subscribe to these threads they will die out relatively quickly. I'd also like to point out that the OP is not even Turkish.

Turcomanian
01-10-2011, 06:13 PM
You think Turkic people came from MU and call other people brainswashed? You sound just like Afro-centrists who claim Egyptians were black, Chinese were black, Mesotopotamia was founded by blacks. You have no credibility left after making that MU statement.

Do all the other Turkish members on this forum agree with the this guy? I'm really curious.

well i have readed some james churchward's book

Uyghur peoples are much older than Han chinese ;)

Turcomanian
01-10-2011, 06:15 PM
Dont believe everything you heard.
Indo-Europeans existed and exist.
IE=Indo-European.
Nearly all Nobel prizes were won by indo-europeans as well as nearly all football world cups.
There are around 3 billions indo-europeans now in the earth, I fear you must indo-europeanize yourself to feel more hapiness than now as you will win not only Einstein and Saladin(who are indo-europeans and not turks as the videos you posted are claiming) but also Newton and Napoleon as well as as high as 3 billion brothers and thousands of famous personalities.
:devil:

IE never existed,

if u are "indo"-european yourself then are you wanna be european right?

Turcomanian
01-10-2011, 06:26 PM
Are you serious,IE exist and you are now using IE language+alphabet as well as have IE culture


That is not a proof for anything, everyone could say what he wants.
Are you gonna believe me if I would say turkish peoples came from the moon!?

there is no proof?

what about sven lagerbring u dont agree with him what about james churchward so u dont agree with him and nothing?

ataturk adopted central asia and turkic history and many more he never Adopted "native" anatolian history and Nothing

only anatolianism leader who adopted "native"anatolian history

Satyr
01-10-2011, 06:29 PM
IE never existed

Funny that you say this in a IE language.

dsong2006
01-10-2011, 06:34 PM
well i have readed some james churchward's book

Uyghur peoples are much older than Han chinese ;)

He's an occult writer, not a historian, anthropologist, geneticist, oceanographer etc. etc from 1800s

There is no evidence to speak of to support MU or anything Uyghur connection. And I'm not clueless about C. Asian history either. I read Secret History of the Mongols, the earliest written history from Mongolia and Rene Grousset's Empire of the Steppe and I've taken many college courses in C. Asian/East Asian history class. Please don't me I know nothing about Uyghurs.

I've said the before and I will tell you this again, the name "Uyghur" was not around until the 8th century, but you can say that Tocharian history is subset of Uyghur history because Uyghurs have some Tocharian ancestry. But early Tocharian history constitutes a "culture" as opposed to an advanced civilizaiton. But Chinese civilization is at least 4000+ years old. The archeological finds in Erlitou(Captial of the Xia dynasty) is prove of that, other sites are excavated to be 5000years old. There is no way Uyghurs are MUCH OLDER than Han Chinese. Only the Fertile Crescent, the Nile Valley and the Indus valley civilizations are older than the Chinese civilization.

dsong2006
01-10-2011, 06:39 PM
there is no proof?

what about sven lagerbring u dont agree with him what about james churchward so u dont agree with him and nothing?

ataturk adopted central asia and turkic history and many more he never Adopted "native" anatolian history and Nothing

only anatolianism leader who adopted "native"anatolian history

James Churchward is an "occult writer" he is not a historian, anthropologist, geneticists or oceanographer. He's been debunked completely already and his writings are pseudo archeology. The possibility of the existence of MU is zero.

Turcomanian
01-10-2011, 06:44 PM
James Churchward is an "occult writer" he is not a historian, anthropologist, geneticists or oceanographer. He's been debunked completely already and his writings are pseudo archeology. The possibility of the existence of MU is zero.

just u can ask james churchward's great grandson on youtube :)

http://www.youtube.com/user/jchurchward

or watch his great grandson's video,

dsong2006
01-10-2011, 06:51 PM
just u can ask james churchward's great grandson on youtube :)

http://www.youtube.com/user/jchurchward

or watch his great grandson's video,

I don't care what his great grandson has to say, geological evidence, mapping of the ocean floor, the genetic evidence of all the modern Pacific Islanders all eliminates the possibility of MU. Churchward pull it straight out of his ass and I can't believe people today are buying into it.

