Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Turkic Peoples

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456>
Author
Lmprs View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 30-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1869
  Quote Lmprs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Turkic Peoples
    Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 21:24
Originally posted by omergun

Kurds are one part of the ethnic groups who are in minority

Treaty of Lausanne disagrees with you.

Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
  Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 11:22
Coming out of the ashes of foreign domination, the Kazakhs' own Nazarbayev sought to join capitalistic markets. "Today, Kazakhstan has another asset besides oil, gas and minerals. Democracy." p. 139, Sons of the Conquerers; Hugh Pope.
 
Kazakhs would gain senior posts in his country, to the dismay of the ethnic Russians. Yet leading the country was a new expericience since the Soviets demise. Even Kazakh unity was a rarity in the historical past dispite sharing a common language. This votility can be seen in the 19'th century with her fractious politics of independent-minded tribal groups. p.130
 
It is not surprising to have leaders hold onto cherished power.
 
"We are all Turks," President Nazarbayev told me, argueing that Kazakhs were one of the purest Turkic peoples, and listing the conquerors who had set out from his part of Central Asia since the days of Atilla the Hun. "They started conquering the world, then they overstrtched themselves and they collapsed. Today's Turkish people are those who left the territory of modern Kazakhstan and settled in the country where they live now. When we meet each other, we always remember this."  
 
Nazarbayev was dead set against pan-Turkish political union. He saw the Turkic world as a loose, diverse group, like the Anglo-Saxon or Slavic countries. Master of all he surveyed,, he was not about to dilute his hard won sovereignty...p.132
 
Personal gains and national ethnic bias would guide the Nazarbayev administration. He asserted his Kazakh identity even to the point of loosely fanning union with other Turk states. Yet he would not jeopardize his rank. 


Edited by Seko - 08-Aug-2007 at 11:23
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 14:42
Sarmat
Yeah again. There is nothing in the idea of Turkic commonwealth that would suggest that Turkic speaking people are one nation. There is a British commonwealth.
 
They are members of a broader nation.
 
For example, a Lebanease is Lebanease but a Lebanease person can also be an Arab, a Lebanease Arab or just use Lebeanease.
 
It depends on the person.
 
In the same way somebody can say I'm a Kazak, I'm a Turk, I'm a Kazak Turk, depending on the person.
 
The Brittish commonwealth is completely different, a Ghanean is not English and doesn't have any connection.
 
 
Sarmat
Concerning the Popp's link you posed. Even he writes that Nazarbaev didn't mean "Turk"
 
 
Now once again plain and simply Sultan Nazarbayev says,                  "I'm a Turk".
 
You just can't accept it can you...
 
Sarmat
You probably don't understand what a valid reference means
 
 
Those words are the words of "Sultan Nazarbayev", they are his official words which have been published, try and get it into your head.
 
Under Nazarbayevs rule Kazakistan is becomming powerfull and influencial in the region, now they are starting to raise the prospect for a union of states and some form of integration together.
 
 


Edited by Bulldog - 08-Aug-2007 at 14:43
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 16:06
Bulldog, pesonally for you I put again the quotation from the article by Pope which you posted:
 
"when I asked [President of Kazakhstan] Nursultan Nazarbayev, sitting in his $18 million Boeing, "Who are you," the first thing he said was, "I am a Turk," which surprised me.

I said, "What do you mean by that?"

He said, "I don't mean anything to do with Turkey."
 
Nazarbaev, said clearly: I don't mean anything to do with Turkey.
 
It's obvious that Nazarbaev didn't mean that Kazakhs and Turks from Turkey are the parts of one nation.
 
He obviously says that Kazakhs and Turks from Turkey are different.
 
Also Pope, whom you consider the biggest authority on Turkic issues, writes in that article: That the idea of Turkic world is invented and the Relation of Turkey to other Turkic speaking countries is similar to the relation of Spain to Latin American countries.
 
I, personally, don't like this comparasent. But even it clearly states that the people of Turkey and other Turkic speaking countries are not one nation.
 
Spain and Latin Americans do have a lot of things in common but they are not the parts of "one broader nation."
 
I don't need to accept anything here.
 
It is accepted everywhere that there is a number of DIFFERENT ethnicities which speak languages belonging to Turkic languages group.
 
All these ethnicities although related are separate and different from each other.
 
