Are Turks white or Asian?
Posted 28 November 2000 - 04:31 PM
From nowhere? From far Asia?
Turks, Azeris, Kashkai, Turkmen, Uzbek, Uigur, Kazak, Kirgiz, Tatar--they are all damn Turks! They all look different, so who are the original features?
People assume it's the Kazaks and Kirgiz because of their more apparent Mongolian features.
I took a history class, and I think it's possible that both Kazaks and Kirgiz absorbed Mongolian blood from Chingiz Han (Genghis Khan) armies.
Anthropology states that the early Turks, Chinese and Tibetans lived in close conjunction and proximity to Indo-Europeans in Central Asia. Of all Asian groups, it is only the Chinese who have a prevalence of the Thalassemia disease so common among people in the Middle East, India, southern parts of Central Asia, Greece and Italy. I know that Mongols, Koreans, Japanese, Kazaks and Kirgiz don't have this hereditary blood disease. Those are the true Mongoloids. Not Chinese, early Turks or Tibetans; they are slightly mixed with Indo-Europeans from a very distant past. I was once a study abroad student in Xian, China (the only Armenian!). They look different from other Asians. You can sort of detect a semi-Mediterranean look in them.
Even the Uigurs (now a Turkic race) did not have pure Turkish origins. Prior to the middle 10th cent. (when they were conquered by Uigurs from Mongolia), they were a scattered mix of local Tocharian, Iranian Zoroastrian, northern Indian and Chinese military exile/refugee communities all living in a hybrid and "meztizo" like society in the oases. However, even before that, this region was solely inhabited by a white, blond blue eyed people prior to conquest by invading Chinese armies in 70 B.C.s. and the ultimate absorption by Uigur Turks in 940 A.D.s. Mummies have been excavated to show their true features:
The modern Uigurs are now Turkic-speaking, but they also have the original blond Aryan ancestry in them as well. Of course, you can't forget the Persian Zoroastrian immigrants and the Chinese military ex-convicts and exiles. Look at these pictures of modern Uigurs. Do they look Middle Eastern or Asian?
This was most likely how the Turks (Seljuks, Osmanli, etc.) physically looked like and resembled when they entered Iran, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Anatolia. We can't assume that they were totally and physically Mongoloid. They were mixed already in Central Asia. This is probably also how Mr. K. Mamigonian's Chinese ancestors looked like after they and their troops from China initially settled in Armenia and intermarried with local Armenian and Georgian women.
Posted 28 November 2000 - 05:09 PM
Posted 28 November 2000 - 05:10 PM
The Early Turks were a mixture of an Asiatic , Mongloide people with the population of scaresed populated region of Turan (now Kazakhstan) who were scythians and spoke east Iranian languages, even till now Turkic languges have Indo-European (East) Iranian features, but it's a fact that the mongloide people were not native to Central Asia and migrated later more and more. Those Asiatic tribes were invited by the Sassanide emperor in order to fight the troublesome Hun tribes, later the Seljuks were a Turkic tribe who could rule and enslave much of people in our region ,also the Kashkai and spread their language, but after them "Turk" as ethnicity vanished because they were assimilated with the higher civilisation of the natives.
Those Young Turk fascist Government revived the Term Turk for their goal of Ruling the moslem people of Central Asia, after the Arabs rose up against the ottoman they thought a racial myth was better than religion to dominate people.
So ethnologically there are no Turks, there are only Turkicspeaking Byzantine greeks who have identity crisis,who think they are european and mongols at the same time, Politically only these people and no one else are "Turk".
[This message has been edited by Iranyar (edited November 29, 2000).]
Posted 28 November 2000 - 05:15 PM
Posted 28 November 2000 - 09:15 PM
Yes. As much as we may not want to imagine, my forefathers may have looked like the people on the photos--when they left China and resettled in Hayastan with their accompanied troops and followers. They later married Iranian princesses (sassanian and Arsacid) as well as the local Armenian and Georgian women. Yes, you are correct on that! Actually, the Uigur people on your photos do look a little Persian in them. You instantly see it in some of them.
I saw a photo of a Chinese man and his Yugoslavian (Serbian) wife in Belgrade on the China Youth Forum, and you can't imagine how "Armenian looking" their daughter was? I just want to tell you guys: that people in the MidEast and Caucasus mountains are not fully Indo-European no more. We have to accept that. Whether it is through war, exilement, migration, peaceful trading, etc.--movement of peoples=mixture of genes.
Those Uigur people have a connection with my forefathers. During the Han Dynasty of China (200 B.C.-220 A.D.), this region was a Chinese colony and the Indo-European locals were subject to Chinese military rule. In Paustos Buzand and Primary History: it says that Mamik and Konak (my ancestors) fought a civil war against the Chinese emperor and lost. They fled to "Bahl Shahastan" which is in the vicinity of this Uigur region. Of course, the Chinese army must have interbred with the local women. Marco Polo states that the locals offer their women whenever a Chinese army or band of Chinese ex-convicts settle there. That explains how the locals here changed from Caucasoid to a now hybrid race. This pattern repeated later with nomadic Turkic tribes coming in through Siberia. There are no real Turks and no real Armenians as well! We are all mixed, but speaking different languages and accepting different religious beliefs.