Xumarov
01-10-2011, 07:24 PM
That is a stupid remark, he probably never even been to Genk. U can never know exactly what happend in history but this is getting to weird.

Colin Wilson
01-11-2011, 12:46 PM
The hat worn by mr Satyr looks like a Kyrghiz hat
http://cryptome.org/eyeball/manas/pict52.jpg

Psycho
01-11-2011, 05:40 PM
The hat worn by mr Satyr looks like a Kyrghiz hat
http://cryptome.org/eyeball/manas/pict52.jpg

Is that you ? :eek:

Goupil
01-11-2011, 05:51 PM
Is that you ? :eek:

Yeap. But he is half-Arabic, half-Anatolian according to him. 0 % Mongoloid genetically, 0 % Turkic culturally, 100 % Semitic-Iranian with Iranic hat. :)

Colin Wilson
01-11-2011, 07:24 PM
Yeap. But he is half-Arabic, half-Anatolian according to him. 0 % Mongoloid genetically, 0 % Turkic culturally, 100 % Semitic-Iranian with Iranic hat. :)
No that's not mine it's kyrgyzistan president if I am not mistaken.
Mr Goupil, do you like if some people say that you are Siberian by culture and that you should call yourself mongol when you has as low as 1% if not 0% mongoloid input.
Also do you like that historians and people in your country do distort the origin and culture of frenchmen and saying that they came from an imaginary inexistant continent called Mu and from there they "spread civilization" to all parts of the world!?

Colin Wilson
01-11-2011, 07:27 PM
100 % Semitic-Iranian
I never said that however when your religion and alphabet are of Semitic origin and when your culture (as well as high cultural words in the language) is heavily Iranian and explain this how it could be inaccurate or distorting for god's sake!?

Goupil
01-11-2011, 07:31 PM
No that's not mine it's kyrgyzistan president if I am not mistaken.
Mr Goupil, do you like if some people say that you are Siberian by culture and that you should call yourself mongol when you has as low as 1% if not 0% mongoloid input.
Also do you like that historians and people in your country do distort the origin and culture of frenchmen and saying that they came from an imaginary inexistant continent called Mu and from there they "spread civilization" to all parts of the world!?

Dude it's obvious that Roman heritage in France is more important than Celtic, Basque and others. All others are dead ones or too limited in space. But French don't descend from Romans yet.

Colin Wilson
01-11-2011, 07:41 PM
Please dont call me dude, I hate that word.
Celtic and Basque are not dead they are yourself, the roman heritage is only the last superficial layer but genetically and culturally it's still vasco-celtic.
Anyway Celtic is very close to Italic both being IE languages and Basque too has very probably participated in the emergence of Gaulish and then French with prounciation and other substrata.

Goupil
01-11-2011, 07:45 PM
Please dont call me dude, I hate that word.
Celtic and Basque are not dead they are yourself, the roman heritage is only the last superficial layer but genetically and culturally it's still vasco-celtic.
Anyway Celtic is very close to Italic both being IE languages and Basque too has very probably participated in the emergence of Gaulish and then French with prounciation and other substrata.

Please be serious, most of French can't recognize themselves in this cultural/linguistic heritages now. It's dead for them and without signification.

Colin Wilson
01-11-2011, 07:58 PM
But Celtic and Italic are both IE languages and connected with the same racialo-linguistic stock

Heraus
01-11-2011, 07:59 PM
Everything defining France is Roman/West European : religion, language and law. Even the Basques are Roman by culture and amongst the most faithful servitors of the Roman Church (that they daily speak a non-i.e. language is meaningless as their administrative language always was Romance : the only originality they had was law, a subset of Pyrenean law : fueros, exclusive primogenitary inheritance, ...).

Kyte
01-11-2011, 08:02 PM
No that's not mine it's kyrgyzistan president if I am not mistaken.
Mr Goupil, do you like if some people say that you are Siberian by culture and that you should call yourself mongol when you has as low as 1% if not 0% mongoloid input.
Also do you like that historians and people in your country do distort the origin and culture of frenchmen and saying that they came from an imaginary inexistant continent called Mu and from there they "spread civilization" to all parts of the world!?