Now, based on the common linguistic group u advocate the false ideas that all these people belong to "one broader nation". This is not scientific nor historical reality.  No serious scientist or historian advocates this idea.
 
Perhaps, you can establish a new historical school of your own in future but it's not the case so far.
 
Generally speaking all your argumentation is based on the dubious meaning of the word Turk in English.
 
Which means:
 
 
noun 1 a person from Turkey or of Turkish descent.
 
2 a member of any of the ancient peoples who spoke Turkic languages, such as the Ottomans.
 
Turkic is a broader term which is used for the description of a particular language group, but it's not used a in a meaning of "belonging to one nation".
 
This is a scientific fact. And in order to convince me that you are right you should rewrite the modern history, linguistics and anthropology. Which has nothing to do with my personal attitude.
 
P.S.
 
And again have a little respect to Kazakh people. You should have memorized long time ago that their president's name is NURSULTAN.
 
 
 


Edited by Sarmat12 - 08-Aug-2007 at 16:09
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Mortaza View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jul-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3711
  Quote Mortaza Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 17:09
 a member of any of the ancient peoples who spoke Turkic languages, such as the Ottomans.
 
Lol. So ancient kazaks were turks but moderns are not?
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 17:33
Originally posted by Mortaza

 a member of any of the ancient peoples who spoke Turkic languages, such as the Ottomans.
 
Lol. So ancient kazaks were turks but moderns are not?
 
Both modern Kazakhs and ancients Kazakhs are Turks in a sense that they belong to Turkic ethnicities. This is called "turki" in Kazakh.
 
But they and Turks from Turkey are not the same. Turks from Turkey are called Turik in Kazakh.
 
While Kazakhs have 2 words Turik and Turki which have different meanings.
 
 There is only one word in English - Turk for both notions.
 
Is it that hard to understand ?
 
 
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Mortaza View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jul-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3711
  Quote Mortaza Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 17:48

I was just commenting your scientific fact.

I think kazaks and turks are like russians and serbs..
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Aug-2007 at 17:51
Originally posted by Mortaza

I was just commenting your scientific fact.

I think kazaks and turks are like russians and serbs..
 
I totally agree with that. What I mean is that Russians and Serbs do not belong to "one nation" as well as Turks and Kazakhs do not belong to one nation. They are related, yet distinctive ethnicities.


Edited by Sarmat12 - 08-Aug-2007 at 17:53
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 11:47
Sarmat
It's obvious that Nazarbaev didn't mean that Kazakhs and Turks from Turkey are the parts of one nation.
 
Nursultan Nazarbayev said, "I'm a Turk"
 
He didn't write anything similar to your nonsense.
 
He meant what he said.
 
"I'm a Turk". Therefore he has a tie to any other Turk, what is so hard to understand.
 
Nazarbayev has said countless times before that Kazak and Turkiye Turks belong to the broader Turk nation.
 
This doesn't mean that they're identical either however, they both have the option to refer to themselves as Turk or belonging to the wider Turk community, they also have the option not to.
 
However, they don't have to listen to some Russian, telling them that they are not allowed to be this or that.
 
 
Sarmat
I, personally, don't like this comparasent. But even it clearly states that the people of Turkey and other Turkic speaking countries are not one nation.
 
 
There is a Turk nation, the Turkic world is not subject to just the borders of Turkey.
 
As I said, a Lebanease can be a Lebeanease, however also can be an Arab, or Lebanease Arab.
Its up to the person, it is not clear cut, a Lebanease has his/her own identity as Lebanease but also can belong to the wider Arab nation.
 
This is the same for Turks.
A Kazak can be just a Kazak with their own identity, also a Kazak can be a Kazak Turk and be part of the wider Turk nation.
 
You obviously have a problem with this notion...
 
 
 
 


Edited by Bulldog - 09-Aug-2007 at 11:55
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
Lmprs View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 30-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1869
  Quote Lmprs Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 12:11
The only problematic person here is you, dear British - Turanist Bulldog.
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
  Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 12:23
C'mon guys. Enjoy this debate without the jovial biographies about one another. I know it's hard to keep from taking personal shots but let's try to focus on the thread subject instead of subjecting eachother in the thread.
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 15:02
Bulldog,
 
I didn't attack you personally and I am not telling Kazakhs who they are. I have a lot of Kazakh friends who say, yes we have common origins with Turks we are brother nations but we are not ONE NATION.
 
