Turkic Peoples
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=20969
Printed Date: 28-Apr-2024 at 09:25
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Turkic Peoples
Posted By: Glyndwr
Subject: Turkic Peoples
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2007 at 12:53
|
Hi all, I've got a question regarding Turks. Are Turkic people recognised as being related genetically, or just by language? The reason why I ask this is because Turks from central Asia e.g Kazakhstan look quite different to Turks from countries from say Turkey in west Asia. If Turks are infact classed as sharing common ancestors, why the diversity in appearance? The same could be said about other ethnic groups e.g Tatars.
Any answers would be greatly appreciated, thanks.
|
Replies:
Posted By: omergun
Date Posted: 30-Jul-2007 at 16:55
|
Hi,
`If Turks are infact classed as sharing common ancestors, why the diversity in appearance?`
İ want to start explaining with a familly tree, not only to explain the Origin of Türks, but also to give a view of how these things go.
Lets take an example of a familly tree for around 936 years. İ take 936 years because around 1071 with the Malazgirt War Victory, Türks began to settle in Anadolu(Anatolia), by spreading and made with time Anadolu their home for good. Of course before 1071 Türks were already in Anadolu, but lets start with 1071.
How many generations are there between 1071 till 2007? Lets say that a new generation will start average in 25 years, then 936/25=37,44=37 generations.
İf you will look at the structure of your familly tree at a registration office, you will see that when a woman maries a man, you will see she is no more part of her familly surname.
Firstly lets say Türks generally married with Türks. But also some Türk men also married foreign women, and also Türk women married foreign men. Lets think most women will not carry on their Türkness, because the man is always dominant. With Türk men its not the same, because they are dominant. İn history people in every kind of nation, did look at their fathers origin to know their race. This is also the right way.
So this means that, the child of a Türk man who married a foreign woman will have a mixed appearence, but his origin will not change, because for next generation the child will marry a Türk woman. And also, what i know about the dna tests people make, the scientist look at the y-chromosome, the fathers side. http://www.dnaheritage.com/ystr.asp - http://www.dnaheritage.com/ystr.asp
Nowadays if people in Türkiye say they are Türk, that means they are Türk, and if they say they are Arab, Kurd, Greek, Serb or another origin that also means they are from that origin.This is so, because famillies never forget their origins and always carry on their cultures.
İf we look at the familly trees of a Türk familly in 37 generations and also accept the fact that Türks are ruling the area, and that Türks from Central Asia,İran area and other areas kept settling in Anadolu, and the fact that around 1900 there were only 10 million people in Türkiye(calculate yourself how many people there was before till 1071), and the fact that many foreigners would leave the area because Türks rule Anadolu, and the fact that during The War of İndependence Türks from old Osmanlı(Ottoman) ground gathered around in Türkiye to fight for their country,
we will see that there are a couple of foreigners in the familly tree of a Türk familly. The result of these few foreigners, will not change the race, but will only mix the appearence. This doesnt mean the basic Türk Appearence will change, you will always see The Türk Appearence, if you look at the structures of the face of a person. Dont look at the colours of the hair, skin or eyebrow, but look at the structure of the eyes and face. The similarity between Türks in Türkiye and foreign races who lived in Türkiye, is because of these colour simillarities(blonde, latino etc.). The most important are the simillarities of Türks in Türkiye and Türks outside Türkiye, this simillarity is based on structures.
Of course if you look from far, it is possible you couldnt seperate, but if you study someones face with effort you will be able to see.
An finally, these mixes count for every kind of nations, if you look at history there were foreigners in every nations ruled area.
As a conclusion, the efforts of people who try to break Türks from Türkiye and Türks outside Türkiye appart are needless, because this only will show 2 things, either you are a racist or you are not interested and dont have knowledge about Türks.
This is my second post in a long time, just like a wrote in my previous post, i want to say to racist in here(not to the topic starter ofcourse),
The grandfathers of Türkiye Türks are Oğuz Türks(a Türk Tribe). Oğuz Türks came from Central Asia, the people you seem to try to break appart from the Türks in Türkiye. Türkiye Türks and Türks in Central Asia have same blood and arent different. I advice you people to stop with trying to break us appart with terrorising terms like Turk and Turkic, we dont use those terms, we only use Türk. ------------- ATTÄ°LA |
Posted By: Glyndwr
Date Posted: 31-Jul-2007 at 06:44
|
Thanks for your post, answered my question thoroughly and was very interesting. |
Posted By: Kerimoglu
Date Posted: 03-Aug-2007 at 18:36
|
My prefrence:
For RACISTS AND ULTRA NATIONALISTS - DNA, BLOOD, dont know which other craps
for Normal turks - Language, Values, Holidays, Music, Psychology, more or less race, beliefs, food and other elements of culture ------------- History is a farm. Nations are farmers. What they planted before will show what is going to grow tomorrow! |
Posted By: omergun
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2007 at 11:18
|
Since when is loving your race and country racism, since when is telling the truth racism? İ suppose you dont find it any problem that people are using terrorising terms like Turk and Turkic. İf there are these kind of terrorists, then for me the meaning of normal TÜRKS, are the kind who resist as far as their power and moral allow. ------------- ATTÄ°LA |
Posted By: Kerimoglu
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2007 at 15:58
|
Arkadash! Loving your Race, Nation is never ever can be counted as RACISM, but hating others, beginning from Kurds ending at Armenians for me, is RACISM
Telling the truth can never be counted as RACISM, and true man knows what is truth
Turk and Turkic is no more than understanding turkey Turks and other Turks
I am TURK and I am proud of it, with all my heart - I am ready to die any time, for any TURKISH country if his borders are in threat and will always be loyal to this! Buna shubhen olmasin! ------------- History is a farm. Nations are farmers. What they planted before will show what is going to grow tomorrow! |
Posted By: Mortaza
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2007 at 16:27
|
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2007 at 16:39
|
Acknowledging the existence of races is the first step to racism. Loving your 'race' is the second one. Considering your 'race' superior is the final. ------------- |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 04-Aug-2007 at 18:02
|
Acknowledging that there are no seperate races, there is just humanity is a step towards breaking the myths of racism.