If anything we, as the Turkish members of this forum, we are 'more Turkish' than you and hence it is you imposing an identity on us and not the other way. Stop making yourself into a victim every time you get into an argument.

Psycho
01-11-2011, 08:02 PM
Everything defining France is Roman/West European : religion, language and law. Even the Basques are Roman by culture and amongst the most faithful servitors of the Roman Church (that they daily speak a non-i.e. language is meaningless as their administrative language always was Romance : the only originality they had was law, a subset of Pyrenean law : fueros, exclusive primogenitary inheritance, ...).

French are Celtic who speaks Latin language just like South Slavic are Balkan who speaks Slav language.

dsong2006
01-11-2011, 08:08 PM
If anything we, as the Turkish members of this forum, we are 'more Turkish' than you and hence it is you imposing an identity on us and not the other way. Stop making yourself into a victim every time you get into an argument.

Isn't proudtobeturk doing the same exact thing? He's claiming that ancient turks build a lost continent of Mu, don't you feel obliged to stop him from propagating a false history of your ancestors? or do you secretly believe him and feel good about what he's doing.

Colin Wilson
01-11-2011, 08:09 PM
If anything we, as the Turkish members of this forum, we are 'more Turkish' than you and hence it is you imposing an identity on us and not the other way. Stop making yourself into a victim every time you get into an argument.
I cannot nor want nor have the power to "impose identity" on anyone (as if your identity is really "Turk" anyway) this is a discussion in a forum not in parliament.
I did not made myself into vicitim and I am not!

Heraus
01-11-2011, 08:12 PM
French are Celtic who speaks Latin language just like South Slavic are Balkan who speaks Slav language.
Except that Celtic and Latin were cousin languages in the first place while Slavic is somehow "foreign" to the Balkans.

Psycho
01-11-2011, 08:15 PM
Except that Celtic and Latin were cousin languages in the first place while Slavic is somehow "foreign" to the Balkans.

I totally agree with you that Celtic and Latin were cousin language. I dont think Slavic are foreign to Balkan since Balkan are actually Slavic speaking and cuturally (depend which part of Balkan). Slavic and Baltic are also cousin language. :)

Colin Wilson
01-11-2011, 08:15 PM
Latinization of Celts in France is similar to Arabization of Arameans in Syria in this aspect.

RealChe
01-11-2011, 08:17 PM
white huns and kushans were iranian empires and I already posted serious scholar papers about that, they will not became Turk when you say that they are Turk.

are you serious!!???
why there is no german called Odin!!!???

Huns were a new formed tribe made up by white Huns (Sakens and other Eastiranic tribes) and Asiatic Huns (most probably mongoloid-caucasid people). The Huns who conquered Europe were white Huns but they also had definitly asiatic blood due mixing with asiatic Huns. The Huns as whole were made up by few different tribes and not one Homogeneous. The Turks originated also most probably from Huns but I don´t believe they were the white Huns cause the White Huns were almost proven Iranic tribes while the Asiatic Huns which conquered the East were most probably the Turkic tribes. The hunnic empire was the first step for intermixing between Turkic and Iranic tribes in Centralasia.

Colin Wilson
01-11-2011, 08:18 PM
I totally agree with you that Celtic and Latin were cousin language. I dont think Slavic are foreign to Balkan since Balkan are actually Slavic speaking and cuturally (depend which part of Balkan). Slavic and Baltic are also cousin language. :)
No Balkanians used to be Ilyrian speaking not Baltic and Ilyrian is way distant to Slavic and older than it.
Balkanian culture is geographical-dependent and not linguisic-dependent

Psycho
01-11-2011, 08:19 PM
No Balkanians used to be Ilyrian speaking not Baltic and Ilyrian is way distant to Slavic and older than it.
Balkanian culture is geographical-dependent and not linguisic-dependent

Ah, i see.

