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

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Uyghur-Chinese relations
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 8>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113 		  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Uyghur-Chinese relations
    Posted: 09-Feb-2009 at 21:47
Originally posted by Bulldog



He called Turks "mutts",
I think it is pretty racist and derogatory, if we started calling Chinese names I don't think he'd be very happy.

 
Sorry, I reviewed pebbles posts again and saw this "term". I apologize for that missing that part before.
 
pebbles, you should be more careful next time while posting something like this. I understand now the reaction our Turkic members.
 
Please consider this post an unofficial warning to you.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800 		  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Feb-2009 at 20:58
Sarmat
Evrenosgazi, I didn't see any racist words in pebbles' remarks. He was saying that the population of Turkey is heavily mixed, but why do you consider this racist?


He called Turks "mutts", "hodge-podge", makes out like they're not "really" Turks because other peoples have lived in the land that is today Turkey.

I think it is pretty racist and derogatory, if we started calling Chinese names I don't think he'd be very happy.

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

Back to Top
Evrenosgazi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 379 		  Quote Evrenosgazi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Feb-2009 at 20:44
Sarmat everybody knows that turks are not a pure nation. But this is also true for all other nations. A word like "hodge podge" is also an  unsuitable type of comparison. Everybody in this forum must notice that we all have a nation pride and these kind of words hurts this pride.  
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113 		  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Feb-2009 at 20:08
Evrenosgazi, I didn't see any racist words in pebbles' remarks. He was saying that the population of Turkey is heavily mixed, but why do you consider this racist?
 
Also, I believe you remark regarding "the revenge of their ancestors" is complitely misplaced in this thread.
 
Thank you
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Evrenosgazi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 379 		  Quote Evrenosgazi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Feb-2009 at 19:46
When ths subject is the ethinicity of Turkey everybody becomes  master of the subject. Some of the members take the revenge of their ancestors by these kind of humiliating posts and consider turks as the only mixed nation.
 
Pebbles, you must keep your respect and your posts must be without racist words
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800 		  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Feb-2009 at 17:59
Pebbles
The fact remains,modern day Turkish population is a " hodge podge ".


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

Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113 		  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Feb-2009 at 15:35
I mean in totals.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Siege Tower View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 28-Aug-2006
Location: Edmonton,Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 580 		  Quote Siege Tower Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Feb-2009 at 15:03
Originally posted by Sarmat

Japanese have even less in common with Chinese in terms of genetics.
 
That depends on which part of China you are talking about.
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 08-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1943 		  Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Feb-2009 at 12:48
That is what I have found as well. The consensus seem to be that the Japanese, Koreans and other peoples of northeast Asia form one group with many similarities, while the Chinese have in more in common with Tibetans and Vietnamese. The Uighurs I suppose have more in common with the Turkic peoples of central Asia than the Sino-Tibetans.

I wonder what is the case with the Mongols and Manchus.

Edit: I checked up on this and apparently the Koreans are related to the Altaic peoples, that is Mongols and Turks, whereas the Japanese are not. The classification of Japanese is quite problematic; some do claim a relationship with Korean, others with Altaic (not mutually exclusive these two) and some even with Austronesian languages. Others simply settle for it being an isolate family.


Edited by Reginmund - 09-Feb-2009 at 12:56
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113 		  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Feb-2009 at 12:10
Japanese have even less in common with Chinese in terms of genetics.
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 08-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1943 		  Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Feb-2009 at 10:42
Originally posted by pebbles

The fact remains,modern day Turkish population is a " hodge podge ".


According to our distinguished member and scientist Beylerbeyi there are over 100 genetic studies proving the Turkish population is largely Anatolian, with similar genetic material to the neighboring populations of Greece and the Levant and with very little in common with the Turkic peoples of central Asia. Linguistically it is course a different matter.
Back to Top
calvo View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-May-2007
Location: Spain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 846 		  Quote calvo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Feb-2009 at 10:21
Originally posted by pebbles

 
The fact remains,modern day Turkish population is a " hodge podge ".
 
The subject of " relatedness " can be a bias has aspects that reflect cultural/social/historical currents.
 
By the way,my lengthy post on this page was " C & P " from Yahoo's Q & A forum answer written by a White-American male not me.LOL
 
 
Pebbles, you must understand that "race" in the biological sense can be very hardly defined. All of us descend from migrants from east africa 60000 years ago who mixed, isolated, and remixed over the milleniums. There is no such thing as the 19th century colonial idea of "pure race" (which still lives in the minds of many today, especially in the U.S.). There are simply populations that have been more isolated than others.
 
