Ethnic History of Central Asia: Were the Turks oriental looking?

Print Page | Close Window

Were the Turks oriental looking?

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Ethnic History of Central Asia
Forum Discription: Discussions about the ethnic origins of Central Asian peoples. All topics related to ethnicity should go here.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=21494
Printed Date: 25-Apr-2024 at 06:08
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: Were the Turks oriental looking?

Posted By: NJ Chutzpah
Subject: Were the Turks oriental looking?
Date Posted: 30-Aug-2007 at 22:19

were the turks oriental looking

Replies:

Posted By: elenos
Date Posted: 30-Aug-2007 at 22:24

Try asking a Turk!

-------------
elenos

Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 30-Aug-2007 at 22:28

Originally posted by NJ Chutzpah

were the turks oriental looking

I am sure, if you used the search function ( http://www.allempires.com/forum/search_form.asp?FID=13">

Search ), you would find a thousand different perspectives on this question. Did you in fact use the search?

-------------
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas

Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 30-Aug-2007 at 22:50

Good reminder BE. Search will lead to many of these kind of topics.

In short,

In regards to racial features of the ancients we most likely would rely on old manuscripts. Those, in turn, are often written about in books and found in artistic representations left today.

When it comes to european Hun's we most likely have the widest possiblity for speculative assumptions. That being said, and I don't have my references handy at the moment; Most Chinese depictions of Mongols, for instance, have them with oriental features. Recently I saw a book with artwork from the sub-continent. The early Moguls had Indian features. Yet, wood cuts from westerners had Kublai Khan looking Caucasian. Kublai wore a beard. Genghis had red hair. Means nothing yet something.

Huns, Mongols, and Turks had asiatic features. They also were at midpoint between China and Iran; Europeans and Middle Easterners were also added to the genepool depending on location. Thus a mixture is most likely.

Today's Turkmen and a large portion of Turkey Turks will have more Caucasian features then a Kazakh. Is that because the western Oughuz Turks mixed with Caucasians more or because thats how those Turks looked in the old days? Even Uighers, in China, have Caucasian features. Yet Turkmen, Turk and Uigher all share very obvious Asian features as well. High cheekbones and slanted eyes to some degree comes to mind. Another way to look at the Kazakhs is to view their history. Why are they more Asian in appearance? Perhaps due to being actually Turkified Mongols or was/is it due to living in the east? You be the judge. This is a never ending question and the speculation will continue.

-------------

Posted By: kamran
Date Posted: 01-Sep-2007 at 08:57

What do you mean by "were"????

Most of the central Asian Turks are still "oriental" (i.e., Chinoid in facial and physical features).

Posted By: barbar
Date Posted: 05-Sep-2007 at 13:08

Most of the central asians aren't "Oriental" looking, instead they are Central Asian looking. Turanid should be the right term. About Chinoid you should check the antropological books.

Only among the groups among which there was strong Mongol assimilation happen (which is the known fact to all historians) you can find Tungid influence.

-------------
Either make a history or become a history.

Posted By: kamran
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2007 at 08:35

"instead they are Central Asian looking"

What is the difference in facial features between a Kazak and a Korean???

What sets an Uzbek apart from a Japanese or Chinese???? Tell me sir.

Posted By: DayI
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2007 at 08:38

their looks.

-------------
Bu mıntıka'nın Dayı'sı
http://imageshack.us - [IMG - http://www.allempires.com/forum/uploads/DayI/2006-03-17_164450_bscap021.jpg -

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Sep-2007 at 09:14

some turks mixes with mongols espeacially in time of cengiz han and later tamerlan

Posted By: kamran
Date Posted: 10-Sep-2007 at 03:04

Originally posted by DayI

their looks.

That is exactly what I asked. What is the difference in looks between a Chinese and a Kazak?????

Posted By: kamran
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2007 at 02:32

What is the facial difference between a Yakut Turk and a Tibetan. Ostesibly no. Both are "rounded.'

Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 14-Sep-2007 at 05:36

Originally posted by kamran

"instead they are Central Asian looking"

What is the difference in facial features between a Kazak and a Korean???

What sets an Uzbek apart from a Japanese or Chinese???? Tell me sir.

You can certainly can tell the difference between a Uzbek and a Japanese or any other east Asian person.

Can you tell me the difference between azeri an Vietnamese? or a (Anatolian) turk and a Burmese? Clown

Posted By: kamran
Date Posted: 15-Sep-2007 at 03:11

An Azeri looks like any West Asian -- Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian etc.,whereas a Vietnamese has rounded featues like a Chinese, Korean etc. with a touch richer complexion.

An Anatolian Turk again looks like any Syrian or Iraqi with typically long West Asiatic face; whereas a Burmese has rounded features like a Japanese, or Chinese.

Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 21-Sep-2007 at 20:56

Originally posted by kamran

What is the difference in facial features between a Kazak and a Korean???

What sets an Uzbek apart from a Japanese or Chinese???? Tell me sir.

Originally posted by kamran

That is exactly what I asked. What is the difference in looks between a Chinese and a Kazak?????

Originally posted by kamran

What is the facial difference between a Yakut Turk and a Tibetan.

Either you are using the Socratic method, trying to make a rhetorical statement, or both, by asking so many questions. Please try to make the topic more meaningful by adding more to the discussion.

What is the purpose of this thread anyways? There must be a thousand of these topics in the Ethnic History forum. Every one of them asks the same "question" about Turks and we get the same predictable arguments over and over again.

-------------
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 25-Jan-2008 at 06:38

I am from japan. i have met uzbeks and seen kazakhs living here many times.

This is my personal opinion.

As a person from east asian point of view. i think many of the kazakhs look identical or similar to any japanese alive today. Well theres also many kinds of japanese appearances (from southeast asian, to northeast asian look, some japanese even look latinamerican indians.) But in particular the pale skined and small eyed type of japanese look like identical to pale and small eyed type of kazakhs. There are also those kazaks who look like they are a half-white/half-asian. or a quarter white. some kind of asian/white mix like that. In any case just lookin at our common facial features, as an east asian I realize that we are "asian genetically" in common with kazaks. Kazaks

As for uzbeks i felt that they have more white features compared to kazaks, but still looked to me like a "mixed white/japanese" looking face.

There is also some turkish from turkey that were famous in japan. the soccer player Ilhan was very popular here and he was recruited to join Kobes team, but quit. Many Japanese people think Ilhan looks like a half white/half japanese mixed guy and he was considered very good looking by the japanese girls.

I guess the further you go westward the Asian faces become more mixed with White features. But I clearly notice Turks and Mongols are our "Asian brothers" in general sense.

Asashoryu is a Mongolian wrestler who became sumo champion in Japan. And we all agree his face looks totally Japanese. In the distant past, before Turks and Mongols existed the many of the Japanese ancestors came from ancient Altaic roots which is the origins of Turks and Mongols too. So thats why many of us Japanese, Koreans, Mongolians, Turks look identical physically.

Posted By: Sukhbaatar
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2008 at 16:53

I am Mongolian, living in australia. In this multi-ethnic society I've come in contact with central-asians, east-asians, and south-east asians. I have to say the difference is very visible, it's so obvious and for me it's very easy to tell a chinese or korean fella from a filipino or an altaic (turk/mongol).

I see similarities sure, but the diversity is there and it's obvious at least for me and if you meet enough of them. On topic I do not agree in any of these opinions. 17th century European classifications of race has already been proven skeptical, further attempts to class subsections of the "Mongoloid race" is also controversial and debates are made to this day.

As my family and I are central-asian, myself mixed with Mongolic/Slavic/Turkic/Tungid blood, I see both East-Asians and Westerners pulling us to one side or the other due to the diversity of our family. We hate it, and heck we see the same thing in Altaic history especially if you look at Turkey, and we hate it too.

With stuff like "You are Mongoloid", "You are Caucasiod", "You are mixed Mongoloid and Caucasiod", "You're not pureblood Mongoloid" etc etc - and it's so damn annoying.