Colin Wilson
01-11-2011, 08:21 PM
Huns were a new formed tribe made up by white Huns (Sakens and other Eastiranic tribes) and Asiatic Huns (most probably mongoloid-caucasid people). The Huns who conquered Europe were white Huns but they also had definitly asiatic blood due mixing with asiatic Huns. The Huns as whole were made up by few different tribes and not one Homogeneous. The Turks originated also most probably from Huns but I don´t believe they were the white Huns cause the White Huns were almost proven Iranic tribes while the Asiatic Huns which conquered the East were most probably the Turkic tribes. The hunnic empire was the first step for intermixing between Turkic and Iranic tribes in Centralasia
Turks could not originate from Huns because Huns were a mixed population not a source population.
According to scholars the core of Asiatic huns were most likely of Yenisseic origin as showed by onomastics but the word Hun itself is of Indo-Iranian origin.
When they reached Europe, they were an amalgamation of Slavs+Germans+Iranians+Yeniseians+Altaics, their commander Attilla seems to be of Germanic reason if we would assume that by those times only Germans would name their sons by Germanic names

Satyr
01-11-2011, 08:52 PM
French are Celtic who speaks Latin language just like South Slavic are Balkan who speaks Slav language.

How can we be "Celtic" if our ancestors speak a Romance language since already two millenia ?

Psycho
01-11-2011, 09:13 PM
How can we be "Celtic" if our ancestors speak a Romance language since already two millenia ?

Because you has Celtic (Gaul), Sarmata and Germanic bloode just like Balkan has native Balkan and other tribe blood who speak Slavic lanuage.

Satyr
01-11-2011, 09:17 PM
Because you has Celtic (Gaul), Sarmata and Germanic bloode just like Balkan has native Balkan and other tribe blood who speak Slavic lanuage.

"Blood" ? That doesn't make any sense. Gaulish was a language, not a blood type or a haplogroup. I don't speak Gaulish, I therefore can't be a Gaul.

Gauls became extinct with their language and culture, and the same process happened to countless other peoples in history. I think it's about time for some people to finally acknowledge major ethno-cultural and linguistic shifts that happened centuries or even millenia ago.

Psycho
01-11-2011, 09:25 PM
"Blood" ? That doesn't make any sense. Gaulish was a language, not a blood type or a haplogroup. I don't speak Gaulish, I therefore can't be a Gaul.

Gauls became extinct with their language and culture, and the same process happened to countless other peoples in history. I think it's time for some deluded people to acknowledge major ethno-cultural and linguistic changes that happened centuries or even millenia ago.

Ok, you're right. I shouldn't be on this thread because i have no knowledge but my point is that French are Celtic/Latin and looks who they closer to ? They looks similiar to Brit, Northern Italian and Belgian because of Celtic influence. If you think there is no such thing as Celtic or Latin race, then you wouldn't be exist.

Satyr
01-11-2011, 10:15 PM
Ok, you're right. I shouldn't be on this thread because i have no knowledge but my point is that French are Celtic/Latin and looks who they closer to ? They looks similiar to Brit, Northern Italian and Belgian because of Celtic influence.

How do we know these supposed similarities aren't of pre-Celtic, or even pre-IE origin ?


If you think there is no such thing as Celtic or Latin race, then you wouldn't be exist.

I'm afraid I don't quite understand that sentence.

axumd
01-11-2011, 10:41 PM
As far as the topic goes Belgian being Turks in reality is obviously not the truth because there isn't much base for it plus I checked for the Oghuz Turks and they didn't really resemble any Belgians, as for Belgians they are rather a mix of Germanic and Celtic.

Xumarov
01-12-2011, 09:00 AM
As far as the topic goes Belgian being Turks in reality is obviously not the truth because there isn't much base for it plus I checked for the Oghuz Turks and they didn't really resemble any Belgians, as for Belgians they are rather a mix of Germanic and Celtic.