We are all human, what seperates us is language, identity, socio-cultural factors, historical bonds, a sense of belonging and acceptance etc in other words nations.
The ideal of race or racial purity is totally ridiculous. Firstly were all human beings, how can any nation be pure? there is only one pure race and that is humans.
As for loving your nation and having self-pride in who you are, there is nothing wrong with trying to do your bit to better your homelands and its peoples. People with inferiority complexes feel the need to turn to racism as it makes them feel better to hate and try make another nation look so bad that it makes theirs look better.
As long as your comfortable with your identity and genuinly have love for your nation there is no need to hate others, people who are at peace with themselves can be at peace with the world.
Turks are Turks, nobody unless they have a racist or pollitically motivated agenda can deny this.
Turks as a nation have their roots in Central Asia, around the Altay region where their language stems from. Turks from this region spread across the whole of Central Asia which became known as "Turkiston" and later into the Near East, Anatolia, Azerbaycan.
There is a common historical bond among Turks, the earliest state/empire to use the term Turk were the Gok-Turks, prior to the GokTurks another major Empire was the Xiongnu, ancestors of Turks.
The socio-cultural bonds are many, be they legends, epics, mythology, customs, superstisions, arts, music, foods, clothings, social structures and organistions etc
------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: omergun
Date Posted: 05-Aug-2007 at 08:45
|
'but hating others, beginning from Kurds ending at Armenians for me, is RACISM' When did you see me write anything racist about Armenians or Kurds? Quote me one word which shows that. My words were for the ones on this forum who are trying to terrorize us. TÜRKS are no racists, we dont have it in our characters, so instead of calling me a racist, go further deep in the subject i was referring to. I hate everyone who does wrong against TÜRKS, but im never a racist. Look, i live in Holland, here, where there are no terrorists, where the foreigners dont try to terrorize the country(there are 2 kinds of terrorists, ones who make cowardly attacks with help of usa, and the ones who try to terrorize the country with politics, media etc.). While there are no such dangers in Holland or another eu country, its a fact that most people hate foreigners. But in Türkiye, with all these problems, people dont hate foreigners. We only hate the terrorists(whom are great percentage of foreigners) in our country. Im trying sketch the situation, do you understand what i mean? Arkadasim, benim ne demek istedigimi sanki anlamiyormusunki benim uzerime anlamsizca geliyorsun. Ben bu forumdaki irkcilara, Türk dusmanlarina yazarken, sen bana irkci diyorsun. Ben senin ne demek istedigini anliyorum, ama benim uzerime gelmen cok yanlis bence. As a conclusion, we have to know who is the real racist, and that we must discuss why people dont want that Türks in Türkiye and Türks outside Türkiye are considered the same, while these people already consider themselves as brothers and while it is a fact that they are from same origin. ------------- ATTÄ°LA |
Posted By: Beylerbeyi
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2007 at 06:53
Just by language.
Like everything else Orengun wrote, this is wrong. Turks are Turks, Kazakh are Kazakh, they are very different. No Kazakh calls himself Turk. ------------- |
Posted By: Glyndwr
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2007 at 07:09
|
When I started this thread I felt that I was asking a valid question, if I had felt it wasn't then I wouldn't have bothered. I didn't inted to offend people, because to be quite honest to some how find racism in the question is a pretty hard task, being as there are no derogatry comments towards Turks, or any suggestion of Turks being an inferior people because that is not the case.
