Posted on 03/25/2018 2:06:49 PM PDT by Texas Fossil
Only in Turkey is the identity of a citizen a matter of national security. That’s why the population registry in Ankara was until now a closed book, its details a state secret. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk’s definition of “Turkishness” was “anyone who is attached to the Turkish state as a citizen”. Turks came from a clear ethnic identity, untainted by racial minorities or doubtful lineage. That’s one reason why the Nazis lavished praise on Ataturk’s republic, their newspapers mourning his death in black-bordered front pages.
After all, as Hitler was to ask in several newspaper interviews – and to his generals before he invaded Poland – who now remembers the Armenians? Ataturk had supposedly inherited an Armenian-free Turkey, just as Hitler intended to present his followers with a Jew-free Europe. The Armenian genocide of 1915 – denied by the Turkish government today – destroyed a million and a half Christian Ottoman citizens in the first industrial holocaust of the 20th century. Almost the entire Armenian community had been liquidated. Or had it?
For the stunned reaction of Turks to the sudden and unexpected opening of population registers on an online genealogy database three weeks ago was so immediate and so vast that the system crashed within hours. Rather a lot of Turks, it turned out, were actually Armenians – or part-Armenians – or even partly Greek or Jewish. And across the mountains of eastern Anatolia – and around the cities of Istanbul, Izmir, Erzurum, Van and Gaziantep and along the haunted death convoy routes to Syria, ancient ghosts climbed out of century-old graves to reassert their Armenian presence in Turkish history. For the registry proved that many of them – through their families – were still alive.
(Excerpt) Read more at mirrorspectator.com ...
I think the genetics might’ve changed a great deal after the Turkish conquest in the Middle Ages, because before that, under the Byzantines, central Anatolia was more urban and settled, but after the Turks, it went to pasture and wilderness, and the urban and farming population moved toward the coasts.
At least that what I gathered from history. It’d be interesting to see if there’s a genetic footprint there.
Also, under the Byzantines, there was a lot of resettling captured people, as well as people from places conquered by the Muslims. But whether there was enough of that to change the genetics, I don’t know.
No, but Boris Johnson, Foreign Minister of Great Britain
grandfather was a Circassia Turk......
Yep, his genealogy traces back to Satan.
I think history would absolutely validate that.
The ancient populations included Lydians, Phrygians, Carians, Lycians, Cappadocians, Cilicians, Armenians, and Galatians (Celtic immigrants in the 3rd century B.C.). In the Middle Ages they were mostly Christian and Greek-speaking.
The current population is also partly descended from Muslims who fled from outlying parts of the Ottoman Empire (Ukraine, Hungary, Serbia, Rumania, etc.) as they came under Christian rule, and from Christian boys who were taken from their families in the "blood tribute" in Ottoman times, or from people enslaved by Turkish pirates.
On the other side, there are many Europeans who have remote ancestry from the Middle East, where agriculture was first developed--it's thought that agriculture was brought into Europe by immigrants from the Middle East.
On 2nd thought, is this to target his opposition, the Kemalists?
I wonder. He knows he is still in danger of them.
Kemal was an atheist. And certainly did not live a life without scandals.
This true Turkish blood things is phony. DNA will show huge mixing of various nationalities in spite of Purges and Genocide.
It was never about racial purity, but the pretense of racial purity. The real intent is subjection. Fear to oppose the leader.
The “wittle” Sultan has spoken.
I’m interested in all that, but more in the genetic make-up rather than the language and religion they speak today.
I would like to see it investigated by genetic tests whether the population really does come mostly from people who were there before the Turkish takeover (and before the Roman and Greek conquests as well). I think the change from urban/agricultural to pastoral might’ve led to a big change in the composition of the population, particularly in central Anatolia. The more populated coastal regions I can see remaining relatively unchanged.
Before the Turks, I figure not much changed from the people who were there from prehistoric times, and that the successive invasions just introduced a thin layer of new blood.
However, the Byzantines did a lot of resettlement of captured people, e.g., Slavs from Europe, and of Christians displaced from places conquered by the Muslims, but whether that was enough to make much of a dent in the genetic profile, I don’t know.
I don’t know if the article is accurate but I do know that Mr. Fisk has a checkered career as a journalist whose reportage should not be taken as gospel. See the word ‘Fisking’ for further info.
“Rather a lot of Turks, it turned out, were actually Armenians – or part-Armenians – or even partly Greek or Jewish.”