According to Belgian historians they derive from the Celts,but linguisticly germanic. Only it really is a borderline and clash space so mixes really can differ, but surely nothing Turkic

Colin Wilson
01-12-2011, 09:20 AM
If anything we, as the Turkish members of this forum, we are 'more Turkish' than you and hence it is you imposing an identity on us and not the other way. Stop making yourself into a victim every time you get into an argument.
How could you speak in the name of turks when you are half albanian half bulgarian+you are not more turk than anyone neither culturaly nor geneticaly if you have been taught you are a zulu you would have believed it and called yourself Zulu!
Have you ever seen an afrikaan speaking zulu embracing the afrikaan identity of their persecutors!?
The human lives 1 time then game over let him at least living knowing his real identity and real ancestors not the fallacious ethnical claims(of its own repressors) he was been brainwashed to believe he is.

Heraus
01-12-2011, 09:20 AM
According to Belgian historians they derive from the Celts,but linguisticly germanic. Only it really is a borderline and clash space so mixes really can differ, but surely nothing Turkic
There's not such thing as Belgian people ... There are East Picards and Walloons who have been speaking Romance dialects for two millenia and are respectively linked to French Picardy and the Ardennes. They're "ethnic" French whatever that means and the trend to germanize the Walloons' history is just a way to deny who they are : Northern Champenois people lost in the Ardenne forest. Then there is a myriad of Dutch people in the North : proper Flemings, Brabançons, Limburgians, ...That's a mess but nationalism has made things easier : they are "Flemish".

Genetic studies are missing unfortunately enough. My 2 cents that Dutch-speaking Belgians differ from Romance-speaking ones. West Germans might be closer to the Walloons though.

Colin Wilson
01-12-2011, 09:24 AM
How do we know these supposed similarities aren't of pre-Celtic, or even pre-IE origin ?
I'm afraid I don't quite understand that sentence.
Celts and Latins were both caucasoid IE peoples with the same ancestral cultural+mythological+racial+linguistic origin and stock.
However if I am not mistaken much of the toponomy in France is celtic.
In the case of anatolian Turks both genetical and cultural input of Turks is near 0 and the Turk expansion was rather unnatural warfare like one resulted in native anatolians adopting islam (abandoning their former christian religion) and abandon their IE languages (Greek+Armenian) for Turkic.

Colin Wilson
01-12-2011, 09:29 AM
I've read that many parts of Waloonia were Germanic speaking but shifted to (the prestige language) French

Xumarov
01-12-2011, 09:32 AM
There's not such thing as Belgian people ... There are East Picards and Walloons who have been speaking Romance dialects for two millenia and are respectively linked to French Picardy and the Ardennes. They're "ethnic" French whatever that means and the trend to germanize the Walloons' history is just a way to deny who they are : Northern Champenois people lost in the Ardenne forest. Then there is a myriad of Dutch people in the North : proper Flemings, Brabançons, Limburgians, ...That's a mess but nationalism has made things easier : they are "Flemish".

Genetic studies are missing unfortunately enough. My 2 cents that Dutch-speaking Belgians differ from Romance-speaking ones. West Germans might be closer to the Walloons though.

Yes thats true but we were speaking about the history if it had any connections to Turkic stuff. It has not... but surely of our Turkic members here there will be a couple of them who would suggest that it has without hesitation

Colin Wilson
01-12-2011, 09:34 AM
In reality there are many affinities between Belgians and Anatolians!

Heraus
01-12-2011, 09:38 AM
However if I am not mistaken much of the toponomy in France is celtic
Nope. Only the most ancient placenames generally associated with provinces, old towns or abandoned fortresses, now little villages overlooking a plain. French toponymy is overwhelmingly Romance as most placenames were created either in Antiquity by Roman administration (Roman villae ending in -anum, -acum, ... > -an, -ac/é/y/at, ...) or in the Middle-Ages by the Church or temporal power (the many Sauvetés, Fertés, Villeneuves, ...).

BTW each area of France possesses its linguistic history. Brittany's placenames - even in modern Oïl-speaking areas - indeed are mostly Celtic or are made of celticized Latin names. Provence exhibits a fair share of Ligurian placenames (ending in -osc/osque). Gascony is know for its strong Basque substrate (about one village out of 4 in South Gascony IMO, and nearly all placenames in the mountains).