This thread has been used as an excuse to rant about irrelevant topics like racism, terrorism and politics. If you wish to express your opinions that's fine, but do it some where else.
|
Posted By: omergun
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2007 at 10:25
So these 3 little sentences is your argument for this subject, how pathetic. Come with facts, say why my arguments are wrong, come with contra-arguments. If there is something you cant accept then thats your own problem, dont soil the area with your dirt. ------------- ATTÄ°LA |
Posted By: omergun
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2007 at 10:28
The fact that i wrote politically was because i had to answer someone who accused me with racism. My first post was an answer to your question, whom is a sensitive question. ------------- ATTÄ°LA |
Posted By: Beylerbeyi
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2007 at 10:58
Pathetic is someone who lives in Holland, can't write Turkish properly, yet tries to teach Turks and Kazakhs like us who we are.
I was brief because I am bored of dealing with wiki-nationalists like you after years in this forum.
If you want to learn, go to search function and type my username and 'Turkish DNA'. You'll find many pages. ------------- |
Posted By: Kerimoglu
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2007 at 14:16
|
Mortaza, thanks for apploud.
Feanor and Bulldog - I use race in stead of nation and mean the same , like Turkish race-Turkish nation - therefore I meant Loving your nation - becouse I did not want to repeat the same thing over and over. Coming to Irk's, its literal meaning is very known to me.
Dear Omergun:
I never sow u writing that u hate Armeninas or whatever and I read your post as well. the case is, I did not answer to you, my respond was to the question of the topic, just like Beylerbeyi did. I agree with you writing as well but this is common and I thing everybody knows it - but not everybody wants to accept.
Feanor:
1. I love my Nation - The Turkish Nation. I call it kinda patriotism/ It is subjective.
2. I do recognise Turkish nation. I never count it superior. The whole human race is superior if everyone will understand who they are and why they have come to this earth - what is their mission.
Beylerbeyi, Yes, i call myself Azeri, and in international conferences as well, but there is a difference my friend, where u cannot explain it in English:
Millet anlayishi ve Halk anlayishi. Azerbaycan Halki var. Amma Azerbaycan milleti diye bir anlayish yokdur. Millet Azerbaycan Halkinin ihcinde yashayan Turk, Lezgi, Talish (Irandilli), Chechen, Ermeni ve s. lerdir.
Aynisi Kazaklara da ait - kazax halki var, milleti yokdur. Onlar zaten Kypchak, Kirgiz felan. ------------- History is a farm. Nations are farmers. What they planted before will show what is going to grow tomorrow! |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2007 at 16:00
Kazak are Turk, Central Asian Turks are the reason there is a single Turk in what is today Turkiye.
I mean common, do you think you landed off a rocket from outer space, how did Turks get to the Near East, or Anatolia, this is a history forum for goodness sake.
No Kazak calls himself a Turk huh?
Let's read what the president of Kazakistan, Sultan Nazarbayev has to say about this.
Mr. POPE: Yeah, the president of Kazakhstan. He says, `I am a Turk.' And you look at him slightly oddly because Turk now means a citizen of Turkey. He says, `No, not like that. We sent armies from here 500 years ago, a thousand years ago, to conquer Turkey. They married the local population, and now they're called Turkey. But the real Turks are still here in Central Asia, and it's us.'
http://www.sonsoftheconquerors.com/17001.html - http://www.sonsoftheconquerors.com/17001.html
Its totally ignorant to try and deny the Turkishness or Turkicness of Central Asian, Turkistoni Turks. Generally alot of Central Asian Turks do not deny they are Turkic, they have a problem with some Turkey Turks thinking they are big brothers or the only Turks in the world.
If your from Turkey and are a Turk from there the reason your a Turk is because of Central Asia the Turks homeland, they bought the language, identity other factors with them.
You have an obsession with DNA and racialistic ideals.
DNA, genetics etc have nothing to do with what makes up a nation.
What makes a Turk a Turk?
It is identity, language, historical bonds and connections, socio-cultural factors and so on.
It is not DNA.
Look, somebody could be the direct descendant of "Oghuz Khan" or "Mete Khan", however, if this person cannot speak any form of Turkic, does not have a Turk identity, has lost all socio-cultural aspects and so on, it wouldn't matter at all.
Somebody eight generations back who had Ethiopian descendants but today had mother tongue Turkish, identity Turk, accepted and feels allegience to being of the Turk nation then this person is a Turk fullstop.
 Ha, duz dedin.------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: omergun
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2007 at 19:37
I have a foreign keyboard, thats why i didnt use some Türk characters, that doesnt mean i cant write Türkish properly. I think finally Kerimoglu understood what my point was, and the last 2 posts of him and Bulldog is an answer to you. ------------- ATTÄ°LA |
Posted By: Beylerbeyi
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 09:16
Perfect example. He says he is a Turk, but says people of Turkey are not real Turks. And that's what I mean, no Kazakh would call himself a Turk, as in Turkish.
If you believe the President, and think the people of Turkey are not real Turks, then yes, Kazakhs would say that they are Turks. However, like the source who tells this anecdote says, for the world Turk means someone from Turkey. I use it in that meaning, and I say that no Kazakh (except for a crazy fringe) would say that she is a Turk. No more than a Turk would say she is Kazakh.
