Turkic Peoples

Alish 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!!! ).

Originally posted by omergun  İm sure i know how a Kazak T�rk will think, so dont say they will like Russians or something else, because it doesnt sound believing.

The same thing is in English. Turk both means Turk from Turkey and Turk as a Turkic.

Edited by Sarmat12 - 11-Aug-2007 at 16:39

offf

Originally posted by Mortaza offf   Guys please.. You are becoming comic..

Either write a comment about the subject or dont...

Originally posted by omergun How do you know these Yakuts and Chuvashs would prefer Russian? Only thing i know is that every T�rk who has the fundamentals of The T�rk Character would see all T�rks as one nation. I dont seperate T�rks with their Religion or Tribe.

Originally posted by Sarmat12 Originally posted by omergun What you are doing is civilisized, i suppose? I explained everything, there arent any arguments left, only thing i could do is repeat. We give you all facts, you say you dont find it reasonable. Its obvious President of Kazakistan sees all T�rks as one nation, but you keep on saying the opposit, would someone who has no problems with T�rks in T�rkiye do this? IM A T�RK, AND THATS IS THE REASON I LIVE FOR, THATS THE REASON I CAN ENJOY THIS LIFE, BEING T�RK IS MY BIGGEST TREASURE, LOVE, PROUD AND HONOUR, you dont have any doubts about that. Im not attacking you, and also the reason im writing in this forum, is that people like you give wrong information about T�rks, which has the following that many people who already are prejudged or not, think the facts are like you say. This doesnt only happen in this forum, and also not only in this subject about T�rks, many prejudged people in high positions are following these kind of politics.   Dear Omergun, I respect your patriotic feelings and I don't want to heart you in anyway.   Civilized I call the argument without refering to the things like that: "you have problems with Turks, you hate Turks, all these is crap... etc."   I am not scientist to invent any theories here by myself. I am just repeating what I read in many books and what is commonly available through the different ways of acquiring information.   If you think, that you can persuade me by saying: "You hate Turks... etc." You are wrong, since I don't hate, but on the contrary I like Turks.   As you noticed I always try to support my arguments. Now I give the quotes of Nazarbaev from Bulldog's article one more time.   http://www.cceia.org/resources/transcripts/5163.html   "The idea of being Turkish is debated. For instance, 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. Those people in Turkey are half-breeds. They are the descendants, mixed with the people who are already there. We conquered them. They intermarried, and they formed Turkey. We are the pure Turks."   Is it obvious from these words that Nazarbaev believes that all Turks are one nation?   For me is obvious that he is saying: "Is that my (Nazarbaev's) vision of Turks doesn't mean anything to do with Turkey and "We Kazakhs are pure Turks", Turkish people are half-breeds, they are not Pure Turks. This is what he said. Please explain me where he said by this, that "all Turks are one nation" .   I am ready to listen you carefully.   Now another citation from a Turkish intellectual from the beginning of the 20th century, Mehmet Halil :   http://www.jstor.org/view/00432539/ap050065/05a00030/2?frame=noframe&userID=80a48421@gwu.edu/01cce4405a00501c595b7&dpi=3&config=jstor   "Turk" is not the name of a nation. It is the name of a race from which many nations have sprung: Anatolians, Azerbajanis, Northern [Turks], Turkestanis, etc. all of these are without doubt Turks; but they are not of one nation. In order for them to be one nation their cultures and fartherland must be one. But their fartherlands are different from one another, and even their cultures are [not the same]"     I tend to agree with the paragraph above. And the same thing most of the historical, linguistic and ethnographic books say.   I just put it here what I read before. And I dont want to offend anyhow Turkic people. This forum is the place of discussion. If you want to convince me please give me pervasive argument.   As you can see so far, the materials provided by Bulldog are at least inconclusive, concerning "one Turk nation".   So, please, explain me why I am wrong? U can see that your view about "one Turk nation" is debated utmost, and it's definetely not universally accepted.   As for me I am ready for a serious discussion and I will attentively listen to your arguments.   Sagol

1. http://www.cceia.org/resources/transcripts/5163.html
explanation to this part:

The idea of being Turkish is debated. For instance, 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. Those people in Turkey are half-breeds. They are the descendants, mixed with the people who are already there. We conquered them. They intermarried, and they formed Turkey. We are the pure Turks."