An example : let's take Paris. Paris indeed is a Celtic placename (through the Celtic Parisii). But most placenames surrounding the town are either (*Celto-)Latin : Champigny (fundum campiniacum), Neuilly, Vitry, Bobigny, ... or purely Romance (and rather transparent for people with a bit of knowledge) : Courbevoie, Bagneux, La Courneuve, Le Bourget, ...

* : -acum originates from Celtic -akos

Heraus
01-12-2011, 09:41 AM
I've read that many parts of Waloonia were Germanic speaking but shifted to (the prestige language) French
Three of four villages at best in the vicinity of Liège. Wallonia has been speaking Oïl dialects for 2 millenia, its whole toponymy is Romance, there's not such thing as an obvious German-speaking past to this area. Such theories emerged to deny the French character of Wallonia as it was a way to unite Belgium against France. That's bullshit. Conversely, great parts of modern Nord-Pas-de-Calais were formerly Dutch but you just have to have a look at a map to be pretty convinced by this claim.

Colin Wilson
01-12-2011, 09:47 AM
Thanks for the enlightening informations!
The scarcity of pre IE toponyms is thought-provoking however the hydronyms and names of mountains of old western europe (wich are less subject to change than toponyms) seem to be pre(non)IE according to the German linguist Theo Venneman(probably from a "paravascoid" language).

Xumarov
01-12-2011, 09:56 AM
In reality there are many affinities between Belgians and Anatolians!

affinities can also be coincidentally,
besides it is possible with native anatolians but not with the present ones.

Heraus
01-12-2011, 10:00 AM
Thanks for the enlightening informations!
The scarcity of pre IE toponyms is thought-provoking however the hydronyms and names of mountains of old western europe (wich are less subject to change than toponyms) seem to be pre(non)IE according to the German linguist Theo Venneman(probably from a "paravascoid" language).
Recently though, there has been a renewal of Celtic studies and I'm rather convinced by these arguments. In Gaul, Celtic people had been there for 7 centuries when the Romans came, that major rivers had not Celtic names is a bit absurd. For instance, why should we analyze the many rivers named Dronne, Dordogne, Traun, ... through an obscure pre-i.e. root *dur/tur meaning "water" (quite probably as in "Duero" or "Adour") when we learn that *druna means "rapid, torrent" in old Irish ?

IMO French hydronyms and oronyms are only pre-i.e. where pre-i.e. languages are known to have been spoken by Latin sources : ancient Aquitania (modern Gascony), North Iberia (modern Languedoc) and greater Liguria (modern Provence). Elsewhere, I only see obscure roots that were shared by most languages in the world.

Two examples. Near where I live, in Gascon lands, is a river named Arratz. Another one is named Arros (it gave its name to one micro-region : Rustan, Arrostanh in Gascon, from Arrositania). It's impossible not to analyze these rivers through Basque (g)arr- "rock" + suffix -tz/os (well-attested suffixes in Basque). But why should the Loire river (Liger in Latin) be analyzed through reconstructed and hypothetical Basque roots when we know that in Celtic, lig- means "mud"' ?

Colin Wilson
01-12-2011, 10:03 AM
The problem is that the present Anatolians are the continuation of the ancient Anatolians (both autosomally and to a big extent culturally), when Turks came to Anatolia they were few and did not made e genocide against the Anatolians=>there was only a language shift first as a lingua franca then=>mothertongue, however cultural words as well as prose and poetry styles are Indo-European and Semitic in modern Turkish and even they were forming up to 95% of the lexicon of Turkish before the language "reform"
For example to say "work rest/vacation" in Turkish we use either the arabic word "tatil"(especially for the meaning holiday)or the Persian word "paydos"

Goupil
01-12-2011, 10:08 AM
How could you speak in the name of turks when you are half albanian half bulgarian+you are not more turk than anyone neither culturaly nor geneticaly if you have been taught you are a zulu you would have believed it and called yourself Zulu!


Since when dwelling place = ethnic roots ? There are historically important Muslim Turkic community in Bulgaria (and still now), and so many muhacir from Bulgaria were already ethnically Turkic before Kemalist work in Anatolia.

Searching data for genetics on French-speaking web, I discovered thousands posts by an Iranocentrist guy named "humanbyrace" on Maghrebi fora, who is very probably yourself and who stated that Atatürk was "Albanian" (sic).