I know the Kazakhs well, most speak Russian at home, let alone call themselves Turks. They are a different people, a different ethnicity, a different nation than Turks. Anyone who believes otherwise lives in the teletubbies universe.
Turkicness and Turkishness are not the same. Kazakh are Turkic, but they are not Turkish.
Are you an imbecile? The original poster asked this question in the first post:
I answered it, and immediately got attacked by two wiki-nationalists... ------------- |
Posted By: omergun
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 11:16
Seriously, i have a couple of questions to you==> 1. Are you a Türk? 2. If no, with all these facts, why dont you want to accept that a Türk and a Kazak are the same? What are you afraid of? 3. If yes, why do you hate Türks in Türkiye? I mean we have all same origin, our greatgrandfathers come from same stock, we are brothers, what is it that you dont like of Türks in Türkiye? These people are the sons of the heroic warriors who moved from Central Asia to conquer and make a home of countries like Türkiye(just like the President of Kazakistan in the example Bulldog gave says). 4. If a Kazak speaks Russian at home for some times, it doesnt mean they dont feel themselves Türk, on the contrary im sure they dont like Russians and feel proud to say they are Türks. Many Türks who live in Germany, Holland, England etc. also speak some of their times the language of their area, because they got their education in that language. But this doesnt mean we dont speak Türkish, on the contrary, we speak more Türkish and we carry on our Türk Culture and Identity everywhere. The local people get confused, when they see how Türk people carry on their Culture and Identity everywhere. The same doesnt count for the foreigners who arent Türk, people like Arabs, Indians and others, lose most of their Identity and Culture. The situation in Kazakistan isnt same, but because Kazakistan is an Independent Republic for not so long, it is quite normal they speak sometimes Russian. ------------- ATTÄ°LA |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 14:31
|
Nursultan Nazarbaev, meant "Turkic" in that speech.
You should distinct between Turkic and Turkish. While Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Kyrgyzs, Turkmens, Tatars etc. all are Turkic ethnicities, they are not TURKISH.
It's just a liguistic confusion, because the word Turk in English could mean Turk as an inhabitant of the Republic of Turkey as well as Turk as Turkic i.e. a larger linguistic and cultural group which includes many ethnicities including Turkish people and Kazakh people.
He clearly didn't mean that Kazakhs are Turkish, he meant that Kazakhs are Turkic. In fact, Kazakhs perhaps even more closer resemble the original ancient Turks than modern Turkish people.
Nevertheless, the culture of modern Turkic ehtinicities is similar to some extent. But it would be a stretch to call them "one nation". All these ethinicities clearly have their own cultural, historical, religious and linguistical distinctiveness.
If you say that all the Turkic nations are one nation then Swedes, Dutch and Germans are one nation. Russians, Poles and Bulgarians are one nation, French, Spanish and Italians are also one nations. This is definetely wrong.
------------- ΣαυÏομάτης 
|
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 14:41
Whatever anybody says your just going to try and manipulate it to suit your perspective.
Your putting words in the leader of Kazakistans mouth, he did not say what you wrote, you don't know what he "thinks", your just making it up.
Sultan Nazarbayev says, "I am a Turk", why can't you accept this.
What have you got against Central Asian Turks and Turks outside Turkey, Turkiye doesn't have a monopoly on Turks.
So Sultan Nazarbayev is a crazy fringe
 I wonder, where do you think Turks are from? do you think they landed off a space-ship...
Turks as a nation are from Central Asia.
You know "mankurts", not Kazaks, I know many Kazak and members of Kazak organisations who know their mother-tongue and use it at home.
Today Kazakistan is becomming one of the powerfull countries in the Turkic world and pushing for a "Union of Turkic States" especially in Central Asia.
And the official language Kazak Turkic is now promoted and regaining its ground.
Turkicness and Turkishness exist in the English language.
Among Turks, there is "Turk", in Iran non-Turks say "Tork"(Turk), in Afganistan non-Turks say Turks, Tajiks call Turkic groups they live next to "Turk".
I'm not saying all Turks are identical, there are different groups and branches of Turks with their own unique aspects.
Just like Arabs in Syria arn't identical to those in Yemen or Egypt but they're still Arabs.
------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 14:59
No he meant what he said, "Turk", you cannot say he meant this or meant that nobody hear is phychic having the ability to mind read.
There is no Turk Turkic distinction among Turks, Turks are a large nation with many sub-groups.
There are is not a clear cultural, linguistic etc distinctiveness between Uygur-Ozbek-Afgan Turks.
The Oghuz Turks have high mutual intellegiblity and ties to each other.
The main groups are.
Oghuz Turks
Karluk-Chaghtay Turks
Kipchak Turks
They have their differences but also common factors.
How? what is the common factor? when did they have a common identity? they are all neighbours but have distinct languages today.
But if they among themselves view themselves as being part of a broader nation than that's for them to decide, nobody can tell them what they can and can't do.
------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 15:48
|
Right.
Let Kazakhs decide, who they are. You can't decide for them. Kazakhs do not consider themselves Turkish.