The same thing the scientists say. I understand that you like the idea that all the Turkic speakers are one nation, it's your personal matter, but it has nothing to do with the reality.
 
I also see, that you simply refuse to accept that the sources, which you referred by your own by the way, also do not say that all the Turkic speakers are one nation.
 
You may continue to live in the world of your beautiful dreams, it doesn't have anything in common with the real life however.


Edited by Sarmat12 - 09-Aug-2007 at 15:03
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 15:17
Sarmat
I didn't attack you personally and I am not telling Kazakhs who they are. I have a lot of Kazakh friends who say, yes we have common origins with Turks we are brother nations but we are not ONE NATION.
 
As I said, different people can have different views, I gave the example of a Lebanease person above. I have many Algerian and Morrocan friends, they tell me their Algerian or Morroccan this is their identity but also when I ask if they're Arab some say yes were Algerian Arab aswell or say Arabs are their brothers if they're Berber or that they are Arabs.
 
I'm not claiming all Turks are part of one uniformed identical nation. I already stated that there are differences and people can have their own identities but they can also be a Turk, the two are not mutually exclusive that's what I'm trying to explain.
 
However, regarding belonging to a broader nation, its not me saying this, its leaders of Turkic states and intellects from those countries.
 
 
 
Sarmat
I also see, that you simply refuse to accept that the sources
 
I think you'll find its you refusing to accept sources.
 
 
 


Edited by Bulldog - 09-Aug-2007 at 15:27
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 15:39

Well.

Didn't Nazarbaev said in your article that "he is Turk, but this has nothing to do with Turkey". Please explain to me how it could it mean that he meant that Turks from Turkey and Kazakhs belong to one nation?

Please explain it to me, do not just put again the sentence "I'm a Turk"
 
Seko also put a citation which says that Nazarbaev views union of Turkic states as a vague, artificial structure akin to "Slavic or Anglo-Saxon world"
 
Perhaps, it's even true that Niazov and Aliev said smth. like 2 "countries one nation" although again you didn't provide me with the official sources for them.
 
But besides that there are Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan and also millions of Turkic speakers living in Russia and China and other countries. Did their leaders officially proclaimed that "we are one nation with Turkey" I didn't know anything about this.
 
I am very interested in Turkic world and my wife is also Turkic she is from Tuva, but again my Turkic friends: Kazakhs, Tatars, Kyrgyzs, Turkmens, Azeris, Yakuts, Chuvashs, Gagauzs (I have many) could emphasize their ethnic and cultural ties to Turkey, but I never heard that they say we all are "one big nation"
 
As a Russian, I can say I am Slavic, Poles, Bulgarians, Czechs are also Slavic. We could be "Slavic brothers" but we are not ONE NATION.
 
Concerning Arabs, there is an official recognition of existence of one ARAB NATION. There is also a high standard Arabic which is studied in all the Arabic countries.
 
I again haven't heard anything about the official recognition of ONE TURK NATION and there is no "ONE STANDARD HIGH TURK LANGUAGE" for all the Turkic speakers, everybody have their own languages with their own standard version of it.


Edited by Sarmat12 - 09-Aug-2007 at 15:51
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 16:36
Sarmat
Didn't Nazarbaev said in your article that "he is Turk, but this has nothing to do with Turkey". Please explain to me how it could it mean that he meant that Turks from Turkey and Kazakhs belong to one nation?
 
I don't know why your finding this so confusing.
 
Nazarbayev openly states, "he is a Turk", however, this doesn't mean he's from Turkey, it just means that he is a Turk.
 
Somebody doesn't have to come from "Turkey" to be a Turk.
I gave an example in my previous post regarding Lebanease or Algerian.
Somebody can be Lebanease, that person cannot be Algerian, these are two identities however, they also have an identity/nation which can be used to join them "if" they use it and that is the Arab connection.
 
In the same way, Nazarbayev is a Turk and so are Turks of Turkey so this nation unites them but they also have their differences, Kazaks and Turkey.
 
Sarmat
Seko also put a citation which says that Nazarbaev views union of Turkic states as a vague, artificial structure
 
Today one of the biggest pushers of Turkic states forming some form of union and integration is Nazarbayev.
 