Why do we have to side with one or the other? We are Altai, to hell with foreign thinking. We are who we are, forget this stupid "tug of war". Central-Asia is the home of many nomads, and hell even some believe that our ethnic traits are native, not as a result from grand intermixing with others (excluding Turkey)

According to racialist philosophy, my father sure looks mixed "Mongoloid and Caucasoid" due to my slavic grandma, but her heart was 100% Altaic as a Tatar descendant. I consider myself pureblood Altaic, and reject both foreign Western or Eastern attempts to claim us. Meh, just my two cents.

Posted By: omshanti
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2008 at 17:45

I don't think any body is trying to claim you.
Looking at an animal and trying to identify its origin, breed or mixture doesn't mean that you are trying to claim it. It is just that with humans, personal emotions, inferiority/superiority complex and political correctness become involved and people can not look at the issue with a certain distance and objectivity as they do with other species.
Regarding the topic at hand. I am half Japanese half Iranian and I certainly do look ''Central Asian''. When I was in Iran people always thought that I am either a Hazara Afghan or a Turkmen. In Japan people simply thought I am half European half east Asian. In Europe or America people thought that I am Latin American.
Saying that a people of a region are a mix, does not imply that they are not native, it simply means that the region they inhabit is (in the case of central Asia) a border-region between different types of humans and therefore the people are the results of mixing between those different types of humans. It is like two branches of a tree fusing with each other in one part of the tree.

Posted By: Sukhbaatar
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2008 at 18:21

Unlike animals, we are not breeds or species. Our features may vary - but it does not make us more or less the person we are as individuals. This is an issue perhaps - but an issue the majority of NON Central-Asians seem to share, no offense but it's just from experience.

I'm tired of the racial classifications that people give us pulling us to one side or the next when we just want to be who we are. I hope you can understand this. And why just two branches and not a third? Why are we classed into either just two categories and us being "blurred" - we don't have a branch of our own, we are considered 'mixed', and it's irritating.

Just so you know as well - recessive genes can come out generations later, not just on the immediate generation. Pureblood Mongolians are sometimes born with rather contrasting features from their immediate parents. This is genetics, it's a science I support, but not racialism - as that "science" doesn't even make SENSE for our people. Peace

Posted By: Efraz
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2008 at 18:39

If you mean "Asian looking" by oriental. Yes some Turks still have that look, some have lost it. Some have less, some more... Originally Turks should have had an Asian look.

But it's not very reasonable to look for pure DNAs in nomadic cultures. There are blond Turks that you can not discern from a Swedish man, and there are Arabic looking, and Tartaric looking Turks even solely in Turkey. I know these rich patterns are valid in most Turkish and Turkic nations and groups.

Today you can discern a Turk by language. Which is a healthy approach.

Nothing to make a big fuss about.

Posted By: Sukhbaatar
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2008 at 18:47

It's important to note too that our nomadic nations including gokturk and mongol empires traditionally were never founded by the way we looked but by spirit and lifestyle. The heart makes a person not the blood, unless of course you are descendant of the great Khaan heh

Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2008 at 19:22

Originally posted by NJ Chutzpah

were the turks oriental looking

I suppose the question is about the Ancient Gok Turks or Turkuts.

Yes, they were oriental looking. And the evidence is below:

This is the head of the statue of the famous general of the second Gok-Turk Kaganate, Kultegin (8th centurty AD).

-------------
Σαυρομάτης

Posted By: Sukhbaatar
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2008 at 20:30

It's interesting to see how people's perceptions of Turks is of middle-eastern appearance. Sure the anatolian Turks in modern Turkey have mixed with their locals to a great extent, but they don't represent all the Turks - in fact - on the steppes many Turks still maintained the altai look.

One troubling movie was that of Borat, which had absolutely zero facts about Kazakstan - hell in fact, none of those actors looked like Kazakhs

Posted By: omshanti
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2008 at 21:16

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

It's interesting to see how people's perceptions of Turks is of middle-eastern appearance. Sure the anatolian Turks in modern Turkey have mixed with their locals to a great extent, but they don't represent all the Turks - in fact - on the steppes many Turks still maintained the altai look.

Would you be kind enough and explain what you mean by ''altai look'' and that how it differs from what other members have been trying to describe?

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

Unlike animals, we are not breeds or species.

Really? Can you prove that physically speaking, which how people look and race are all about, humans are out of the law of nature on planet earth?

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

Our features may vary - but it does not make us more or less the person we are as individuals. This is an issue perhaps - but an issue the majority of NON Central-Asians seem to share, no offense but it's just from experience.

Thank you, the rest of your post (quoted above) and your post after it actually prove what I wrote (quoted below) in my post : http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=21494&PID=460442#460442 - http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=21494&PID=460442#460442

Originally posted by omshanti

I don't think any body is trying to claim you.
Looking at an animal and trying to identify its origin, breed or mixture doesn't mean that you are trying to claim it. It is just that with humans, personal emotions, inferiority/superiority complex and political correctness become involved and people can not look at the issue with a certain distance and objectivity as they do with other species.

Now if we go back to the question of the original poster, Turk/Turkic or Altaic (of which Turkic is believed to be a branch) are linguistic classifications rather than racial as already stated by some members, but this does not mean that we can not discuss them in the context of racial matters as the thread-starter questioned in his/her original post.
We can estimate the likelihood of the racial background of the original speakers of a linguistic group
1. by considering the homeland where the linguistic group spread from, and seeing what types of humans were predominant in the region from which the languages came from
2. historical pattern of the spread of the linguistic group and the racial distribution of its speakers.

All this being said, I can not help but praise Sarmat for his great information and his answer to the question which was spot on, leaving no room for any oppositions.

Originally posted by Sarmat12

Originally posted by NJ Chutzpah

were the turks oriental looking

I suppose the question is about the Ancient Gork Turks or Turkuts.

Yes, they were oriental looking. And the evidence is below:

This is the head of the famous general of the seconf Gok-Turk Kaganate, Kultegin (8th centurty AD).

Posted By: Efraz
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2008 at 21:53

Greetings omshanti,
About the evidence:

Originally posted by omshanti

All this being said, I can not help but praise Sarmat for his great information and his answer to the question which was spot on, leaving no room for any oppositions.

I have to say that there was already no doubt anyway. This is a good visual answer though... Good old Kultigin... still handsome :) But alas, if he could live today he would be pained to see Turks so scattered around the world :)

Originally posted by omshanti

Now if we go back to the question of the original poster, Turk/Turkic or Altaic (of which Turkic is believed to be a branch) ....

And all Turkish(and/or Turkic all dialects) are a branch of Altaic languages. This is not a belief, but a classification.

People tend to get nervous when you talk too much about their races. There is a vast history about people being abused, insulted, discriminated, tortured and killed for their races. So it is normal that we have sensitivities on this issue.

Of course it should be talked but in a most scientific and calm way I suggest.

Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2008 at 01:39

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

I am Mongolian, living in australia. In this multi-ethnic society I've come in contact with central-asians, east-asians, and south-east asians. I have to say the difference is very visible, it's so obvious and for me it's very easy to tell a chinese or korean fella from a filipino or an altaic (turk/mongol).

That's what I was thinking. Japanese don't look like Turks. Japanese don't look like Chinese.

What really annoys me is when people with one European and one East Asian parent calls themselves "Eurasian".

~Actually, Omshanti you could call yourself Eurasian and really confuse the above people, since, being Irani you actually are Eurasian.

-------------

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2008 at 03:50

Originally posted by omshanti

... When I was in Iran people always thought that I am either a Hazara Afghan or a Turkmen. In Japan people simply thought I am half European half east Asian. In Europe or America people thought that I am Latin American.
....

I have met several Chinese people that look Latin American as well, and many people from Central Asia indeed resemble some of our people, and curiously enough, in a recent Brazilian soup opera, the actor that make the rol of Amazonian Indian was a Japanese Brazilian. In Chile and Argentina, the indigenous or Indian descendent woman were usually called Chinese. Moreover, there is a case of a Chilean Mapuche that married a Japanese woman in Japan and he was very surprised that nobody noticed there he was a foreigner.

-------------

Posted By: Sukhbaatar
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2008 at 05:11

Would you be kind enough and explain what you mean by ''altai look'' and that how it differs from what other members have been trying to describe?

