Turkic Peoples

 

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

 

Both modern Kazakhs and ancients Kazakhs are Turks in a sense that they belong to Turkic ethnicities. This is called "turki" in Kazakh.

 

But they and Turks from Turkey are not the same. Turks from Turkey are called Turik in Kazakh.

 

While Kazakhs have 2 words Turik and Turki which have different meanings.

 

 There is only one word in English - Turk for both notions.

 

Is it that hard to understand ?

 

 

Bulldog, pesonally for you I put again the quotation from the article by Pope which you posted:

 

"when I asked [President of Kazakhstan] Nursultan Nazarbayev, sitting in his $18 million Boeing, "Who are you," the first thing he said was, "I am a Turk," which surprised me.

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

He said, "I don't mean anything to do with Turkey."

 

Nazarbaev, said clearly: I don't mean anything to do with Turkey.

 

It's obvious that Nazarbaev didn't mean that Kazakhs and Turks from Turkey are the parts of one nation.

 

He obviously says that Kazakhs and Turks from Turkey are different.

 

Also Pope, whom you consider the biggest authority on Turkic issues, writes in that article: That the idea of Turkic world is invented and the Relation of Turkey to other Turkic speaking countries is similar to the relation of Spain to Latin American countries.

 

I, personally, don't like this comparasent. But even it clearly states that the people of Turkey and other Turkic speaking countries are not one nation.

 

Spain and Latin Americans do have a lot of things in common but they are not the parts of "one broader nation."

 

I don't need to accept anything here.

 

It is accepted everywhere that there is a number of DIFFERENT ethnicities which speak languages belonging to Turkic languages group.

 

All these ethnicities although related are separate and different from each other.

 

Now, based on the common linguistic group u advocate the false ideas that all these people belong to "one broader nation". This is not scientific nor historical reality.  No serious scientist or historian advocates this idea.

 

Perhaps, you can establish a new historical school of your own in future but it's not the case so far.

 

Generally speaking all your argumentation is based on the dubious meaning of the word Turk in English.

 

Which means:

 

 

noun 1 a person from Turkey or of Turkish descent.

 

2 a member of any of the ancient peoples who spoke Turkic languages, such as the Ottomans.

 

Turkic is a broader term which is used for the description of a particular language group, but it's not used a in a meaning of "belonging to one nation".

 

This is a scientific fact. And in order to convince me that you are right you should rewrite the modern history, linguistics and anthropology. Which has nothing to do with my personal attitude.

 

P.S.

 

And again have a little respect to Kazakh people. You should have memorized long time ago that their president's name is NURSULTAN.

 

 

 

 

Kazakhs would gain senior posts in his country, to the dismay of the ethnic Russians. Yet leading the country was a new expericience since the Soviets demise. Even Kazakh unity was a rarity in the historical past dispite sharing a common language. This votility can be seen in the 19'th century with her fractious politics of independent-minded tribal groups. p.130

 

It is not surprising to have leaders hold onto cherished power.

 

"We are all Turks," President Nazarbayev told me, argueing that Kazakhs were one of the purest Turkic peoples, and listing the conquerors who had set out from his part of Central Asia since the days of Atilla the Hun. "They started conquering the world, then they overstrtched themselves and they collapsed. Today's Turkish people are those who left the territory of modern Kazakhstan and settled in the country where they live now. When we meet each other, we always remember this."  

 

 

Personal gains and national ethnic bias would guide the Nazarbayev administration. He asserted his Kazakh identity even to the point of loosely fanning union with other Turk states. Yet he would not jeopardize his rank. 

 

I need a link to an official site or publication.

 

Otherwise I would make a "reference" like this.

 

Nazarbaev: "The idea that Kazakhs have any relation to Turks is idiotic"

 

Does it look convincing for you without any references to the web pages or publications ?

 

It does not look for me. You better calm down before attacking me.

 

Yeah again. There is nothing in the idea of Turkic commonwealth that would suggest that Turkic speaking people are one nation. There is a British commonwealth. So what? Nations which are present there are not the same, except that they use English language.

 

Concerning the Popp's link you posed. Even he writes that Nazarbaev didn't mean "Turk" as having anything to do with modern Turkey. You just deleted the main contents of the paragrpaph to fit the idea you like.

 

Here is what Pope writes about Nazarbaev and "Turks":

 

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."

What have you got against Hugh Pope? he knows far more about the Turkic world than yourself or anybody else here.

 

Read the book, it clearly writes it.

 

Here read what President Nursultan Nazarbayev says...

 

 

 

Who are these Turks?

 

 

Oh and if you still are finding this hard to accept then here...