What defines an "ethnicity" depends more on language, culture, historical identity etc. North Africa and the Middle East are "related" because they share the Arabic language and the Islamic religion; Latin American countries and Spain and Portugal are related because of the Catholic religion and Latin languages; the Central Asian Turkic nations are Turkey are related through the same means.
For example, everyone nowadays classifies Egypt as an "Arab nation", and Egypt is even considered one of the most sophisticated centre of "Arab culture"; yet modern Egyptians today descend very little from the "Arabic tribes" of the Middle East. Modern Egyptian DNA is still very much the same as during Pharonic times. This, however, DOES NOT IMPLY THAT THE EGYPTIANS ARE NOT ARABS; because "Arab" is a cultural rather than a biological identity.
 
Biologically speaking, no one know who he is related to more or less. Just because 2 peoples look similar it would not necessarily mean that they are more related to each other.
For example, a Castillian Spaniard might look similar to a Greek in outward appearance, and less similar to a Mexican mestizo; yet the Spaniard and the Mexican are MUCH MORE related to each other than the Spaniard is to the Greek.
 
Going back to the original point. China and Japan have few interconnecting links than between Uighurs and Turks.
 
 
Back to Top
Evrenosgazi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 379 		  Quote Evrenosgazi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Feb-2009 at 09:14
Originally posted by pebbles

 
The fact remains,modern day Turkish population is a " hodge podge ".
 
 
What do you mean?
Back to Top
pebbles View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 12-Oct-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 409 		  Quote pebbles Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Feb-2009 at 02:10
 
The fact remains,modern day Turkish population is a " hodge podge ".
 
The subject of " relatedness " can be a bias has aspects that reflect cultural/social/historical currents.
 
By the way,my lengthy post on this page was " C & P " from Yahoo's Q & A forum answer written by a White-American male not me.LOL
 
 
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113 		  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Feb-2009 at 16:13
Dear participants, please remain respectful to each other and avoid meaningless flamewars.
 
Thank you
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
calvo View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-May-2007
Location: Spain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 846 		  Quote calvo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Feb-2009 at 12:59
Originally posted by pebbles

 Again, Turks are only related to the people from Turkmekistan, linguistically. Appearance wise, genetically speaking, they are only partially related to them, so many empires, so many peoples have settled in Anatolia, later called Turkey, that it doesn't belong to any one race, and all races who have ever lived there, lived in relative harmony with one another with the exception of their relationship with the Kurds. So why have so many empires and peoples invaded those lands?
 
 
By using your very argument to separate Turks from Central Asian Turkic peoples, you could separate Chinese and Japanese even more.
 
China, like Turkey, was invaded by a host of peoples; among them Turkic, Mongol, Tungus, Tibetan, Iranian, and Tocharia peoples. Southern China wasn't even populated by ethnic "Han" until relatively late; yet most of these natives assimilated into the Han ethnic identity.
 
Most of these ethncities that "melted into" China did not even show their face in Japan.
 
Turks and Uighurs share common ancestors among the Xiongnu and the Gokturk tribes.
The last time that Chinese and Japanese shared a common ancestor was probably before the Neolithic age when hunter-gatherers from mainland Asia colonised Japan. Back then identities such as "Chinese" and "Japanese" did not even exist.
 
 
Back to Top
Evrenosgazi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 379 		  Quote Evrenosgazi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Feb-2009 at 12:22
Pebbles your posts are invalid. You dont know anything about Turkey. First you must put aside your racist feelings and then post your opinions.
Back to Top
pebbles View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 12-Oct-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 409 		  Quote pebbles Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Feb-2009 at 04:15
Originally posted by Sarmat

Originally posted by pebbles

 
 
Let me re-iterate," relatedness " is relative.
 
Linguistic, historical and genetic connections are well-established in the Chinese-Japanese case.
 
I don't agree.
 
 
 
All opinions are subjective,but one can't deny some " validity " of my argument tho.
 
 
Back to Top
Sarmat View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 31-May-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3113 		  Quote Sarmat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Feb-2009 at 00:53
I agree that Uighurs and Turks are something like Spanish and Chileans.
 
But I would compare Japanese to Chinese as Russians to Greeks. Smile
Σαυρομάτης
Back to Top
calvo View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-May-2007
Location: Spain
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 846 		  Quote calvo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Feb-2009 at 00:49
In many ways, the relationship to different Turkic peoples is similar to the relation between Latin Americans. To a certain extent, the relationship between Uighur and Anatolian Turkish could be compared to the relation between Mexicans and Cubans.
Mexicans, Cubans, Colombians, and Argentinians do not look alike and surely are descended from a mixture of distinct peoples; but they all share a fair percentage of common Spanish ancestry. Their language is Spanish and their religion is Catholic. Most important of all their cultural identity is Latin-based.
 
Comparing Chinese to Japanese is parallel to comparing Poles to Britons. They might look more similar and they share the same alphabet; but the national origin of Poland had nothing to do with that of Great Britain.
 
It is very racist, U.S. mentality to place very distinct nationalities in the same category just because they "look alike". By following this argument, then Anatolian Turks and Castillian Spaniards should be closely related, which is certainly not the case. LOL 
 
 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 8>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.