Altai are descendants from their ancestors in the Altai Mountains, some went north - Siberians (even said that some went east along the bering strait), some stayed - Mongolians, some went west - Turks. The features of these groups are VERY diverse so it's impossible to give you a description of the Altai look either then to mention that traditionally - Altai are not middle-eastern, oriental or european in looks, Altai are Altai. Altai are human.

Even modern Mongolians themselves despite a 2.7 million population are already very diverse and it's not entirely due to intermixing with foreigners. Recessive genes is one theory, with the rather large multi-cultural nation their ancestors forged it's possible. However, it's not accepted very well especially those who consider themselves 'pureblood'. Due to the diversity, modern Mongols judge each other who is 'real' by the person's heart, impossible to have racial notions like the rest of the world.

Really? Can you prove that physically speaking, which how people look and race are all about, humans are out of the law of nature on planet earth?

Different species of animals have different genetic behavioural patterns, different physical traits, and different levels of intelligence. In humans, behavioural patterns are depended on culture and environment, physical traits are depended on their parent's individual features and perhaps evolution to suit the climate, different levels of intelligence is due to both genetics and upbringing. This is common knowledge, and this is what is accepted in the scientific community as pure facts, while your notion of racialism has already been proven skeptical and the community believes in ethnicities, not race.

Racial matters according to backward 17th century philosophy - the same philosophy used to justify slavery of african people? Discuss ethnicities, not race. Ethnicities exist and that's a fact, all educated people agree, but race is a social construct and it's word must be used carefully just like the word Aryan - which Hitler screwed up it's meaning entirely.

Altaics began as one ethnicity starting from the Altai Mountains. From millenia of nomadic life, some migrating, some 'mixing', some staying - the Altai divided into different ethnic groups. All have the same homelands but different customs that stretch from Hungary and Turkey all the way to Mongolia.

Many of our 'Eurasian' looks are not always due to mixing with Europeans (excluding the descendants in countries such as Ukraine etc), but also due to mixing amongst other central-asian nomads. We are not mixed race, we don't have to side with one racial construct over the other. We are Altai, the world has to just accept that fact that our native features are diverse.

Posted By: omshanti
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2008 at 01:14

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

Originally posted by omshanti

Would you be kind enough and explain what you mean by ''altai look'' and that how it differs from what other members have been trying to describe?

That is what I asked. Did anybody say that they are not humans? If the ''Altai'' are humans therefore the ''altai look'' differs from the others, are you saying that ''Altai'' are humans and the rest are not?
As far as I can see every single member who has posted here has shown an awareness of the diversity you keep shouting about.
People are simply trying to identify the components. Nothing more nothing less.

By the way you can not be diverse and be not mixed at same time you know, simply because diverse and mixed are synonymic in this context.

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

Even modern Mongolians themselves despite a 2.7 million population are already very diverse and it's not entirely due to intermixing with foreigners.

Nobody here used the word ''foreigners'' but you. As far as I can see people are simply trying to identify a nation which was by the way not the Altaic peoples or the Mongolians but the Turks. Nobody here has been concerned with the ''foreigner''-''native'' discrimination/distinction but you.

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

here Recessive genes is one theory, with the rather large multi-cultural nation their ancestors forged it's possible. However, it's not accepted very well especially those who consider themselves 'pureblood'. Due to the diversity, modern Mongols judge each other who is 'real' by the person's heart, impossible to have racial notions like the rest of the world.

1. The thread is not about the Mongols but the Turks so stop hijacking the thread.
2. Dogs ''judge'' each other by scent, but this does not mean that its impossible to have the notion of identifying their origins, breeds and mixtures, my point being that if a group of beings identify each other in a certain way it does not mean that it is impossible to have the notion of trying to identify their biological origin or to classify.
3. The thread is not about who is ''real'' or who is not.
4. Diversity is not unique to the ''Altai''.

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

Originally posted by omshanti

Really? Can you prove that physically speaking, which how people look and race are all about, humans are out of the law of nature on planet earth?

Different species of animals have different genetic behavioural patterns, different physical traits, and different levels of intelligence.

You are right, but would you please quote anybody who said that humans are not one species? I did not notice any body doing that.

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

In humans, behavioural patterns are depended on culture and environment,

Nobody is talking about behaviour, the topic is about the look of people.

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

physical traits are depended on their parent's individual features and perhaps evolution to suit the climate,

Yes, nobody has denied that, and this is very much within the law of nature on planet earth, therefore contrary to what you were saying, humans are not different from other species on Earth.

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

different levels of intelligence is due to both genetics and upbringing.

Again, nobody is talking about levels of intelligence.

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

This is common knowledge, and this is what is accepted in the scientific community as pure facts,

What? Is it common knowledge that humans are not a species from this planet and the law of nature on this planet does not apply to therm?

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

while your notion of racialism has already been proven skeptical and the community believes in ethnicities, not race.

What is my ''notion of racialism''? I have only posted two posts in this thread and the closest I got to explain anything was when I used a tree as an analogy here in this post: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=21494&PID=460442#460442 - http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=21494&PID=460442#460442
So are saying that humanity has not branched out to different branches, and can not be explained with the example of a tree as I did?
Perhaps before judging or labeling people's notions, you should read their posts carefully and quote relevant parts from them as reference.

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

Originally posted by Omshanti

Now if we go back to the question of the original poster, Turk/Turkic or Altaic (of which Turkic is believed to be a branch) are linguistic classifications rather than racial as already stated by some members, but this does not mean that we can not discuss them in the context of racial matters as the thread-starter questioned in his/her original post.
We can estimate the likelihood of the racial background of the original speakers of a linguistic group
1. by considering the homeland where the linguistic group spread from, and seeing what types of humans were predominant in the region from which the languages came from
2. historical pattern of the spread of the linguistic group and the racial distribution of its speakers.

Racial matters according to backward 17th century philosophy - the same philosophy used to justify slavery of african people?

What? When did I use ''racial matters according to backward 17th century philosophy''? Race to me simply means types of humans, and humanity has obviously noticed that different types of humans have come to exist because they created the word 'race' which is a concept based on biological/physical differences between peoples, created long before the 17th century in almost every language on earth.

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

Discuss ethnicities, not race.

Now you are becoming controlling. Whether I discuss race or ethnicities is absolutely none of your business, and you can not control what people want to discuss just because you have issues with what they discuss.

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

Ethnicities exist and that's a fact, all educated people agree, but race is a social construct

As far as I see, it is exactly the opposite. Ethnicities are social constructs because they are the ones which are by definition based on cultural and sociological aspects of humans. On the other hand it is a fact of nature that humanity physically differs considerably from group to group or region to region.

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

and it's word must be used carefully just like the word Aryan - which Hitler screwed up it's meaning entirely.

Yes, that is exactly what I meant when I wrote this (the quote below) here: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=21494&PID=460442#460442 - http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=21494&PID=460442#460442

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

Altaics began as one ethnicity starting from the Altai Mountains.

Ok , so what is your problem with other people trying to identify their looks and origins when you have no problem yourself saying that they started as one ethnicity from one specific region?

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

From millenia of nomadic life, some migrating, some 'mixing', some staying - the Altai divided into different ethnic groups.

Nobody ever denied that, and in fact that is what most members have been describing, apart from the fact that it was about the Turks not the Altaics.

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

All have the same homelands but different customs that stretch from Hungary and Turkey all the way to Mongolia.

In what way are you saying that they all have the same homeland? Linguistically? Biological descent? Culturally?
By the way linguistically speaking Hungarians are not Altaic. Perhaps you are trying to ''claim'' them?

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

Many of our 'Eurasian' looks are not always due to mixing with Europeans (excluding the descendants in countries such as Ukraine etc), but also due to mixing amongst other central-asian nomads. We are not mixed race, we don't have to side with one racial construct over the other. We are Altai, the world has to just accept that fact that our native features are diverse.

In one sentence you say that you are the results of the mixing between different Central Asian nomads, which no body denied and which in fact was what many people wrote. In the next sentence you say that ''we are not mixed race''.
When others talk about the diversity, you shout that you are not mixed, when others try to identify the original component, you shout that you are so diverse that its impossible. Don't you think its time you made up your mind?
Also who do you mean by ''we'' or ''us''? I notice that in some posts you use it to mean central Asian and in others to mean Altaic.
Central Asian certainly does not equal Altaic, simply because
1. central Asia has a very long history of being inhabited by non-Altaic peoples, notably Indo-Europeans.
2. one is a geographical designation and the other linguistic.