Xumarov
01-12-2011, 10:09 AM
The problem is that the present Anatolians are the continuation of the ancient Anatolians (both autosomally and to a big extent culturally), when Turks came to Anatolia they were few and did not made e genocide against the Anatolians=>there was only a language shift first as a lingua franca then=>mothertongue, however cultural words as well as prose and poetry styles are Indo-European and Semitic in modern Turkish and even they were forming up to 95% of the lexicon of Turkish before the language "reform"
For example to say "work rest/vacation" in Turkish we use either the arabic word "tatil"(especially for the meaning holiday)or the Persian word "paydos"

Ok but presenting it in todays society as Turkish is wrong.

Xumarov
01-12-2011, 10:11 AM
Since when dwelling place = ethnic roots ? There are historically important Muslim Turkic community in Bulgaria (and still now), and so many muhacir from Bulgaria were already ethnically Turkic before Kemalist work in Anatolia.

Searching data for genetics on French-speaking web, I discovered thousands posts by an Iranocentrist guy named "humanbyrace" on Maghrebi fora, who is very probably yourself and who stated that Atatürk was "Albanian" (sic).

Idd like to meet this humanbryca guy, he clearly knows what he is talking about,.

Colin Wilson
01-12-2011, 10:14 AM
Since when dwelling place = ethnic roots ? There are historically important Muslim Turkic community in Bulgaria (and still now), and so many muhacir from Bulgaria were already ethnically Turkic before Kemalist work in Anatolia.

Searching data for genetics on French-speaking web, I discovered thousands posts by an Iranocentrist guy named "humanbyrace" on Maghrebi fora, who is very probably yourself and who stated that Atatürk was "Albanian" (sic).
The Balkanian and Cricassians are again natives that adopted Turkish after adopting Islam.
Atatürk is Turk however many sources state that his father was albanian and was called "arnavut aliriza" i.e "albanian alireza" and of course there is nothing bad about that.
Is it important or "bad" that "pierre mendes" former president of France was of Sefarad origin!?

Colin Wilson
01-12-2011, 10:16 AM
Also I am not iranocentrist but only and merely "pragmaticentrist" if you want to label me!

Xumarov
01-12-2011, 10:18 AM
The Balkanian and Cricassians are again natives that adopted Turkish after adopting Islam.
Atatürk is Turk however many sources state that his father was albanian and was called "arnavut aliriza" i.e "albanian alireza" and of course there is nothing bad about that.
Is it important or "bad" that "pierre mendes" former president of France was of Sefarad origin!?

Offcourse there is nothing wrong with origins, but telling or explaining it like you know it 100 percent is wrong, some umong us dont even doubt or give a possibility of missinterpretation. Its like playing God.

Heraus
01-12-2011, 10:23 AM
I believe Colin insists too much on ethnic relativism out of humanist reasons. The truth is that we're not all "something-ized" autochtonous people. There are migrations and communities can persist without much foreign admixture.

Colin Wilson
01-12-2011, 10:46 AM
Offcourse there is nothing wrong with origins, but telling or explaining it like you know it 100 percent is wrong, some umong us dont even doubt or give a possibility of missinterpretation. Its like playing God.
Grace of recent autosomal studies you can know how much you are "turk","chinese","eastafrican","arabian","indian","north european","north african" etc...with percentages please take a look below


https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0ArAJcY18g2GadDRCd0dva0dwTzc3a0JicjZmRE96b Gc&hl=en&authkey=CPGxtqQM#

Heraus
01-12-2011, 10:50 AM
Grace of recent autosomal studies you can know how much you are "turk","chinese","eastafrican","arabian","indian","north european","north african" etc...with percentages please take a look below


https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0ArAJcY18g2GadDRCd0dva0dwTzc3a0JicjZmRE96b Gc&hl=en&authkey=CPGxtqQM#
We haven't seen conclusive studies yet. For instance, I was thinking of something : when a Frenchman only shows 10% of West Asian admixture, it doesn't mean that Neolithic genetic heritage amounts to 10% in France as those Neolithic migrants did not directly originate from Saudi Arabia but more probably from somewhere in Albania (as far as recent archeological studies are concerned), which means these people already showed European admixture. When it comes to decypher the peopling of Europe, intra-world analyzes are not that interesting : what's the point of knowing how much you share with a Bedouin ? What matters is to know how much "Neolithic" you are.