Dutch, Scandinavian and German people all originate from ancient Germanic tribes. They had one language and religion about some time more then millenium ago.
So, according to your principle you also can classify them as one nation.
I don't see Kazakh people calling themselves Turkish here. I see that for some reasons Turkish people want to make them Turkish.
You should show me the original speech of Nursultan Nazarbaev, to prove your point. Do you think he said this in English?
There are 2 different words for Turkic and Turkish in Kazakh.
Turkish is Turik.
Turkic is Turki.
I am sure he used Turki in this speach not Turik.
Although some Turkic ethnicities indeed do not have a lot troubles understanding each other, some of them do.
As a Turk you might easily understand an Azeri, but you can hardly understand Yakut, Dolgan or Chuvash.
The cultural differences between those ethnicities are also very hard to neglect.
They are too big. Chuvash would feel closer affinity to a Russian than to a Turk from Turkey. Tuvinian would feel closer to a Mongol than to a Kazakh.
For the similar reasons Balkan Muslims would prefer Turks to Russians, because they feel closer ties to them because of the religion and culture, although they have a common origin and similar language with Russians. ------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 16:17
Exactly, let them decide.
Kazaks are not "Turkish" as in from Turkey.
Kazaks are Turks, as their President said. Today Kazakistan is leading the initiative towards building a union among Turkic states (also non-Turkic regional states like Tajikistan).
Its down to you to prove.
In the book it writes "Turk", if Nazarbayev had a problem with the content it wouldn't have been published.
Regarding Yakut, Dolgan, Chuvash your correct, I don't understand them to a high degree.
Outside the main Turkic, Chaghtai-Karluk, Oghuz and some Kipchak the other Turkic groups do not have high mutual intellegiblity.
The muslim Turks have most in common be that linguistically, historically or culturally.
I agree that the groups you mentioned have distinctive features and are not too similar to the muslim Turks, except for Gagauz due to the Ottoman influence.
It is interesting, there are some racist Turks who claim that Islam did nothing but ruin Turks.
However, after Turks became muslim they became world-super powers, their civillisation became one of the richest and their language spread.
Infact, it seems that becomming muslim bought unity among Turks themselves. When people are referring to Turks and those with an identity based around Turk-Turkicness it is the muslim Turks.
------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 16:34
|
Well, again.
Turk in English has 2 meanings a native of Turkey or a member of any of the peoples speaking Turkic languages.
Which meaning do you thing Nazarbaev used in his speech ?
I just can't support the version that he meant Turk as a native of Turkey. He meant it "as a member of a Turkic ethnicity"
For the same reasons, Polish and Russian leader can claim "We are Slavics", Dutch and Swedish leader can claim "we are Germanics"
But it's a very big stretch to say that all the Turkic ethnicities are one nation.
They are different nations. They can treat other Turkic speakers as brothers, but it doesn't mean that they consider them as the people of the same nationality.
Russians can call Yugoslavian people Slavic brothers, but they remain Russians and Yugoslavs remain Yugoslavs. ------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 16:46
You are manipulative as usual. All Arabs were subjects of the Ottoman Empire just a century ago, whereas the romantic / nostalgic connection between Turkey and Central Asia is thousand years old. The only valid thing is language. As I said before, Turkish nation is based on Ottoman identity and Westernization. If you ask 'How many Turks are living in Kazakhistan?' to an ordinary Turkish citizen, he will give the number of the ones with Turkish passport, not the total population. This relation is more similar to the one between the British and the German, if you ask me. ------------- |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 17:08
He meant what he said.
Turk, as in the Turk nation which stretches beyond the borders of modern day Turkey.
Those Turks from Central Asia, rode to Anatolia and bought the Turk nation with them.
Its not.
Turks are from Central Asia.
The reason there are Turks in the Near East and Anatolia is because of these Turks migrations.
If the Turkic countries today wish to form more ties together and work towards some pollitical unions that is up to them if they use the broader Turk nation.
Officially Turkic countries leaders refer to each other as belonging to the same nation.
------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 17:19
No, this is historically inaccurate.
It has already been established countless times on this forum that Turks continuosly migrated to their newly conquered Western lands.
This idea that Turks came once 1000 years ago and that's it is nothing but a myth.
Turks have been migrating from Central Asia continuosly, reachinig mass-migration levels during the Selcuk, Mongol and Timurid era's.
Today in this era of globalisation, the geographic distance between Turkic groups has ceased to be a big problem. They will get closer and closer to each other due to the increase in tele-communications, travel, education and so on.
Already Azerbaycan and Turkey are on a path where they are becomming very close. The other Turkic countries are building stronger ties, joint universities, cultural projects, economic projects and so on.
Where does your "Turk" identity derive?
It isn't the Ottomans who invented "Turk" or "Westernization" policies.
Its from Central Asia, whether you like it or not there is this connection. This is a historic bond, it is the origins of the identity and language, there is no need to deny this. The Selcuks were from Central Asia, so where Ottomans, so were the Beyliks, the Karakoyunlu the Akkoyunlu and so on, this is the reason why anyone in Turkey is a Turk.