You are projecting your own notions onto others and assuming that other members wrote what they did not, and then you are opposing against what you assumed them to have written. You are basically creating a one-man-act of shouting against your own projections here. I am at least writing back to you and letting you know about it (this time), but once people find out about what you do they will start not bothering with your posts.
Before you post next time, it might be better if you actually distinguished between what is going on in your head and what is actually being discussed in the thread.

Originally posted by pinguin

That's nothing strange. Some indigenous people of Latin America, particularly in the Amazons and southern South America look East Asians. Besides, the average Latin American is a mixture in varying degrees between European (sometimes Arabs, too) and Native.

I have met several Chinese people that look Latin American as well, and many people from Central Asia indeed resemble some of our people, and curiously enough, in a recent Brazilian soup opera, the actor that make the rol of Amazonian Indian was a Japanese Brazilian. In Chile and Argentina, the indigenous or Indian descendent woman were usually called Chinese. Moreover, there is a case of a Chilean Mapuche that married a Japanese woman in Japan and he was very surprised that nobody noticed there he was a foreigner.

Exactly Pinguin. Thank you for your addition of examples. I would just like to inform you however that I was just trying to explain the nature of the situation rather than its strangeness, that even though I am not Central Asian, my mix of Iranian and Japanese makes people think that I am central Asian (or in other cases Latin American), which I thought explains it quite well.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

That's what I was thinking. Japanese don't look like Turks. Japanese don't look like Chinese.

This is actually quite a tricky subject because Japanese, Chinese and (some)Turks do look like each other and at the same time do not look like each other.
If we used every single person within each of those nations as samples and created an average face of each of the peoples, they are bound to look different, because obviously the people who are the samples are different individuals and also because each of the nations has a different historical background which would have developed or undeveloped different traits. This is how much they differ.
On the other hand if you picked one random person from one of those nations and placed in another of them, or shuffled orphans between them, nobody would notice anything unless they were told. Just look at the picture of the statue Sarmat posted, That general could easily have been Japanese or Chinese. This is how much they look alike.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

What really annoys me is when people with one European and one East Asian parent calls themselves "Eurasian".

~Actually, Omshanti you could call yourself Eurasian and really confuse the above people, since, being Irani you actually are Eurasian.

A word or a name is simply a sound produced to suggest a concept in order for communication to be possible within a society, therefore it is expected for some words/names to have different uses in different societies. I personally see no sense in being annoyed at how a word/name is being used in a different society/perception from your own, unless you notice some inconsistency or unpleasantness in its use from an objective/universal point of view. There are always reasons as to why a word came to mean something in a certain society, or to certain people.
In the case of 'Eurasian', in some societies it is used to mean a mix of European and east Asian and in others to mean any body from the Eurasian continent. 'Eurasia' is a word made by sticking the two words 'Europe' and 'Asia' to each other anyway. If the people in the society in which the word was used understand what it suggests, then the word has achieved its purpose. After all we can not control people to suit our own desires.

Originally posted by Efraz

Greetings omshanti,

Greetings to you too Efraz. I have been enjoying your polite and balanced posts recently.

Originally posted by Efraz

I really agree with you that there was no doubt anyway. I was just beating around the bush without being direct, because it is a very sensitive issue to some people as you noted.
Sarmat's information was just spot on. He was the first person who tried to post a picture in a thread about how people look. A very smart decision.

Originally posted by Efraz

Originally posted by omshanti

Now if we go back to the question of the original poster, Turk/Turkic or Altaic (of which Turkic is believed to be a branch) ....

And all Turkish(and/or Turkic all dialects) are a branch of Altaic languages. This is not a belief, but a classification.

Yes, it is a classification. I simply added ''believed'' to put it milder because I knew that the Altaic language family is a controversial linguistic family with which less scholars agree compared to for example the Indo-European family.

Originally posted by Efraz

People tend to get nervous when you talk too much about their races. There is a vast history about people being abused, insulted, discriminated, tortured and killed for their races. So it is normal that we have sensitivities on this issue.

I think that race actually touches/disturbs something deeper in people than just the history because humanity has abused, insulted, discriminated, tortured and killed for many other reasons (such as money, religion, sex, ethnicity...etc), but race seems to be the issue most of the time.

Originally posted by Efraz

Of course it should be talked but in a most scientific and calm way I suggest.

Yes I really agree with you that it should be discussed in a calm state of mind, but contrary to many people's understanding, ''scientific'' is a very subjective word. People can call anything ''scientific'' or ''unscientific'' according to their own understanding of the universe.

Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2008 at 03:11

I humbly ask all the participant of this thread to remain civil and respectful of your fellow forumers.

The tone of confrontation is not welcomed on this forum.

Many thanks.

-------------
Σαυρομάτης

Posted By: Sukhbaatar
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2008 at 05:07

Originally posted by Sarmat12

I humbly ask all the participant of this thread to remain civil and respectful of your fellow forumers. The tone of confrontation is not welcomed on this forum. Many thanks.

Very well, I'll try to be as civil as possible.

Originally posted by omshanti

That is what I asked. Did anybody say that they are not humans? If the ''Altai'' are humans therefore the ''altai look'' differs from the others, are you saying that ''Altai'' are humans and the rest are not?
As far as I can see every single member who has posted here has shown an awareness of the diversity you keep shouting about.
People are simply trying to identify the components. Nothing more nothing less.

Do not try to place words in my mouth - Altai are human just like anyone else. My point is that we are diverse - but no more diverse then your average 'mono-racial' person from individual to individual.

Yes they show an awareness yet their own ignorance. I don't believe in racialism that classes our people as 'mixed' Eurasians, majority of Altai features are due to mixing with other central-asian nomads, not European interference.

By the way you can not be diverse and be not mixed at same time you know, simply because diverse and mixed are synonymic in this context.

Why do we have to be considered mixed to be diverse? I guess with your Japanese/Iranian background you grew up with a mentality that two different looking people have two completely different cultures. This is not the same about central-Asia - many of the so-called 'caucasian' or 'mongoloid' features were both native to central-Asian nomads.

You do not think like us, yet believe you understand us due to your mixed Japanese/Iranian background, and even class us into two 'racial categories'. It's foreign thinking, and that's an opinion I'm not afraid to share, also I'm illustrating the fact that our mentalities are alien to yours.

1) I'm also Turk in blood though more Slavic, but why is it that you insist that I can not post familiar examples to illustrate central-asian thinking and mentality?

2) Biological origins of central-asia, the majority stays in central-asia, interference with non-central-asians is minimal unless you count Turkey. There were many 'caucasian'-looking nomadic tribes in central-asia which I encourage you to study. Despite their 'caucasian'-looking features, they were not European by origin.
3 / 4 ) I wasn't talking about who is real, and yes it's common knowledge diversity is not unique to the Altai, however this thread is about Altai Turks is it not?

Originally posted by omshanti

You are right, but would you please quote anybody who said that humans are not one species? I did not notice any body doing that. Nobody is talking about behaviour, the topic is about the look of people.

Many of these posts hinted with the impression that posters here believe in human subspecies. Perhaps I was wrong but I followed my instincts.

Yes, nobody has denied that, and this is very much within the law of nature on planet earth, therefore contrary to what you were saying, humans are not different from other species on Earth.

Humans are not animals, we have genetic characteristics sure but these individual genetic characteristics go beyond current human notions of race and ethnicities. Race began with 3 groups, now its theories have evolved to many ethnicities (beginning with sub-races) as they realised the diversity of humanity in the 21st century. Keep up to date with anthropology.

What? Is it common knowledge that humans are not a species from this planet and the law of nature on this planet does not apply to therm?

Again you fail to understand - there is one human species. Ethnicities exist as pure fact, race is still being debated and debated to this day, but it has so far evolved if people even bother to keep up to date with modern anthropology (though it by itself has many of it's own opinions).

