edward demian Posted September 7, 2001 Report Share Posted September 7, 2001 In the old days you became a muslim and no longer an Armenian. With reacent advances in Genetics, soon we'll be able to detrmine the exact genetic composition of any person. With that in mind, a lot of people who think of themselves as turkish may find out that they have no turkish blood in them whatsoever. What are the implications? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khodja Posted September 7, 2001 Report Share Posted September 7, 2001 The majority of Turks will discover that they are descended from Armenians and Greeks. A majority of Brits are descended from Danes and North Germans, but still consider themselves British. Many Christian Arabs and Armenians are descended from Jews but still consider themselves Arabs or Armenians. I doubt that any of this will have social or political ramifications. It is, however extremely fascinating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon Posted September 7, 2001 Report Share Posted September 7, 2001 from where you brought all those fascinating ideas khodja? Just tell me the source to enlarge my knowledge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aurguplu Posted September 7, 2001 Report Share Posted September 7, 2001 what is a turk, a race or culture? well, being a turk who has specialised in turkish history, culture and language, i dare say i can clarify the issue for you: he is a turk who speaks a turkic language as his mother tongue. all other definitions fail. we have turks of various mongol types, of nordic caucasian types, of celtic types, of middle eastern types, even some of the negroid type! there is not a single passage to my knowledge in turkish historical documents that attest to any attempt at preserving racial characteristics (whatever they are) or excluding others on account of racial differences. so much for race. as for culture, although we ourselves thought of ourselves as primarily pastoral nomads with little or no tradition of settled civilisation, new research from central asia is casting doubts on this. i seems there was some settlement in that inhospitable area, in rare pockets where agriculture was possible. we were vey acquisitive of other cultures, though, and today one can discern elements of chinese, iranian, indian, arabic and other middle eastern cultures as well as greek, armenian and slavicin our various cultures. the one unifying trait, however, is language: alnmost all major groups have been able to preserve their languages, and with the exception of a few (very few) most turkic languages are similar enough to be mutually intelligible. this creates a great feeling of unity that extends from the balkans to the adriatic. as far as anatolian turks are concerned, they will not one day find out that they have more greek, armenian etc. blood in their veins, they already do. throughout the ottoman empire it was enough for a non-muslim to convert to instantly become a turk, and this was common knowledge. that was one of the reasons why there was not a hint of nationalism until the latter half of the nineteenth century. the upheavals of wwi and the subsequent imposition of a nationalist doctrine caused a temporary break with the real past as we were busy creating a mythical one, but a few things happened lately that reminded us: 1) dna analyses have been conducted in various places in turkey, partly for archaeological, sociological, medical and defence reasons. to the best of my knowledge there has not been a single case of any proven strong genetic link with central asia. in fact, all evidence shows that the anatolian people have remained by and large constant, with some additions, throughout the last few thousand years. the imposition of different cultures was not necessarily brought about by very large-scale migrations. 2) you can tell people from different regions in anatolia, but you would be hard put to tell an armenian, turk or kurd from a given district, and people are well aware of this. 3) moreover, the dissolution of the soviet union now gives us ample opportunity to see central asian turks, who at least physically are very different from us. so basically we are a nation based more on a common language and sense of kinship than anything else, especially race. race considerations in the determination of affiliation and especially group solidarity have usually been foreign to us. regards, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamavor Posted September 7, 2001 Report Share Posted September 7, 2001 Mesrob Masshtotz was Eskimo. He traveled to Armenia as a member of nutrition delegation on an exchange program. After being properly introduced to "Khorovatz and Red Wine" he decided to say Good-bye to the frozen salmon and other delicatessens offered in the North Pole.As a gesture of good will and appreciation towards the Armenian cuisine he decided to invent an alphabet for the Armenians. The rest is well known. That is the truth and I can prove it in the Court of Law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamavor Posted September 7, 2001 Report Share Posted September 7, 2001 quoteAs for my Armenian spirit it was burned out of me years ago.[/QB] We all are well aware of it!