------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Beylerbeyi
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 17:25
Indeed, that's what he meant.
This is what you wrote he said: 'They married the local population, and now they are called Turkey. But the real Turks are still here in Central Asia, and it's us.'
He clearly says that Central Asian Turkics are the real Turks and western ones are different. So what's your problem? Can't you read? Or can't you understand?
The Kazakhs I know speak Kazakh better than you speak Turkish. But it does not stop them from speaking Russian in most circles.
I warned you about lecturing people about their identity, but it seems your skull is armoured. 'Mankurt', on the other hand, seems to be a good name for wiki-nationalists like you who can't even speak Turkish...
Turk means Turk and 'Turki' means Turkic in the Turkish language. While sometimes Turk is used instead of Turki in a historic context, it is not correct usage, and is not used for modern Turkic peoples. Modern Turkic groups are referred to with their proper names.
Turks and Kazakhs are not members of the same nation. That is ridiculous.
Bulldog is not Turkish, so he can't even understand Turkish. I am Turkish and Turks cannot readily understand Tatar, Ozbek, etc., let alone Yakut. Turks can only understand other Oguz languages/dialects.
We have Central Asian Turkics in this forum. Read what they write. ------------- |
Posted By: omergun
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 17:51
You, saying that Sultan Nazarbayev meant Türkic, is enough to see that you have a problem with Türks. You are making things up, you are the one who should give a source which shows your argument is true, Bulldog already came with his source, your mind is so full with hate, you are asking for a source while he gave a source already. http://www.sonsoftheconquerors.com/17001.html - |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 18:08
Oh yeah he meant this, no he meant that, I can read his mind he meant this...
I never knew you were a mindreader
 He meant what he wrote, end of story, stop trying to invent your own alternative stories.
No, he said Turks are from Central Asia.
Turks conquered Anatolians, migrated there, mixed with the locals but are still Turks.
However, Turks originally are from Central Asia, why do you have such a big problem with this or any mention of some common heritage and identity?
The way you carry on is as if somebody is breaking a "taboo" or comitting some unimaginable crime.
Is it really terrible that Turks are building stronger ties with each other? persuing joint education ventures? improving economic relations?
A few decades ago when you told a person that in Azerbaycan and Iran there are millions of Turks who speak Turkish people would think you were making it up.
However, today, Azerbaycan and Turkey are moving ever closer together, there is much more awareness of one-another, tele-communications are broadcast to each other's populations, cultural ventures, economic co-operation etc
The Turkic world will naturally move closer together especially due to the ever advancing technological environment which is breaking boundries and making the world a much smaller place.
Make up your mind, one minute they don't know their language enough to even speak it at home, the next their experts...
You have never heard me speak any form of Turkish so again your making it all up.
Yet more assumptions, I can speak, read, write in Turkish don't worry.
Have you read "Gün Uzar Yüzyıl Olur" by Chingiz Aytamov?
Tell that to Sultan Nazarbayev and the ruling elite, its not ridiculous at all.
Even more assumptions
------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 18:12
|
In fact, Nazarbaev even didn't said that sentence about Turks.
I didn't find any sources for that.
In the article which is posted here, American author writes: "If you ask Nazarbaev, then he would say..." But Nazarbaev, actually didn't say anything like that.
Even if he said that he would refer to Turkic not to Turkish meaning of the word Turk. He didn't say it anyway.
There is no any scientific proof for the existence of this gigantic "Turk" nation. Nobody denies the existence of various ties between different Turkic ethnicities, but it doesn't make them one nation.
Turkologosts and antropologists know about the existence of many ethnicities which speak Turkic languages, they do not have any idea about this mythical "one Turk nation"
All this claims about "One Turk nation" actually seem to be the propaganda of Panturkism.
Panturkism appeared in the Ottoman empire as a reaction to the Panslavism promoted by the Imperial Russia.
Both ideologies have a lot flaws and were used for the realization of imperialistic goals of the named empires.
I don't think Central Asian countries would very much like to be a part of the Great Turan, run from Istanbul.
People in Turkey should understand that Central Asians consider themselves separate ethnicities. They don't need the big Turkish brother to remind them who they are.