When did I say humans are not a species and law of nature does not apply to them? Is the outdated classification of race into 3 groups considered the law of nature in your mentality? So there's only 3 branches and everyone who looks different must be a mix of either three - is that what you believe?

Humanity is so diverse it's impossible to simplify race like this. Now we have Paleo-Siberian, Australoid, Malaijid, Sino and Clovisians classifications which are more accurate in racialist theories. Mixed? myself - perhaps yes, cause it's only one generation and there's my Slavic/Tatar grandmother, however I don't see how she was any less Altai then the rest of her ethnic brothers and sisters in Russia as she bears the same heart and mind.

However classing other central-asians as mixed race? The features are native in the majority, not from Euro or Sino interference. This 'choose a side' style racialism when it comes to central-Asia is annoying, pathetic, outdated, and my family spits on it.

So are saying that humanity has not branched out to different branches, and can not be explained with the example of a tree as I did?
Perhaps before judging or labeling people's notions, you should read their posts carefully and quote relevant parts from them as reference.

Read what I posted above on the previous quote.

Originally posted by Omshanti

Created long before the 17th century by almost everyone but Altaics. We never had such notions of 'race'. It's interesting when Euros tend to claim "They were trying to destroy the white race!" Heh - we didn't even give a crap what color they were.

You can say whatever you wish to say, I'm just offering a suggestion. Cause otherwise, I'm inclined to 'discuss' my opinion with you as well.

As far as I see, it is exactly the opposite. Ethnicities are social constructs because they are the ones which are by definition based on cultural and sociological aspects of humans. On the other hand it is a fact of nature that humanity physically differs considerably from group to group or region to region.

That's ethnicity, race according to how some posters mentioned in this thread - is pathetic. Modern anthropologists are now bluring the line between ethnicity and race, which is good.

Altaics began as one ethnicity starting from the Altai Mountains. Ok , so what is your problem with other people trying to identify their looks and origins when you have no problem yourself saying that they started as one ethnicity from one specific region?

As I mentioned above - many of our traits are native to central-asia. Our features are not due to western or eastern interference - and we are our own people in our own right.

Other way round in fact - they claim us, as well as for centuries their Kings were claimants as descendants of Attila the Hun. Today's Hungarians consider themselves descendants as well. Ancestrial - that's the link, and most Altai already know that.

The world looks at me as mixed yes, like I said just one generation is all it takes and there's slavic written all over that side of my family. However, should I follow non-central-asian notions that my grandmother and my grandfather were of a different race from each other? Both were human, both have the heart of the Altai, both raised my father an Altaic. My father and I see no reason to consider ourself cross-culture or cross-breed cause we share the same Altaic root and mentality.

You are projecting your own notions onto others and assuming that other members wrote what they did not, and then you are opposing against what you assumed them to have written. You are basically creating a one-man-act of shouting against your own projections here. I am at least writing back to you and letting you know about it (this time), but once people find out about what you do they will start not bothering with your posts.
Before you post next time, it might be better if you actually distinguished between what is going on in your head and what is actually being discussed in the thread.

You are already proving me right that my assumptions are correct from the tones of the posters here, you still follow classifications of race according to the outdated '3 racial' group theory and refuse to see how central-asian 'eurasian' traits are not due from foreign interference. Also note that you can have sex with both a European women and an Iranian women and both will produce different looking babies, sending your '3-racial' theory down to the pits.

I've worked as a counsellor before about 2 years ago. I've counselled also teenagers from mixed heritage. At first I was shocked as they suffered these following issues: Choosing racial sides, confused as hell, and/or no sense of belonging. Tell me - WHY is this so in most countries all except central-asia where foreign notions of race are rejected and people are accepted whatever their heritage?

So yes it is accurate to say that I see you in possession of a foreign mentality to central-asia. I was born and raised in Australia but many parts of the culture it's impossible for me to assimilate into due to my central-asian lineage and mentality.

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2008 at 05:34

Two things.

(1) It is wrong to say that race doesn't exist. It does. It is simply the set of inherited alleles that carries a giving population. The problem is not that you can't define it or not. You can. The problem is that races vary continuosly in the surface of earth and that there is no way define where one stars and the other ends. There is no way to say, either, if there are three, four, five, six, seven or 25.000 races either!

2) Second. Ethnicity has nothing to do with race. Ethnicity in inherited by learning. It is cultural. Race is genetical. It is just chemistry.

3) With respect to integration, do as Latinos do. We are not ashamed of being mixed and we challenge any people of other group to complain us for being mixed face to face. On the other hand is fun to be mixed. We can play both sides at will.

-------------

Posted By: Sukhbaatar
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2008 at 07:18

^ That's 3 ;)

1) I see there's many misunderstandings going around, first of all - I believe yes race does exist, just not in accordance to 17th century racialism. I believe more modern contexts of race, which also borrows heavily on the term 'ethnicity', are far more accurate. And yes you are correct - races are not just three, there's many, many more.

2) It's all terminology and individual impressions of the word, ethnicity is genetic to me, as race is to you. The two go hand in hand sometimes and may cause confusion.

3) Yes and you have a 'racial' group of your own, you're not torn between two peoples, you have a people of your own. People accept that. However, for central-asians, for some reason people can't seem to do the same. Maybe I'm misintepreting the whole thing however by some earlier comments on this thread, but what's said is said.

I play all sides as well, my Mongolic blood relates to Mongol people, my Slavic blood relates to Slavic people, my Tatar blood relates to Turkic people, and my Tungid blood relates to Manchurian people. However, most manchus seem to be too sinified to even talk sense of themselves.

Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2008 at 23:29

The early Turks have been described as being oriental looking and causcasian looking, according to Chinese sources Turks were described as looking different from Chinese, green eyed and moustached/bearded peoples are said to be found among them. The nations to the West of the Turks described them as being more oriental looking.

This makes sense considering the early Turks were predominantly nomadic and tribal confederacies being far more important than some sense of racial purity. Infact according to the Turk laws (yasa/tore) it was encouraged to marry from outside of the tribe to link up neighbouring tribes creating powerfull clans.

The look of a Turk was of no importance, being part of and representing your clan however was.

-------------
�What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.�
Albert Pine

Posted By: omshanti
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2008 at 09:21

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

Do not try to place words in my mouth

I am not trying to put words in your mouth. You have been opposing the description of other members by either saying that they are ''claiming you'' and they are ''ignorant'' or labeling and judging their ''notion of racilalism'' while you yourself talking about an ''altai look''. So I asked you (the quote below):

Originally posted by omshanti

Would you be kind enough and explain what you mean by ''altai look'' and that how it differs from what other members have been trying to describe?

and you answered by describing a diversity which is exactly the same as what other members were talking about, while adding at the end ''Altai are humans'' (highlighted in the quote below):

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

Altai are descendants from their ancestors in the Altai Mountains, some went north - Siberians (even said that some went east along the bering strait), some stayed - Mongolians, some went west - Turks. The features of these groups are VERY diverse so it's impossible to give you a description of the Altai look either then to mention that traditionally - Altai are not middle-eastern, oriental or european in looks, Altai are Altai. Altai are human.

hence what I wrote.

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

- Altai are human just like anyone else.

Yes, but my question was how do you claim them to differ from what other members have been describing. Nobody wrote that they are not humans, but you answered me by writing ''Altai are human''

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

My point is that we are diverse - but no more diverse then your average 'mono-racial' person from individual to individual.

Nobody was talking about how Turkic peoples are more diverse than others but about their diversity itself regardless of the diversity of the peoples of other regions, which you label as ''your average mono-racial person''.

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

Yes they show an awareness yet their own ignorance. I don't believe in racialism that classes our people as 'mixed' Eurasians, majority of Altai features are due to mixing with other central-asian nomads, not European interference.

That is what other members have been writing and nobody denied it, that Central Asians are mix of Central Asian nomads (whioch includes both Indo-Europeans and Altaics). Some simply described the look of Indo-European nomads by using the word 'European' which is not wrong because the Indo-European nomads in Central Asia must have looked similar to the peoples of Europe. No other member has written about ''European interference'' but you. Doesn't this show that you see things that are not there, or that you project your own notions onto others and assume people to have written what they have not.

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

Originally posted by omshanti

By the way you can not be diverse and be not mixed at same time you know, simply because diverse and mixed are synonymic in this context.

