This is the BBC today....apologized....

You're right Seko.
It is how things are used that we should critisize, not the idea. It is like critisizing the internet when people missuse it.

For my part, I'm here for history. If I need to debate, dissagree, argue etc i do it for something i like, which is history. On the other side, i felt forced because of sentimental reasons to take possition in political issues. Politics is something i detaste and that can vary depending on the geographic location or culture one resides. I will simply take as much distance i can and not relate the minefield as an idea with negativity within this forum.

Originally posted by akritas Originally posted by Anton Originally posted by akritas Attempts   to force the Greek nation into either a "black" or a "white" or a “Slavic” category have no biological justification. Greeks are Greeks and not part Greeks.   Ugly logic. Greeks were heavily intermixed with slavs since 6th Justinian times. To deny this is nationalistic as you love to offend others in. are you Slav or  Tatar if you want to play your nationalist game ? Originally posted by Anton Originally posted by akritas do you need more ?   "The whole country was slavicized" (Constantione Porphirogenitus) "All citizens of Salnika speak pure slavonic" (Russian Chronicle)   Do you want more? So what ?   the game of the cutting quotes is a popular game of those that have empties argumenrts or avoid the reality.   Originally posted by xristar Originally posted by Anton Originally posted by akritas do you need more ?   "The whole country was slavicized" (Constantione Porphirogenitus) "All citizens of Salnika speak pure slavonic" (Russian Chronicle)   Do you want more? 1st) the exact expression is 'εσλαβώθη' which can be translated as both 'slavicized' and 'enlsaved'.... And it reffers only to Peloponnesos, where a massacre of slavs followed, and a replacement by anatolian greeks. 2)Salonika was never taken by slavs, as also most walled cities. the area around Salonika had indeed many slavs (until the 20th century), as also turcs and persians (the name 'Vardar' is persian ) This is to hard for Anton.

Oh yes sir, the mighty Greeks are 100% pure Achilleans. Uhmm... those Anatolians that were transoported were not "Greeks." And if they are; then its the language that interconects not genetics anymore. If that is true; then Anton's argument is still valid. Not all of Anatolia nor the majority were Greeks. A lot were Hellenized.

Originally posted by es_bih Oh yes sir, the mighty Greeks are 100% pure Achilleans. Uhmm... those Anatolians that were transoported were not "Greeks." And if they are; then its the language that interconects not genetics anymore. If that is true; then Anton's argument is still valid. Not all of Anatolia nor the majority were Greeks. A lot were Hellenized.

That's exactly the tone that downgrades the discussions es bihn. The first sentence...

I think people in here have continiously repeated their dissbelief to pure races. However, since you mention those Anatolians, tell me what were the people that came to be the proto-Greeks as many call them? Were they Dinaric maybe? No... At a big extent Anatolian as well based on R. J. King, S. S. Özcan, T. Carter, E. Kalfoğlu, S. Atasoy, C. Triantaphyllidis, A. Kouvatsi, A. A. Lin, C-E. T. Chow, L. A. Zhivotovsky, M. Michalodimitrakis.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-1809.2007.00414.x

Also, based on Palmers theory from the 60s...



Also remember that Aeolia and Ionia were in anatolia. However, I can agree that many people of Anatolia who were considered Greeks in medieval and later years were of Phrygian, Lycian, Lydian etc background.






Edited by Flipper - 06-May-2008 at 16:31

Apples and oranges I would say.

City states that were open to the larger Roman world post conquest too mind you. 

Indeed. It was not just about this thead.
Thanks Anton.