The rest are descendents fo the conquered -- as it states here, of Greek, Armenian, Iranian, Assyrian, ANatolian genes
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2005/02/how-turkish-are-anatolians.html
the paternal contribution of Turks to the Anatolian population is estimated to about 11%. In lieu of the approximation, allowing for 33% relative error in either direction for both the true frequency of Mongoloid lineages in Anatolia and in early Turks, we obtain a range of 6-22%. It would thus appear that the Turkish element is a minority one in the composition of the Anatolian, but it is by no means negligible.Most Turks are actually Greek, Armenians, Arab, and others who "went Turk".Remember that as per the Ottoman Millet system, if you converted to Islam, you were no longer classified as Greek or Armenian but as a Turk
You can refer to discover magazine
Turkish samples have non-trivial, though minor, northeast Asian ancestry. The Yakut themselves are a Turkic group situated to the north of Mongolia. The more southerly and central Asian affinities the nomadic ancestors of the Anatolia Turks may have picked up in their sojourns over the centuries between their original homeland in east-central Siberia and Mongolia and West Asia. The rest of ancestry is rather typical of northern West Asian groups. In particular, Armenians!Turks picked up Persian ancestry from living centuries around Persian people and conquering them, intermarriage with rampant, because many of these places were conquered by mostly males warrior bands...yes they also mixed with Greeks, Armenians, Mongols, etc. However as they moved West the more Western they became in biology.
A straightforward one would be that the Muslim Turk population of Anatolia has a strong bias toward having been assimilated Armenians rather than Greeks. The cultural plasticity of Armenians in late antiquity and the early medieval period was clear: individuals of ethnic Armenian to origin rose the pinnacles of the status hierarchy of the Orthodox Christian Greek Byzantine Empire. The Macedonian dynasty of the Byzantines under which the civilizationreached its mature peak were descended from Armenians who had resettled in Macedonia. Just as plausible to me is that eastern Anatolia as a whole exhibited little genetic difference between Greeks and Armenians, and the former were wholly assimilated or migrated, while the Armenians remained. One way to test this thesis would be type the descendants of Greeks who left eastern Anatolia during the population exchange between Greece and Turkey in the 1920s.They are culturally Turkic, but biologically no
Thank you for the link an information.
I will have to study that to fully understand it better.
Most Turks are actually Greek, Armenians, Arab, and others who "went Turk".
Remember that as per the Ottoman Millet system, if you converted to Islam, you were no longer classified as Greek or Armenian but as a Turk
from wikipediaRemember that BEFORE the Ottomans conquered the Greeks and the Byzantine Empire, all of the Greeks (and the Romanians) called themselve Romaoi - Romans.
In the Ottoman Empire, a millet was a separate court of law pertaining to "personal law" under which a confessional community (a group abiding by the laws of Muslim Sharia, Christian Canon law, or Jewish Halakha) was allowed to rule itself under its own laws. Despite frequently being referred to as a "system", before the nineteenth century the organization of what are now retrospectively called millets in the Ottoman Empire was far from systematic. Rather, non-Muslims were simply given a significant degree of autonomy within their own community, without an overarching structure for the 'millet' as a whole. The notion of distinct millets corresponding to different religious communities within the empire would not emerge until the eighteenth century
That's why, before becoming the Ottoman Empire, the Seljuk khaganate was called the Sultanate of the Rum (of Rome)
Many "Greeks" of today have Italian, Slavic, Illyrian genes
The millet system made a lot of people "Turks" - because the millet system until the Tenzimat reforms of the 1850s made everyone who became Muslim (sunni Muslim) to be treated one way - and these slowly moved to using Turkish (or Persian - the language of the court) and Arabic and culturally becoming Muslim
Look at pictures of Suleyman the magnificent and it is glaringly obvious that most of his genes were Slavic -- as his mother was purely slavic, his fathers mother and grandfathers mother wer Slavic too
Erdogan has taken the chaos a step further.
Now, it does not depend upon whether a citizen says he is Muslim or Other. It depends upon whether you disagree with Erdogan the Islamist or not.
Makes no difference if you are pure Turk, The Dictator will throw you in jail. The press will lie about anything. Only test is whether the “wittle” Sultan Erdogan approves.
There is no Adalet (Justice) in Turkey. Actually there was never much Justice in Turkey.
Outstanding! Exactly what I was wondering about. Many thanks!
From one of the comments in the Discover article:
“The ethnic Turks ... did conquer Anatolia and other parts of the Middle East, [but] they never really colonised the regions properly and contributed very little of their genes to Anatolia. The result was that the Turkic language became dominant in Anatolia, but aside from that, not much changed.”
So Anatolia is pretty much the same now genetically as it was in the 11th century.
I can’t tell from the articles if you can go back in time much further than that in a genetic study. The genetics in 1000 AD and since then seems to be mainly what we now call Armenian. But were the Armenians also the Anatolians of 1000 BC as well?
I would think so.
So now Erdogan's boogeyman is Gulen
I think he may actually have a point about Gulen wanting to overthrow him but to me both are equally bad.
The conventional wisdom states that the "coup" was a false flag event orchestrated by Erdugun as an excuse to cleanse the country of his enemies.
Supporting evidence is all the folks he had imprisoned or "disappeared" who had no involvement in the coup, like elementary school teachers and librarians.
That may be true, but these are desperate times and the odds are against us.
We can’t win politically with the courts , the Federal Bureaucracy, Congress, and the press all hell bent on importing millions of non-whites and turning us socialist.
This is the last shot we have to strike back, failure to do what it takes means we will surely perish.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.