Why do we have to be considered mixed to be diverse? I guess with your Japanese/Iranian background you grew up with a mentality that two different looking people have two completely different cultures.This is not the same about central-Asia - many of the so-called 'caucasian' or 'mongoloid' features were both native to central-Asian nomads.

This has absolutely nothing to do with my background. You are simply confusing culture with how people look. In this thread which is about how people look, both 'diversity' and 'mixed' are bound to be taken to be about the looks of people, not cultures. So you can't just decide for yourself that 'mixed' is about one thing (how people look) and diverse is about another (culture), and tell me that I ''grew up with a mentality that two different looking people have two completely different cultures'', because I never even considered or wrote about cultures in this thread.
Also, in your post before last when you wrote this (below):

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

Unlike animals, we are not breeds or species.

Originally posted by Omshanti

Really? Can you prove that physically speaking, which how people look and race are all about, humans are out of the law of nature on planet earth?

you seemed to have difficulty separating between how people look which is very obviously a physical trait with behavior and levels of intelligence.
From these examples, your posts give the impression of you being incapable of separating how people look from culture, levels of intelligence and behavior. This leads me to the possible conclusion that you judge people's level of intelligence, behavior and cultural identity from how they look. I always write that denying to recognize races in humanity is just the other side of the same coin as racism, because this basic tendency of judging people superficially based on how they look is shared by both of them.

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

This is not the same about central-Asia - many of the so-called 'caucasian' or 'mongoloid' features were both native to central-Asian nomads.

As I have already written many times, nobody wrote that they are not native or not from Central Asia. You are the only one who is concerned with the native-foreign distinction/discrimination.

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

Originally posted by Omshanti

Nobody here used the word ''foreigners'' but you. As far as I can see people are simply trying to identify a nation which was by the way not the Altaic peoples or the Mongolians but the Turks. Nobody here has been concerned with the ''foreigner''-''native'' discrimination/distinction but you.

Wow, you just proved what I had written in the part you quoted from me. That you are the one who is concerned with ''you''-''us'' or ''foreign''/''alien''-''native'' discrimination. Now with this reply that you provided me, you made it possible for me to change the word I used from concerned to obsessed.

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

Originally posted by omshanti

1. The thread is not about the Mongols but the Turks so stop hijacking the thread.
2. Dogs ''judge'' each other by scent, but this does not mean that its impossible to have the notion of identifying their origins, breeds and mixtures, my point being that if a group of beings identify each other in a certain way it does not mean that it is impossible to have the notion of trying to identify their biological origin or to classify.
3. The thread is not about who is ''real'' or who is not.
4. Diversity is not unique to the ''Altai''.

1) I'm also Turk in blood though more Slavic,

Ah, now you are talking about blood after giving that Mongolian example to say that heart is what matters regarding who is ''real''? Don't you see the inconsistency in what you write?
Whether you are Turk in blood or not has nothing to do with the fact that you keep trying to equate Turks with Mongolians.

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

1) I'm also Turk in blood though more Slavic, but why is it that you insist that I can not post familiar examples to illustrate central-asian thinking and mentality?

You are not just posting familiar examples to illustrate Central Asian thinking and mentality. You keep equating Mongolians or Altaics with Turks and further with the whole of Central Asians, as if Mongolians=Altaic peoples=Turks=all of Central Asians, which is not the case at all because Mongolians are a different branch within the Altaic family from the Turks, and Altaic peoples are certainly not the only people in Central Asia.

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

2) Biological origins of central-asia, the majority stays in central-asia, interference with non-central-asians is minimal unless you count Turkey. There were many 'caucasian'-looking nomadic tribes in central-asia which I encourage you to study. Despite their 'caucasian'-looking features, they were not European by origin.

Again, as far as I could see nobody was talking about or concerned with ''interference with non-central Asians'', and nobody wrote about the European origin of any peoples in central Asia. The word Caucasian is not the same as European.
Historically speaking, what you wrote here (below):

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

Biological origins of central-asia, the majority stays in central-asia, interference with non-central-asians is minimal unless you count Turkey

is really not correct, because Central Asia is in the middle of the Eurasian continent, hence it has been a crossroad throughout the history, meaning that many people flowed in and out of it.
I can see from your posts, your desire of wanting to separate Central Asia from the rest of the world, and to create the ''You''-''us'' distinction by identifying yourself with the whole of Central Asia which you have isolated, in order to feel some kind of comfort and ideal belonging connected to the feeling of superiority that comes from this distinction.

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

3 / 4 ) I wasn't talking about who is real,

Let me quote it for you (see below).

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

Due to the diversity, modern Mongols judge each other who is 'real' by the person's heart, impossible to have racial notions like the rest of the world.

Perhaps you can remember now, that you wrote it. Other members are trying to identify how people looked in a nation and you give this example of who is ''real'' to oppose them, to say how people look does not count with regards of who is a real Mongol. As I have already written the issue is the look of people, so who is ''real'' or not within Mongolians is neither here nor there.

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

and yes it's common knowledge diversity is not unique to the Altai, however this thread is about Altai Turks is it not?

You were not just talking about the diversity of Central Asians, Altaic peoples, Turks or Mongols (you are not even clear as to which one of them you are talking about). You were trying to use the diversity of them to set them apart from the rest of the world. That is why I wrote that it is not unique to the ''Altai'' (or whoever you mean by ''us'').

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

Many of these posts hinted with the impression that posters here believe in human subspecies. Perhaps I was wrong but I followed my instincts.

Yes you were wrong and you know it because you did not quote any body.

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

Originally posted by omshanti

Yes, nobody has denied that, and this is very much within the law of nature on planet earth, therefore contrary to what you were saying, humans are not different from other species on Earth.

Humans are not animals,

Humans are animals physically. This is another tendency I see in many people who deny race in humanity, this notion of humans being superior to and different from other species on earth.

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

we have genetic characteristics sure but these individual genetic characteristics go beyond current human notions of race and ethnicities. Race began with 3 groups, now its theories have evolved to many ethnicities (beginning with sub-races) as they realised the diversity of humanity in the 21st century. Keep up to date with anthropology.

You say ''Race began with 3 groups'', don't even know what 'race' means and what 'ethnicity' means, and yet you tell me to ''keep up to date with anthropology''? Wow.
As far as I remember, 'race' began when the concept was created in many languages in the world when people noticed that humanity differs physically from group to group or region to region. I am sure that this was long before the 17th century. If you are talking about the classification based on craniology, I have to say that I have never seen it to be only 3. As far as I remember, 4 was the least number, with Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid and Australoid.
In anthropology, ethnicity is based on Social and cultural characteristics, whereas race is based on physical/biological characteristics.
They can be blurred, but please read what I wrote later in my post regarding this matter.

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

Originally posted by omshanti

What? Is it common knowledge that humans are not a species from this planet and the law of nature on this planet does not apply to therm?

Again you fail to understand - there is one human species.

Read what you quoted from me. I wrote very clearly a species . Yes, there is only one surviving human/Hominid species on earth now. I don't see how I failed to understand what. You don't seem to know what you are talking about.

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

Ethnicities exist as pure fact, race is still being debated and debated to this day, but it has so far evolved if people even bother to keep up to date with modern anthropology (though it by itself has many of it's own opinions).

Nobody denied the existence of ethnicities. Yes, race is very controversial, and I already wrote why when I wrote this (quoted below) :

Originally posted by omshanti

Looking at an animal and trying to identify its origin, breed or mixture doesn't mean that you are trying to claim it. It is just that with humans, personal emotions, inferiority/superiority complex and political correctness become involved and people can not look at the issue with a certain distance and objectivity as they do with other species.

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

When did I say humans are not a species and law of nature does not apply to them?

Here : http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=21494&PID=460446#460446 - http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=21494&PID=460446#460446

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

Is the outdated classification of race into 3 groups considered the law of nature in your mentality? So there's only 3 branches and everyone who looks different must be a mix of either three - is that what you believe?

Perhaps you can quote where I mentioned the ''outdated classification of 3 races'' and where I wrote that there are only 3 branches, before deciding what I wrote for yourself. As I have already written, the closest I came to explain anything about branches or races was when I gave the example of a tree for humanity here in this post : http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=21494&PID=460442#460442 - http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=21494&PID=460442#460442
No mention of ''outdated classification of race into 3''.