Firstly, why do you think he says, 'I am a T�rk' and not I am a Kazak or I am Turkic? Because he sees all T�rks as one nation.

What do you think he means with 'I don't mean anything to do with Turkey.'? He means that he didnt born in T�rkiye, but isnt declining the fact.

'Those people in Turkey are half-breeds. They are the descendants, mixed with the people who are already there. We conquered them. They intermarried, and they formed Turkey. We are the pure Turks.'
With the half-breeds part i dont agree, because just like i explained earlier with a familly tree-example, the foreigners in the familly tree are a couple, this doesnt make The T�rks in T�rkiye half-breeds. But in general hes talking about the same thing. Hes actually indeed saying were one nation  and we have same forfathers, but that T�rks in T�rkiye intermarried, which doesnt count for me as a change of the purity of T�rkness, what i already explained earlier.

Supporting the idea that he does see all T�rks as one nation, here, another source wherein hes writing a congratulation letter to The T�rk-Kazak University:

The Source is in T�rkish, but i will translate the needed part in bold=>

The youth of The T�rk Nations(meaning Kazakistan and T�rkiye) who are of the same race, who are studying in this university, is a good example whom shows the real friendship, cultural and spiritual relations between Kazakistan and T�rkiye.

http://www.yesevi.edu.tr/ayhaber/old_issues/020_mart2003/03.htm

Nazarbayev, mesajında ş�yle dedi:

Ahmet Yesevi Uluslararası T�rk-Kazak �niversitesi İlgililerine
Sayın �ğretim �yeleri ve �ğrenciler!

Sizi, Hoca Ahmet Yesevi Uluslar arası T�rk-Kazak �niversitesinin kuruluşunun 10.yıld�n�m� dolayısıyla en i�ten dileklerimle kutluyorum.

Soydaş (aynı soydan gelen) T�rk milletleri gen�lerinin okuduğu bu �niversite, Kazakistan ve T�rkiye arasındaki ger�ek dostluğun, k�lt�rel ve manev� ilişkilerin en g�zel �rneğini aksettirmektedir.

�niversite, kendisinin �ğretim �yeleri sayısı ve eğitim kalitesi y�n�nden �lkemizdeki uluslararası standartlara uygun eğitim kurumlarından biri olarak tanınmaktadır.

T�rkistan toprağında d�nyaya gelip tarih� bir, manev� değerleri ortak milletlerin eski bağlarını bilimlik a�ıdan değerlendiren, onları �ağımıza uygun şekilde canlandırmaya gayret sarfetmekte olan bu eğitim kurumunun aydınlık bir geleceğinin olduğunu d�ş�n�yorum.

�niversite personeli ve �ğrencilerine sağlık ve başarı dileklerimle, �alışmalarınızda başarılar diliyorum.

Nursultan Nazarbayev
Kazakistan Cumhurbaşkanı

Originally posted by Sarmat12 Well these Turk republics still have and will have a lot of things to do with Russia, not to say that many of these Turks reside and work in Russia permanently. And thought of a lot of them are positive about Russia. Of course some of them view Russia negatively. But in this connection there are also some who view Turkey very negatively and don't like Turks.   I can repeat that very few people speak Turkish (I mean hear the language of the republic of Turkey, not their native languages)  compare Russian, this is the fact.

Working, doing business etc., that wasnt what i was talking about, i was talking about the independency of The Republic. They dont have to do anything with Russia. And i can repeat that they many people speak more T�rkish(Kazak Dialect of course), and even if they speak Russian sometimes that this doesnt change the thoughts or position of them.

Originally posted by Sarmat12 "Turk" is not the name of a nation. It is the name of a race from which many nations have sprung: Anatolians, Azerbajanis, Northern [Turks], Turkestanis, etc. all of these are without doubt Turks; but they are not of one nation. In order for them to be one nation their cultures and fartherland must be one. But their fartherlands are different from one another, and even their cultures are [not the same]"

Dont you see any part who doesnt correspond with the other part. I mean, how is it possible that all of these are without doubt Turks and they are not of one nation? I mean,The source admits it itself: In order for them to be one nation their cultures and fartherland must be one.
What do you think the answer of this is?

All nations, including turkic nations, should have one common feature - respect for law(maybe turkic nations lack this feature), which is the guarantee for progress and happiness. OK, :), am not going to be a "wise teacher", the point is we should have a positive attitude...