 
Sarmat
But besides that there are Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan and also millions of Turkic speakers living in Russia and China and other countries. Did their leaders officially proclaimed that "we are one nation with Turkey"
 
Turkic people's of Russia are a part of Russia, they can't speak on behalf of all of Russia and can't be making any seperatist comments.
 
However, independant Turkic states can voice their views, stances and proposals more freely.
Its nothing new what is being said, the peoples of the region were all Turkistani before, Turks have been united and divided before in history, if they choose to move towards unity again that is their choice and should be respected,
 
Sarmat
As a Russian, I can say I am Slavic, Poles, Bulgarians, Czechs are also Slavic. We could be "Slavic brothers" but we are not ONE NATION.
 
That's up to Slavic peoples to decide.
Its up to them how they wish to percieve themselves. If Russians and Ukranians decided that their Slavic connection can unite them and it was in their interests to integrate that's up to them.
 
 
 
 
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 16:57
People in Russia can say whatever they want . Nobody will send them to Gulag for that.
 
There are Germans who live in Russia and say: We are Germans, Koreans who say we are Koreans.
 
But Turkic people ther do not say, that they are one nation with Turkey and other Turkic speaking countries. The same thing goes for independent Turkic countries as well.
 
Again, you said that people should decide for themselves. I don't see people from Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan etc. saying that they all are one nation.
 
Yes, it's right they say we all originate from common Turkic ancestors, we have common roots, culture and similar languages with other Turkic languages, yet they are not saying they are one nation. Which is very normal.
 
So, unfortunately, I can't see any strong arguments supporting your view.
What Nazarbaev said is that he believes himself to be of Turkic origin, this signifies ties and common roots with other Turkic speakers, but it doesn't mean that he believes, "they all are one nation"
 
I've been many times in Central Asia including Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgystan.
 
Unfortunately, I have to say, that most of the people there never would say that they are "one nation" with their nearest neighbor, even not talking about remote Turkey.
 
I even met a Turkish guy in Kyrgystan, who told me that he would never marry a Kyrgyz girl since the culture there is totally different from "traditional Turkish culture."
 
You may like it or not but this is an unfortunate reality. Of course, you may believe that you and other people from Turkic speaking countries are "one nation" But it is only an illusion, nothing more.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 17:37
Sarmat
People in Russia can say whatever they want . Nobody will send them to Gulag for that.
 
When minorities reach a certain size unfortunately they tend to be viewed as a "problem". Its no secret that from the Stalinist era the Soviet policy was to clamp down on Turkic groups and get rid of intellects which don't accept the official Soviet point of view. Any mention of Turkistan, Turkistani's, regional unity etc was enough to be charged as a Pan-Turkist.
 
It will take a few generations but this impact is slowly being reversed and changed.
 
 
Sarmat
What Nazarbaev said is that he believes himself to be of Turkic origin, this signifies ties and common roots with other Turkic speakers, but it doesn't mean that he believes, "they all are one nation"
 
Again, your putting words into his mouth and trying to twist what he said.
 
Its very clear.
 
"I am a Turk". They are his words, Turk is a nation which stretches beyond borders, he can be a Turk so can a Turk from Afganistan and so can a Turk from Turkey, it doesn't mean that they're all identical but they can use the term "Turk" if they wish.
 
 
Sarmat
I've been many times in Central Asia including Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgystan.
 
So have I and many relatives, my experience was completely different, when you can talk the language people open up more to you Wink
 
And we can all tell stories......
 
If its an illusional than that's your opinion, you shouldn't be very bothered then, if Turks see themselves as part of a broader nation than that's up to them, if they don't that's up to them.
But there isn't alot you can do about the leaders of the Turkic states openly stating they are part of a Turk nation, its their decision regardless of your views.


Edited by Bulldog - 09-Aug-2007 at 17:39
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113
  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2007 at 18:42
 
Nazarbaev clearly said that his view of Turks has nothing to do with modern Turkey and another citation from Pope's book even went further saying that Nazarbaev views "Turkic world" as an invented concept.

Russia is not Stalinist for many decades.

 
Turkic people in Russia say whatever they want. Republic of Turkey even opened a lot of "Turkish medrese" in different regions of Russia and nobody opposes that.
 
Even my wife's younger brother goes to a Turkish school in Tuva and he speaks Turkish.
 