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

Humanity is so diverse it's impossible to simplify race like this.

It is not impossible at all to simplify or classify in small numbers. For example we can simplify and classify humanity in only 2, to people who are lactose-intolerant and people who are lactose-tolerant. What the classification is based on is what matters, not the number, and craniology obviously works well in its field because it is still very much valid in anthropology today and it is the very method that has mapped out the evolution of Hominid species.

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

Now we have Paleo-Siberian, Australoid Malaijid, Sino and Clovisians classifications which are more accurate in racialist theories.

'Paleo-Siberian' is a linguistic classification. 'Australoid' was always there and is not a new addition. 'Sino-' simply means anything related to China. I don't know what Malaijid and Clovisian mean but perhaps you (or any other member) can inform me.

Earlier, when you were turning the thread which was about Turks into a thread about Mongolians, and I asked you to stop hijacking the thread, you wrote ''I am also Turk in blood'' to justify whatever you were doing. Now you are switching back to the heart and mind again, and to the issue of who is less or more ''Altai'', which has absolutely nothing to do with what other members have been discussing.

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

Mixed? myself - perhaps yes, cause it's only one generation and there's my Slavic/Tatar grandmother, however I don't see how she was any less Altai then the rest of her ethnic brothers and sisters in Russia as she bears the same heart and mind. However classing other central-asians as mixed race? The features are native in the majority, not from Euro or Sino interference. This 'choose a side' style racialism when it comes to central-Asia is annoying, pathetic, outdated, and my family spits on it.

Nobody wrote anything about ''Euro or Sino interference'', and nobody is making anybody to ''choose a side'' either. Another good example of why I wrote that you are creating a one-man-act of opposing your own projections.

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

Originally posted by omshanti

So are saying that humanity has not branched out to different branches, and can not be explained with the example of a tree as I did?
Perhaps before judging or labeling people's notions, you should read their posts carefully and quote relevant parts from them as reference.

Read what I posted above on the previous quote.

I did read, but you have not provided me with anything that says Humanity can not be explained by the analogy of a tree, which is what I wrote. Instead you are just going on and on about ''3 branches'' or ''the outdated classification of races into 3 groups''. As I wrote before, quote me instead of going on about things that I did not write. Since you seem to have difficulty with this task of quoting, let me make it easy for you. Quote anywhere from my posts before this post with the number 3 in it and show it to me if you can.

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

Originally posted by Omshanti

What? When did I use ''racial matters according to backward 17th century philosophy''? Race to me simply means types of humans, and humanity has obviously noticed that different types of humans have come to exist because they created the word 'race' which is a concept based on biological/physical differences between peoples, created long before the 17th century in almost every language on earth.

Created long before the 17th century by almost everyone but Altaics. We never had such notions of 'race'.

'Altaic' is the name of a highly controversial and hypothetical language family which includes 66 languages and which also includes Japanese and Korean depending on the scholar. Do you speak all the 66 languages in it? Japanese certainly has an equivalent word for race. I don't know about Turkic languages but all the Turks I have met seem to have no difficulty understanding the concept of race as a physical definition. The equivalent word for race also exists in Persian which was a language of a central Asian nomadic tribe so it means that this has nothing to do with nomadic life style either.

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

Created long before the 17th century by almost everyone but Altaics. We never had such notions of 'race'. It's interesting when Euros tend to claim "They were trying to destroy the white race!" Heh - we didn't even give a crap what color they were.

Wow, you are entering a monologue here.

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

Originally posted by Omshanti

Now you are becoming controlling. Whether I discuss race or ethnicities is absolutely none of your business, and you can not control what people want to discuss just because you have issues with what they discuss.

You can say whatever you wish to say, I'm just offering a suggestion. Cause otherwise, I'm inclined to 'discuss' my opinion with you as well.

A suggestion? Then why do you persist in such a paranoid manner, such as assuming people to ''claim you'' or to make you ''choose a side'' ...etc. The thread is about how people look, about race, and you come in with paranoia accusing others of what they have not done while writing ''discuss ethnicity, not race''. This seems very much like a controlling manner than a suggesting manner to me.
What do you mean by 'discuss'? I mean what are the dots for?

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

Originally posted by Omshanti

As far as I see, it is exactly the opposite. Ethnicities are social constructs because they are the ones which are by definition based on cultural and sociological aspects of humans. On the other hand it is a fact of nature that humanity physically differs considerably from group to group or region to region.

That's ethnicity, race according to how some posters mentioned in this thread - is pathetic. Modern anthropologists are now bluring the line between ethnicity and race, which is good.

As I have already written, ethnicity is based on cultural and social characteristics whereas race is based on physical/biological characteristics. Both of the words can be vague and blurred in between them depending on the people who use them, which means that ethnicity is not any more accurate (in fact, since it includes many more elements than race, it can be much more complex and vague than race) race, however what I wrote above is the general definitions of the words.

Perhaps in your understanding of the world or in your own language there are no separate words for race and ethnicity but it certainly is not the case in English when used within anthropology.

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

Altaics began as one ethnicity starting from the Altai Mountains.

Originally posted by Omshanti

Ok , so what is your problem with other people trying to identify their looks and origins when you have no problem yourself saying that they started as one ethnicity from one specific region?

As I mentioned above - many of our traits are native to central-asia. Our features are not due to western or eastern interference - and we are our own people in our own right.

Who said anything about ''western or eastern interference''? Who said that Turks are not their own people in their own right? Quote them.
You basically want a distinct racial category for Altaic peoples within the classifications you so fiercely oppose, without even realizing that these classifications are not about who owns which category.

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

Originally posted by Omshanti

In what way are you saying that they all have the same homeland? Linguistically? Biological descent? Culturally?
By the way linguistically speaking Hungarians are not Altaic. Perhaps you are trying to ''claim'' them?

Ancestral? So that means biological descent. Interesting. 'Altaic' is the name of a linguistic group coined in the 18th century, yet ''most Altai know'' that they share the ''ancestral link'' with each other?

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

Originally posted by Omshanti

In one sentence you say that you are the results of the mixing between different Central Asian nomads, which no body denied and which in fact was what many people wrote. In the next sentence you say that ''we are not mixed race''.
When others talk about the diversity, you shout that you are not mixed, when others try to identify the original component, you shout that you are so diverse that its impossible. Don't you think its time you made up your mind?

I see, You are basically both whenever they suit you. Very convenient but inconsistent.

You seem to have conveniently ignored the question I wrote here, Let me quote it again so you can answer it this time.

Originally posted by Omshanti

who do you mean by ''we'' or ''us''? I notice that in some posts you use it to mean central Asian and in others to mean Altaic.
Central Asian certainly does not equal Altaic, simply because
1. central Asia has a very long history of being inhabited by non-Altaic peoples, notably Indo-Europeans.
2. one is a geographical designation and the other linguistic.

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

Originally posted by Omshanti

You are projecting your own notions onto others and assuming that other members wrote what they did not, and then you are opposing against what you assumed them to have written. You are basically creating a one-man-act of shouting against your own projections here. I am at least writing back to you and letting you know about it (this time), but once people find out about what you do they will start not bothering with your posts.
Before you post next time, it might be better if you actually distinguished between what is going on in your head and what is actually being discussed in the thread.

You are already proving me right that my assumptions are correct from the tones of the posters here,

The tone of which posters? Is it me who is proving you right or ''the tone of the posters here''? What you are saying here does not make sense.

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

you still follow classifications of race according to the outdated '3 racial' group theory and refuse to see how central-asian 'eurasian' traits are not due from foreign interference. Also note that you can have sex with both a European women and an Iranian women and both will produce different looking babies, sending your '3-racial' theory down to the pits.

Just quote anywhere from my posts with the number 3 in it if you can.

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

I've worked as a counsellor before about 2 years ago. I've counselled also teenagers from mixed heritage. At first I was shocked as they suffered these following issues: Choosing racial sides, confused as hell, and/or no sense of belonging. Tell me - WHY is this so in most countries all except central-asia where foreign notions of race are rejected and people are accepted whatever their heritage?