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThornyRose Posted September 7, 2001 Report Share Posted September 7, 2001 Ali, you are delicious beyond words. (This for your other posts in the other threads as well - except I am not sure "katliam" stands for "genocide" [soykırım] - "massacre" is what comes in my mind.) I actually found some of what you said to be simple and yet more profound than what most of these "noble Armenians" say in their Turk-Mongol-barbarian-savage banter. Especially: quoteI would be wary of accusing an ethnic group for a genocide. To me, there is an ominous parallel between killing an ethnic group in whole or in part (men, women and children) and accusing an ethnic group in whole or in part (men, women and children) of a crime, ANY crime. It is a criminal form of stereotyping. And, of course, there is this: quoteAnd Turkish Studies chairs abroad are only now being assisted by Turkey, and that largely to produce glossy coffee table books or engage in the dogfight against the Greeks and Armenians. This is no way to defend your position in the international arena. If you don’t blow your own trumpet, no-one else is going to do it for you. Yep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timucin Posted September 7, 2001 Report Share Posted September 7, 2001 Thorny, Katliam is what Ali said, not 'soykirim'. And, I am not so sure if the Ottomans really cared much about destroying an ethnic group. In any case, the 'soykirim' is a new word. The actual word, one that is the closest in Turkish to the concept of killing in greater numbers is 'kiyim'. But, since there was the idea of group punishment in the Ottoman Empire, I am not sure how negatively or positively they approached the issue. The evolution from the group to the individual responsibility in punishment starts with the 19th century reforms. And Ali, I am not so sure if one became a Turk by converting in the Ottoman Empire, but a Muslim. All the studies I read in this respect, especially one I would really recommend, talk about becoming a Muslim, not a Turk. Being a Turk was impossible, it was just for a few chosen ones. Just kidding, that is, with the last sentence. t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aurguplu Posted September 7, 2001 Report Share Posted September 7, 2001 dear timuçin, i would like to know more about that study you mention. could you give us references? and second, regardless of what it may have been like in ottoman times, today in turkey, anyone who is a muslim and calls himself a turk is considred a turk by the bulk of the population. i understand that the grey wolves still have some trouble accepting caucasian muslims as turks, and they keep looking for "dönmes" behind every move they consider a plot against the turkish republic, but they do not represent the mainstream of turkish society. i think their attitude has more to do with a sense of insecurity and other personality problems than with any serious scientific or political position based on sound reasoning. i am part shapsug, part circassian (we used to refer the shapsug as georgian rather than circassian), part greek, part slav (russian, ukrainina, and serbian) part italian, aprt french, part albanian, and part god knows what else, and i consider myself a turk and nothing else as far as national identity is concerned. (i also have some turkic blood in my veins: my mother's family was originally kayı, my dad's afshar (karaman, they are a branch of the afshar) and way back we have a crimean tatar (giray, probably) in the family. but of course, nationality is one trhing, ethnicity another, and race is still another. i have seen you other posting, i shall come to it later on. regards, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamavor Posted September 7, 2001 Report Share Posted September 7, 2001 Khodja is Khodja and he trys to justify his Khodjaism, that's why! "Many" in his second sentence is around 10-15%, but most probably he belongs to that group, that's why "they" are "many"! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon Posted September 7, 2001 Report Share Posted September 7, 2001 Hmmm...now I understand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elovna Posted September 7, 2001 Report Share Posted September 7, 2001 quote:Originally posted by edward demian:In the old days you became a muslim and no longer an Armenian. With reacent advances in Genetics, soon we'll be able to detrmine the exact genetic composition of any person. With that in mind, a lot of people who think of themselves as turkish may find out that they have no turkish blood in them whatsoever. What are the implications?I wish that no one would care about what's in the blood, what matters is what's in the heart! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon Posted September 7, 2001 Report Share Posted September 7, 2001 You're right, no doubt, but today nobody cares what is in heart They only care what is in your pocket, house and bank account I have so many in my & happy for that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamavor Posted September 7, 2001 Report Share Posted September 7, 2001 quote:Originally posted by Aghtchik:I wish that no one would care about what's in the blood, what matters is what's in the heart!Exactly! That is the problem. The heart! If Khodja was sincere in his "Armenianess" he would never use such a derogatory for "many" Armenians Forum nickname, and secondly he wouldn’t care much about his genes composition, but for the well being of the Armenians. Since none of this is in his agenda, we can only entertain ourselves with his schizophrenic scientific endeavors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elovna Posted September 7, 2001 Report Share Posted September 7, 2001 quote:Originally posted by gamavor:Exactly! That is the problem. The heart! If Khodja was sincere in his "Armenianess" he would never use such a derogatory for "many" Armenians Forum nickname, and secondly he wouldn’t care much about his genes composition, but for the well being of the Armenians. Since none of this is in his agenda, we can only entertain ourselves with his schizophrenic scientific endeavors. Then why waste valuable time and energy on it/him/them.I can think of a couple of nicer ways to be entertained. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elovna Posted September 7, 2001 Report Share Posted September 7, 2001 quote:Originally posted by Aghtchik:Then why waste valuable time and energy on it/him/them.I can think of a couple of nicer ways to be entertained. Like finally shaving your legs and showing them to us, Gamavor. [ September 07, 2001: Message edited by: Aghtchik ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khodja Posted September 7, 2001 Report Share Posted September 7, 2001 I am astonished how little some you folks know about Turkish history. If you understood how they practiced you would understand that small children were removed from their parents to be raised as Turks. As for my other comment, do you think that all the Christian Jews of Anatolia were exterminated in the 4th century? Genetic studies show otherwise. Insulting me will not change the results of scientifc research.The Genocide of Armenians is a indiputable truth which has been suppressed for political reasons. Most of the rest that I learned in Armenian school is myth. The Begratunis were Jews, the Mamikonians Chinese and the Arzrunis Assyrian. As for my Armenian spirit it was burned out of me years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edward demian Posted September 7, 2001 Author Report Share Posted September 7, 2001 So you all think that if someone knew that he was of Greek,Assirian,Armenian,Bulgarian or Serbian blood, that he would be just as willing to lay down his life for Pan Turanian ideals.I remenber in Romania and Bulgaria during the difficult Communist era, when assimilated people would desperately look for any ethnic connection just to get out. At that time, the only way to leave the country was to claim a foreign background. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edward demian Posted September 8, 2001 Author Report Share Posted September 8, 2001 OK so humor me. My Kaiseritzy Grandparents did not know any Armenian. All Armenians know the Armenians of Kesaria to be Turkish speakers only. In fact he was serving in the Turkish Army art the outbreak of the massacres and no one knew his identity. But he was Christian and probably not circumcized. By your definition Turkish speakers are Turks.In Moldova, a formmer USSR republic which belonged to Romania, there is a Turkish autonomous Oblast Called the Gagauz. They are Turks. They call themselves Turks and speak a Turkish dialect understandable to my grandparents. They are Orthodox Christians. All 175,000 of them. They have no problems with their Christian neighbors. Their neighbors are 300,000 Romanianized Armenians. They are liked and when they asked for autonomy, it was granted without firing a shot. What say you to that. Are they turks or not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timucin Posted September 8, 2001 Report Share Posted September 8, 2001 Ali, The work was an interview made with Aron Rodrigue on 'Difference and tolerance in the Ottoman Empire' in Stanford Humanities Review, 5.1, 1995: 81-90. I was talking about the Ottomans only, not the conditions in the present day Turkey. There I agree with you. I think you are a bit more mixed than I am; I do not have slav, french, and I think neither Afsar, nor Kayi. Did you get my private message. It was my first time using it, so I want to make sure it made it. Even though you may be answering my other post, I am not so sure if I can in detail, since I may be busy with something else in coming days. But, I will still try to say a few things. t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamavor Posted September 8, 2001 Report Share Posted September 8, 2001 If anybody still has any questions about turks and their culture, please visit the Guestbook of http://www.armenianhighland.com/main.html I hope the Webmaster would not delete the last message there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gamavor Posted September 8, 2001 Report Share Posted September 8, 2001 You are right Edward, Most of the so-called "turks" in the Balkans and surrounding areas are pure Islamaized Slavs, Romanians, Bulgarians, etc. They were brainwashed with Islamic propaganda for 5 centuries and often used as 5th column of turkish expansionism. The hour of the truth will come soon I hope. In