Turkic people like to speak about their affinities but nobody believes in this broad "Turkic nation". Yes, they can say, we all are Turks in a sense that Russian and Pole can say we all are Slavs, and English and American can say we are Anglo-Saxons, those concepts however don't mean "nation."
 
The term Turk nation applies to inhabitants of the republic of Turkey, there is not "Turk nation" which includes Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan etc. except in your imagination.
 
You have never been to Russia nor to the Central Asia, how you can claim, that you know what people say there?
 
 You obviously put the things in a way you want them to be.
 
I noticed that already many people on this forum including Turks, Turkmens and Kyrgyzs told you that you are wrong, however you just ignore their opinions, sometimes assaulting them by calling them "mankurts."
 
Give me at least one SCENTIFIC sourse which says, that this giant Turk nation exists. There are simply no such sources. You are just fond of this idea, you like to talk about it, but, unfortunately, for you there is no real meaning behind it.
 
 
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
alish View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 04-Aug-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 17
  Quote alish Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 03:31
Originally posted by Bulldog

Beylerbeyi 
 
Kazak are Turk, Central Asian Turks are the reason there is a single Turk in what is today Turkiye.
Its totally ignorant to try and deny the Turkishness or Turkicness of Central Asian, Turkistoni Turks.
 
Generally alot of Central Asian Turks do not deny they are Turkic, they have a problem with some Turkey Turks thinking they are big brothers or the only Turks in the world.
 
If your from Turkey and are a Turk from there the reason your a Turk is because of Central Asia the Turks homeland, they bought the language, identity other factors with them.
 
 
What makes a Turk a Turk?
It is identity, language, historical bonds and connections, socio-cultural factors and so on.
 
 
Look, somebody could be the direct descendant of "Oghuz Khan" or "Mete Khan", however, if this person cannot speak any form of Turkic, does not have a Turk identity, has lost all socio-cultural aspects and so on, it wouldn't matter at all.
 
 
Aynisi Kazaklara da ait - kazax halki var, milleti yokdur. Onlar zaten Kypchak, Kirgiz felan.
 
Clap Ha, duz dedin.
 
 
 
hey, hey, hey.....
If kazaks don't want to consider Turkey Turks as big brothers(I don't think turkey turks really think so) kazaks are very comfortable to admit RUSSIANS as big brothers. Kazaks are very loyal to russians as they were to mongolians before (carefully read the history, BULLDOG!!! ).  I know many kazaks even don't wanna use kazak language even they speak,
they are more willing to adopt russian values. OK, it doesn't matter...
BUT, when you talk about the history, culture of Central Asia, DON'T forget who made them(for the most part).... I still wonder where kazaks suddenly appeared from and shaping the History of Central Asia.... Is that because of oil...!?
BE HONEST, BUDDY !
 
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Aug-2007 at 05:51
Sarmat
Nazarbaev clearly said that his view of Turks has nothing to do with modern Turkey
 
Yeah we all know this, some of us did actually read what was written.
 
As I said, he can be a Turk from Kazakistan, another guy can be a Turk from Azerbaycan and so on, you don't have to be from Turkey to be a Turk or part of a broader Turk nation.
 
Sarmat
Turkic people like to speak about their affinities but nobody believes in this broad "Turkic nation".
 
Why do you have this obsession with trying to delude yourself and everybody else that everything you say is the absolute truth and "everyone" must agree with you.
 
There are Turks who do feel connected to a broad Turk nation and there are those that don't, there is no situation where "everyone" feels this or that, your just making sweeping comments.
 
Sarmat
there is not "Turk nation"
 
That's your view, your entitled to it but I don't have any obligation to accept your views and neither does anybody else.
 
 
Sarmat
You have never been to Russia nor to the Central Asia, how you can claim, that you know what people say there?
 
I already told you that I have been to Central Asia and relatives are always going back and forth.
They have alot of contact with peoples there and the developments.
 
Sarmat
Give me at least one SCENTIFIC sourse which says, that this giant Turk nation exists.
 
A nation is not science its a perception based upon certain values.
I've already given countless examples of Turkic leaders who feel part of a broader Turk nation and are calling for Turkic people to get closer together.
 
You obviously have a problem accepting this.
 
 
 
 


Edited by Bulldog - 10-Aug-2007 at 07:09
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.