If the state of being mixed is normal among the population of a region then there would naturally be less identity-issues about being mixed simply because it is normal, unless there is a component which is unusual to the region. I am sure if an African person went to Central Asia, it would be different. If central Asia is so open and accepting, why all those civil wars then? Rejecting or accepting people is not in nations or geographical locations but in individuals, therefore since Central Asians are humans just like anybody else on the planet, Central Asia is not any more special in this respect than other regions. A good example of this is you. You claim yourself to represent all of central Asia which you claim to be very accepting, yet you are obsessed with ''you''-''us'' and ''foreign''-''native'' distinction and try to differentiate/isolate central Asia from the rest of the world any time you can in order for yourself to feel special and superior.

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

so yes it is accurate to say that I see you in possession of a foreign mentality to central-asia. I was born and raised in Australia but many parts of the culture it's impossible for me to assimilate into due to my central-asian lineage and mentality.

Actually, Iranians were nomadic peoples in central Asia, so with your logic I who has Iranian ''blood'' is not foreign to central Asia.
Thanks any way, you just proved here what I wrote about you above it.

Originally posted by Bulldog

The early Turks have been described as being oriental looking and causcasian looking, according to Chinese sources Turks were described as looking different from Chinese, green eyed and moustached/bearded peoples are said to be found among them. The nations to the West of the Turks described them as being more oriental looking

My own theory is that since the end of the last ice age there were some cultural shifts in Siberia around the Yenisei river between proto-Uralic people (who looked like the people of Europe) and proto-Turkic people (who looked oriental), and some Turkic tribes (such as the Yenisei Kirghiz) and some Uralic tribes emerged out of these cultural shifts, hence mixed from the beginning of the formation of the tribe.

Posted By: Sukhbaatar
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2008 at 10:22

Whoa, your reply is too long, can you summarise please?

Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2008 at 11:05

It's interesting when Euros tend to claim "They were trying to destroy the white race!" Heh - we didn't even give a crap what color they were.

What an extraordinarily racist statement. I've yet to meet a European claiming such a thing. It's interesting you're using the pronoun "we" as well, you must be very old indeed.

edit:bolding is screwed up somehow, can't get rid of it.

Posted By: Yungsiyebu_Uriankhai
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2008 at 12:20

I think altai groups were multi-rarial and/or racially mixed people since ancient time, Xiongnu were dominated by northern Mongoloid and influenced by both Caucasoid and eastern Mongoloid. The original Kok Turks in altai area were uncertain ethnic group at present yet, the Kok Turks in Mongolia were mixed with local tribes, apperantly northern Mongoloid were dominated race. Oguz Turks were probably influenced by Caucasoid heavily even before they immigrated from central asia.

Posted By: Sukhbaatar
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2008 at 14:27

Originally posted by Styrbiorn

It's interesting when Euros tend to claim "They were trying to destroy the white race!" Heh - we didn't even give a crap what color they were.

What an extraordinarily racist statement. I've yet to meet a European claiming such a thing. It's interesting you're using the pronoun "we" as well, you must be very old indeed.

edit:bolding is screwed up somehow, can't get rid of it.

Then you obviously don't know enough of your own kind. I did not say ALL Euros, but I've heard many claims contrary to your post. However - that was a rarer occurance compared to the majority but yes some did claim that.

We never held such importance on race, why is it so difficult for the world to accept that fact? It's giving me the impression that you are trying to push your issues onto others. Tribal divisions and tribalism was our problem, not racialism.

Anyways unless this conversation turns civil, I guess I'll just let you guys discuss amongst yourselves yet you'll never know us.

Posted By: Styrbiorn
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2008 at 14:52

Originally posted by Sukhbaatar

I'm quite sure I know many, many more than you do. Here people hardly knows about the history of the Turks anyway, probably less than 5% have heard about the Ottoman empire, let alone that they ruled the Balkans. I have - though rarely - heard people claim that the Muslim Turks tried to eradict Christianity, but anything about race - never. The formulation "Euros tend to claim" seems like you think it's a common thing to claim. That statement is utterly false. "Euro" is a currency by the way, the people are Europeans (and is about as broad as the term "Asians").

Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2008 at 14:52

Talking about "looks" among the early Turks is absurd as they had no notion of "race" or "racial purity".

The clan and tribe was of the upmost importance, tribes married among each other to grow and create powerfull confederations. Therefore it didn't matter at all if somebody had blonde, black or purple hair, if they were a member of the clan they were a member and they earned status and respect through their loyalty and making a name for the clan.

As has been stated earlier, there are conflicting sources regarding how the early Turks looked, most probobly because they didn't all look the same.

-------------
�What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.�
Albert Pine

Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 09:00

I can see that people often get worked up when the issue of "race" and "human genetics" is mentioned.

My advice is: RELAX!

By discussing what the founders of the Gokturk Empire looked like physically is a trait of curiosity, which doesn't necessarily imply racist or nationalistic propaganda.

The same way I have always had a curiosity to know what people "looked like" at different eras and different places.

I am curious to know how the ancient Italians "looked like", how the Cro-Magnons looked like, how Neolithic people and Jericho and Catalhoyuk "looked like". how the Aztecs "looked like".... and it's only normal for people interested in history and geography.

The terms such as "Caucasoid", "Mongoloid", "Congoid" or "Capoid" are broad classifications of craneology, which DOES EXIST in a broad sense; which is just as valid as dividing people into blonds, brunettes, and redheads when it comes to the colour of the hair. Most of the time you don't tend to confuse a typical Chinese with a typical German, do you? So there IS a physical difference between the 2 peoples; and there's nothing racist or nationalistic about admitting it.

I can blatantly say that even among Europeans there are physical differences, as a typical Spaniard DOES NOT look the same as a typical Swede; and there's nothing racist about saying it.

The word "race" is another matter because in animals it means "subspecies"; while all human beings alive today belong to the same species and sub-species. However, there IS genetic differences between populations of the world and there's nothing racist about studying them. Just because the racists of the 19th century used the colour of skin as social divider, it doesn't render the study of genes and "looks" irrelevant.

Going back to the main topic, I would imagine that most of the original "Turkic" tribes that descended from Xiongnu were probably of Siberian-Mongolian heritage; but by the time that the Gokturk empire was created, they had already absorbed a large number of foreign peoples of Iranic, Mongol, or Finno-Ugric origin.

Their physical appearance was most probably mixed.

An Lu-shan was a Chinese general of Turkic origin, and historical sources did mention him as "physonomically alien".

Posted By: omshanti
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2008 at 12:07

Great, great post Calvo. I really agree with you and I couldn't have expressed it better. Thank you and Bravo!

Posted By: Arcturus Mengsk
Date Posted: 08-Jan-2010 at 01:39

I dont think that they were european looking

Posted By: kalhur
Date Posted: 25-Jan-2010 at 13:57

i agree with calvo. the turkish tribes were allready heavily mixed with surrounding non turkish tribes mostly iranic before migrating to turkey and if you visit turky you can rarely find someone with japaness or mongol look(anyway i find nothing wrong with that they are both nice looking people too) today turkey is mix of great variety of ethnic groups and people have a meditranian look.sure before migration to turkey they may had more asian looking.

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 29-Apr-2010 at 21:21

Hello I am new to this forum.

Recently I did dna testing, and it confirmed that my ancestors or cousins possibly came from Central Asia and may even be a result of the Golden Horde.

I can confirm that from mid to late nineteenth century that my ancestors came from Southeast Asia (Philippines).

Studying the various timelines and my scant knowledge of Central Asian history, what is the likelihood that my Central Asian ancestors journeyed down to Southeast Asia?

It happens right? People escaping their homelands for better lives?

Would anyone knowledgeable about their history help me out?

btw physically I look nothing like a Filipino or person of Malay descent.

Thanks, any help is appreciated!!!

Posted By: toyomotor
Date Posted: 11-Feb-2014 at 01:27

The Turks are not genetically Mongoloid, although some of the northern Anatolian people have some Mongoloid features..

They are more closely related to the people of India.

And what do you mean "were". The Turkish people are alive and well, and living in, you guessed it, Turkey.

-------------