Posted 29 November 2000 - 01:08 AM
The chinese and Mongols really don't look like the cauvasians, onley in the Western region of China Singking you have some Caucasian people Pamiri people with East Iranian languages (who are often blond and blue eyed) and the Persianspeaking Tajiks.
Also the uighurs have some caucasian features, beacuse they are a mixture of Asiatic with East Iranian and Taokharian peoples. But the Han chinese, the Mongols, the Kyrgyz and the Kazakh really look Asiatic and different than us caucasian people.
Posted 29 November 2000 - 07:40 AM
Posted 30 November 2000 - 12:23 AM
Do you know that "Han Chinese", from what I learned is not really a racial or even ethnic term. This is probably more like a "cultural ethnicity." In the Han Chinese people's blood also absorbed people who volutarily or involuntarily joined their nation. In their blood you find Huns, Turks, Mongols, Manchus, Persian Zoroastrians, Malays, Austronesian-Negritos, etc. Northern Chinese are said to look different from Southern Chinese. And, the Han Chinese (esp. native Hui Muslims) living in the northwestern provinces slightly look like Uigurs (i.e. hooked-long noses and slim features) as I was told. One Chinese king was said to have brought back thousands of captured Sogdian (i.e. Iranian) widows to China after a successful war. So, we can't label one particular racial feature for the Chinese people as a whole.
Posted 29 November 2000 - 11:10 PM
You would be perfectly accepted into Armenian society if you try to forget at least for a moment about YOUR Chinese origins. I know many Armenians who are half Irish, French, Bulgarian, Russian, American, Italian, etc., but they do not try to convince me that I am either of the above.
Posted 29 November 2000 - 11:37 PM
We are all HAY! But, I'll tell you this: when I was at my university, you can't believe how many young intelligent Armenian brothers go out of their way trying to impress white, Anglo classmates and professors that Armenians share a common heritage with Irish, Germans, Aryans, etc. It sickened me. It really did. I felt left out, or to be more exact, I could not identify with what they were trying to state or what possible motives they had? If I painted an ugly picture of myself on this forum, then so be it. I just want to say that at least 1% of Armenians are not local product. This would be grounds for dismissal from the purity theory of white racists. They say that one-drop of color into white blood makes the whole thing "non-white" or whatever "bs" they are trying to say. We call those Turks "Asian." But, one family among Armenians (1%) fit that category also. I am not obsessed with it, but just don't want to have anything to do with Aryans and their white power thinking.
Posted 30 November 2000 - 12:09 PM
Posted 30 November 2000 - 08:45 AM
I thought that it came from Caucasus reigon.
Posted 30 November 2000 - 05:38 PM
About the fact that the Armenians say they are Aryans, they are right, Ferdowsi in Shahnamė also mentions this, Armenians, Persians, Medians,Parthians, Soghdians Korezmians, Scythians were all Aryans.
Posted 01 December 2000 - 12:17 PM
Persians were originally nomadic Aryan tribes from the steppes of southern Russia. They moved to Iran plateau and absorbed the Elamites (presumably a darker Semitic people). Only Kurds are the Iranian tribe less mixed, but this might turn out to be false also.
And, regarding if Armenians are white? Yes, they are. But, a very dark type of white. To Americans and Europeans, the "whiteness" of my dear Armenians may not qualify enough. Reality is that people of Central Asia, Iran, Caucasus and Anatolia seem to be the melting pot between East and West for thousands of years ever since the Silk Road. We all are black haired people with white facial features. Not white enough for some, and not Asiatic enough also.
Posted 01 December 2000 - 07:07 AM
Posted 01 December 2000 - 07:52 AM
Originally posted by Alex Kornev:
What are mongolian features?
Like Japanese and koreans
Posted 01 December 2000 - 11:03 AM
Posted 01 December 2000 - 02:41 PM
And, regarding if Armenians are white? Yes, they are. But, a very dark type of white. To Americans and Europeans, the "whiteness" of my dear Armenians may not qualify enough. Reality is that people of Central Asia, Iran, Caucasus and Anatolia seem to be the melting pot between East and West for thousands of years ever since the Silk Road. We all are black haired people with white facial features. Not white enough for some, and not Asiatic enough also.[/B][/QUOTE]
I don't think that North-West Europeans are "White" either. With so much Viking, Jewish, Francish and Etrucian blood in their veins. Actually Wasp people are "Pink".
[This message has been edited by gamavor (edited December 01, 2000).]
Posted 08 December 2017 - 08:22 AM
Armenians are Aryan, Indo-European , White People as far as I know.
Posted 14 December 2017 - 11:06 PM
As far as you know? ~~~~ We/ all Armenian are Caucasian from the Caucasian Mountains```
In the early 1900s outside of Visalia, California a big Foster & Klyzer sigh was put up reading: We don't want Armenians here, they are not white```
My uncles young boys at the time~ several young Armenian boys~ pulled the sign down and took it way out in the farm area~ that sign was broken up to make Shish Kebob for months and months~ burned the motor up in Lawyer Kec's Cadillac (Keclician) dragging that monster~ the roads weren't as smooth as today```
Edited by onjig, 14 December 2017 - 11:07 PM.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users