Bulgaria for example there is an Orthodox priest who is doing a holly job in Rodopy region, and what is amazing is how these people readily rediscover their roots and convert themselves to Christianity. I wish the Armenian Church would follow this example too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edward demian Posted September 8, 2001 Author Report Share Posted September 8, 2001 My questin was rather straight forward.If language is the measuring stick of turkishness, than were my Grandparents not turkish? (since turkish is all they knew)Since The Gagauz of Moldova speak turkish, and are of turkish blood (but Orthodox Christian)are they turkish according to the definition of turkishness.I would like an answer from our muslim turkish friends on this pannel. Or are they still scratching their heads in disbelief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edward demian Posted September 9, 2001 Author Report Share Posted September 9, 2001 GamavorThe Armenian church has lost it's messianic drive a long time ago. I can see why. For 1200 years of muslim domination attempting to convert a muslim to Christianity was punishable by death. beside, the nature of Muslim doctrine is such thatthey are easily susceptable to conversion. Often time, a Muslim will feign to accept Jesus Christ, and personally and secretly justify it by saying that "shure I accept christ as a profet but not the son of God." For example, a muslim will swear on the Khoran to a lie if it is convenient at the moment. In their religion it is not quite the cardinal sin it is to devout Christians. I think that having said that, that the many Azery refugees would be inclined to accept conversion just to be allowed back home. Immagine if a large number of them would agree to resettlement for conversion. That would sure take the wind out of the sails of the Azery government claims. Beside, don't most Armenians claim that the turks are mostly Armenian and Greek mixes? Why stop there. Why not make a concerted effort to convert all of Azerbaijian. The Mechitarist fathers have no problem getting turkish chilldren from muslim families for their Catholic seminaries. The turks are ripe for conversion right now. The world is watching and they can't get away with what they used to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aurguplu Posted May 15, 2002 Report Share Posted May 15, 2002 quote:Originally posted by edward demian:My questin was rather straight forward.If language is the measuring stick of turkishness, than were my Grandparents not turkish? (since turkish is all they knew)Since The Gagauz of Moldova speak turkish, and are of turkish blood (but Orthodox Christian)are they turkish according to the definition of turkishness.I would like an answer from our muslim turkish friends on this pannel. Or are they still scratching their heads in disbelief.edward, sorry for the very late reply, i noticed your post only today, as i was looking for some other stuff in past discussions. your grandparents were turkicized armenians as far as i am concerned. the separating factor was the religion. in the ottoman empire, nationality (or rather ethnicity) was not much of a problem, at least at the official level (i realise this is open to suggestion). the empire was first and foemost muslim, the turkish identity coming to the fore only after nationalism hit the empire in the 19th century. for practical purposes, muslims did not differentiate between themselves much, and ethnic differences between them surfaced only early in the 20th century. the issue with the christians, however, was different: throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, muslim refugees from lost territories in the balkans came pouring into anatolia and they (and the experiences they brought with them) did much to destroy the then relatively harmonious atmosphere between the muslims and the christians. it is no coincidence that many of the top brass of the CUP who ordered the massacres, including enver, were of balkan origin (probably with little if any turkic blood, if their pictures are anything to go by). so at the end of the 19th century there was a serious rift between the two peoples (muslims and christians), and it was one where religion played a decisive role. of course you can be (and still are) called a turk if you speak turkish, are muslim, and call yourself a turk. no-one would dare question your genes without at the same time risking their own genes being questioned (who in turkey today, after all, has slanted eyes?) so my answer is that if your grandparents were turkish speaking AND muslim, they would have been called turks, even if their islam was nothing more than a veneer (nominal islam is a passport to turkish society). the fact that they were christian prevented them from being considered turks. as for the gagauz, they are turks, considered as turks, but in the ottoman empire they would have been the reaya, and bracketed together with other christians. turkish origin would not make them first-class subjects. one should, especially in the ottoman context, be aware of the way the notion "nation" (millet) has developed. this is a long issue and probably deserves another posting. cheers, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.