Colin Wilson
01-12-2011, 11:08 AM
I dont know about the signification of those studies for France and Frenchmen, but I think that those studies are very interesting and enlightening, when a bit younger I used to wonder why anatolian Turks did not look like central Asian Turks (by those times,strangely, I was not presuming that anatolian turks were rather descended from the pre turk pre islam populations of Anatolia) however grace of, first, hg studies and then those autosomal studies we are now able to know much more about the real ethnic makeup of various folks.
To be honest, it was also interesting for me that western asian and north african folks were so mixed with no clear&sharp cutoff between ethnicities, i.e when child I was, mistakenly, assuming that ,for example, iranians were all composed of a 100% same single stock A while their turk and arab neighbors were also composed of 100% of same single distinct stocks B and C with A="iranian race", B="turk race", C="arab race" wich is of course (i.e these pre-assumptions) totally inaccurate! (see language shift+mixing of different populations etc...)

Colin Wilson
01-12-2011, 11:46 AM
shows 10% of West Asian admixture, it doesn't mean that Neolithic genetic heritage amounts to 10% in France as those Neolithic migrants did not directly originate from Saudi Arabia
I think western asian is not saudi but anatolian-iranian-north mesoptamosyrian-armenian-georgian.
It's rather the southwest asian component that has its peak amongst saudis and bedouins!

Partizan
01-12-2011, 02:06 PM
BTW Heraus,that's about my and T-Dominator's these about "Calais":
Chronicles record that "the Langobards and Avars subsequently separated from the Gepidae".

It was quite another story with the Avars, one which is well-known. In the 6th century, this clan fled to Europe from the Altai, and the Great Khan sent an army after them. They chased but couldn't catch them, since the Avars had hidden in the Caucasus. They then moved on to Constantinople, and from there to the Alps, to what is now Bavaria and its inhabitants are called Bavarians.

Yet another example. The sons of one khan were named Utigur and Kurtigur. After the death of their father, the two sons went their separate ways. Their hordes started to be called the Utiguri and the Kurtiguri. One shaved the back of their heads; the other, their entire heads. This was how the two "Germanic peoples" differed from one another.

Some continued to wear their hair long, or left just their forelocks, that is, oseledets in Türkic. The "Germanic" Kipchaks lived the same life they lived in the Great Steppe and built the same cities; they didn't know how to build them differently.

Their cities live on to this day. One of them is the famous Calais - Türkic for "fortress". It is not made of stone but of wood, with an earthen rampart. The Strait of Pas-de-Calais is named in its honor. The island that faces it is called Albion in the Roman chronicles, but the Kipchaks gave it a new name: Inglend.

It is from a Kumyk historicist,Murat Adji.Here is his webpage:
http://www.adji.ru/main_en.html

Colin Wilson
01-12-2011, 11:16 PM
Their cities live on to this day. One of them is the famous Calais - Türkic for "fortress
That word is not Turkic but it's an Arabic word(qal'a) borrowed by Turkic!
http://www.tdk.gov.tr/TR/Genel/SozBul.aspx?F6E10F8892433CFFAAF6AA849816B2EF437673 4BED947CDE&Kelime=kale
Also , how comes all germanic peoples would have been descended from a single tribe [and turkic one when Germans show 0 altaic input]besides we dont know exactly to what ethnicity did the Avars belong to, and such kinds of nomadic raiding tribes were (in)famous for destructing towns and massacring civilians and not building towns!

galaarid
04-12-2011, 01:59 AM
How about the idea of earlier assimilation and consolidation of Galatian descendants within Oghuz tribe compared with turkization of other Anatolian ppl. The Galatians in turn might have at least partially shared ancestry with Belgians due to Celtic background.

David Noi
04-12-2011, 06:50 AM
the comments are best: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2844#comment-22461