Respect the national identity of the others, do not consider them "minor brothers" and you won't have the following:
http://roberts-report.blogspot.com/2006/10/tengiz-riots-what-is-at-heart-of.html - http://roberts-report.blogspot.com/2006/10/tengiz-riots-what-is-at-heart-of.html
------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
http://photobucket.com/">
http://photobucket.com/">
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 18:21
|
I am not expert on anything, but I know how Central Asian Turkic people, especially Kazakhs, perceive Anatolian Turks more than any Turanist freak here. The concept of nation has more to do with politics than culture and if you think Kazakhs and Turks are parts of one nation, you need serious medical treatment. By the way, we can clearly observe typical symptoms of Turanism like paranoia and megalomania in some posts. ------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 18:29
|
Those who write here anything about Kazakhstan, should at least have some respect for its leader and know that his name is NURSULTAN. ------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: omergun
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 18:39
Dont let me laugh dude. I want to ask you something, if Türkish nation is based on Ottoman identity, then on what is Ottoman Identity based on? More questions=> How and when did Ottoman Empire appear, who is Osman Bey and what is his Origin, who are Oguz Türks and were did they come from and whos descendents are they of, how was the situation of Türks in Ottoman Period in Anadolu(Anatolia), do you know the meaning beyliks and what they count for? Ottoman Beyligi was a state of the earlier Türk Selcuk Empire. In Anatolia the Beyliks were like states. A Beylik gets his name of the famillies/tribes who settled in that state, just like the name Türks were the main population in all these Beyliks. Like i said in my other post, if there are 10 million people in Türkiye around 1900, how many people were there before going to further time? Im trying to say there werent many people in those times, l ets use our logics=> lets create a complot which can give a view to understand the subject. For example: there are 1 million French people in France at the moment. A Kazak Army goes in France and conquers the area, and in 100 years 5 million Kazak Türks migrates into France and 500.000 French people leave their country and go to England. Most Kazak Türks marry Kazak Türks, and a couple mary French. This goes on for 500 years. Now, after 500 years, in 2607, will it then mean that The Kazaks who stayed in Central Asia and The Kazaks who settled in French are not the same?Of course not! ------------- ATTÄ°LA |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 18:50
Oh yeah, so now we've moved from being phychic, putting words into his mouth to now pretending he never ever said it
It would be wise if you read the book before making such comments, why is "Hugh Pope" going to lie, don't tell me its a conspiracy.
Its not a science, this isn't a mathmatical equation.
Turks exist, a Turk can use this identity if he/she likes and not use it if they don't, however a non-Turk can't tell Turks who they can and can't be.
I wonder, why non-Turks would call their area, "Turkiston", land of the Turks...
And claims trying to "rule and divide" Turks are propanda of Soviets to control the area with more ease.
Turanism is ridiculous, it includes non-Turks like Hungarians, Fins, Mongols etc. Pan-Turanianism and other such warped, ridiculous ideas are nothing but a joke, an ill thought silly idea.
However, there are Turkic independant states today, if they wish to get closer together that is up to them and only them, Russia can't bully them and arrest all leaders, intellects, activists and kill them on charges of Pan-Turkism for it.
If its in Turkic countries interests to build stronger ties they will and they are.
Nazarbayevs proposal is a Turkic Union, countries remain as they are but form a economic union like the EU.
There is no need for your "scaremongering".
------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 19:02
|
Oh and your "blog", it has nothing to do with the post, turning a brawl among disgrunted workers into some ethnic super war is a joke.
You want the official policies, what is really happening, instead of making propoganda out of a petty brawl.
Here.
  SPIRIT OF COOPERATION DOMINATES TURKIC SUMMIT
The results of the November 17 summit of the leaders of Turkic-speaking nations exceeded the expectations of many diplomats and political analysts. The presidents of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkey took the first steps toward the creation of a Turkic commonwealth, giving an enthusiastic endorsement to efforts aimed at strengthening energy and security ties. The four leaders, along with Turkmenistan’s envoy to Turkey, gathered at the Turkish Mediterranean resort city of Antalya for the summit, the eighth such gathering of its kind, but the first held in five years. http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav111506.shtml - [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Officials from Uzbekistan, who had been slated to attend, ended up boycotting the event due to a breakdown in relations with Turkey. The participants signed a declaration committing the Turkic states to strengthen economic and transport ties, while stressing "the importance of the joint fight against terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, drug smuggling, weapons smuggling, human smuggling and other organize crimes." The statement also endorsed the concepts of Turkey’s accession to the European Union, and a peace settlement to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict that leaves the territory under Azerbaijan’s control. "We declare that we support peaceful solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in accordance with the principle of territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, and that we will further support fraternal Azerbaijan in this dispute," Turkish President Ahmet Necdet Sezer said. http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav082806.shtml - [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. The four leaders underlined both the "increasing importance of the Caspian Basin for the energy security of Europe" and the "strategic importance of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan [BTC] oil pipeline opening and the [expected] completion of the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum [BTE] natural gas pipeline." They also stressed the importance of the possible addition of trans-Caspian transportation routes to both the BTC and the BTE. http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/business/articles/eav061906.shtml - [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Sezer stressed in his opening speech the importance of involving energy-rich Turkmenistan in the summit process, and vowed that Ankara would work to facilitate energy exports from the Caspian Basin to Europe via Turkey. Turkic leaders underlined in the Antalya declaration that "increasing energy cooperation would positively and directly contribute to economic and political stability" in Eurasia. Kazakshtani President Nursultan Nazarbayev took observers, and even many participants, by surprise by proposing the creation of a Turkic parliamentary assembly. Nazarbayev went on to nominate former Turkish president and prime minister Suleyman Demirel to serve as the proposed assembly’s first chairman. Nazarbayev’s proposal was indicative of his interest in exploring the feasibility of a full-blown Turkic commonwealth. "We have to discuss it," Kazakshtani Foreign Minister Foreign Minister Kasymzhomart Tokayev told EurasiaNet, referring to the commonwealth possibility. It would appear that Nazarbayev, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Kyrgyzstani leader Kurmanbek Bakiyev now see closer cooperation as a way to leverage the collective influence of "200 million Turks," as Nazarbayev put it, in pursit of specific policy aims. "The problem of one Turkic speaking nation must be the problem of other Turkic speaking nations," the Anatolia news agency quoted Aliyev as saying. Observers interpreted his comments as meaning Turkic states should collectively push for results in Turkey’s EU accession process and Azerbaijan’s Karabakh peace talks that are satisfactory to Ankara and Baku respectively. If the Turkic states actually opted to coordinate diplomatic action, they might have the collective muscle to alter the existing equilibrium in many geopolitical matters. In the case of Turkey’s troubled drive to join the EU, for example, a Turkic commonwealth could influence Brussels’ decision-making calculus by playing the energy card, letting it be known that a rebuff of Ankara could hinder the EU’s access to Central Asian energy supplies. Kyrgyzstani diplomats also stressed that closer cooperation would enhance Bishkek’s international profile. Kanat Tursunkulov, a top Kyrgyz Foreign Ministry official, said President Bakiyev’s attendance at the summit, despite the "recent troubles" in Bishkek, underscored the Kyrgyz government’s position that closer cooperation among Turkic states is a top political priority. http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav110906.shtml - [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Commenting on the outcome of the summit, a top Turkish diplomat said, "The era of romantic embracing has ended; the era of concrete cooperation has started." Nazarbayev, Aliyev and Bakiyev all quietly expressed a desire for their respective countries to host to the next Turkic summit. At the same time, participants emphasized a need to proceed cautiously, seeking to dispel any impression that they are rushing toward institutionalizing the group. Beyond the steps toward closer cooperation, the Turkic summit will be remembered for the public airing of a diplomatic feud between Turkey and Uzbekistan. Some news reports claimed that Uzbek officials stayed away from the gathering to protest the final declaration’s wording on the Karabakh settlement. However, a senior Turkish official said the reason for Tashkent’s displeasure was Turkey’s decision to join the United States in supporting a draft measure in UN General Assembly’s Human Rights Council that would condemn human rights violations in Uzbekistan. The official was outspoken in his criticism of both Uzbekistan’s rights behavior and Tashkent’s reaction to Ankara’s vote. "It is time that some countries learned that democracy and human rights are essential to integrate into the global system," he said. "Turkey will persistently work to promote democracy and human rights for the region`s own benefit." Turkey’s decision to vote for the draft Human Rights Council resolution was "a reflection of our ideals and understanding of the importance of democracy and respect for human rights," the official continued. "Turkey has been criticized for similar reasons [human rights violations] in the past, but we never turned it into a bilateral issue, and chose to make improvemenst in our [democracy and human right] records instead." Such blunt talk would appear to mark a significant shift in Turkish policy, as Turkish officials had unitl now avoided open criticism of Uzbek government action. It may be that Turkey’s desire to meet EU accession criteria, especially the need to bolster its human rights credentials, is playing a role in the adoption of a toughter line toward Tashkent. The official also indicated that Ankara is growing tired of Uzbek President Islam Karimov’s demands. "They [Uzbek officials] also accuse us of supporting the Uzbek opposition, citing [the fact that] opposition leader Mohammad Solih freely travels to and lives in Turkey. Mr. Solih is free to travel anywhere he wants to go, and travels to Norway, Britain and the United States. Why is Turkey being singled out?" the official said. http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav112006.shtml - http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav112006.shtml ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav112006_pr.shtml - Print this article 
http://www.eurasianet.org/email3.cfm - Email this article Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 19:07
http://news.trendaz.com/cgi-bin/readnews2.pl?newsId=962759&lang=EN - http://news.trendaz.com/cgi-bin/readnews2.pl?newsId=962759&lang=EN ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Seko
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 19:08
|
Politics included there has been a growing interest in Central Asia since the dmeise of the Soviet Union. Some of you have touched upon a yearning for cultural exchange between long lost brothers. The current realities also include business practices that have left a mark on potential partnerships. Turkey, Russia, Iran, China, and Kazakhistan inevitably will look after her own self interests. Pleasant or not these are opportunities that exist.
On the other hand the usage of the label, Turk, has historical and political roots. In the past the Turks went by many names: Hsing nu, Hun, Gok Turuk, Mogol, Bulgar, Onogur, Seljuk, Altin Ordu, Osmanli, etc. etc. down to Turkiye Turks. The Kazakhs partially came from some of this history yet carved her own way along the road. One that has many cultural and linguistic similarities yet diverse and fully independant.
With this in mind civility among AE forumers is the best way to debate. Omergun, a slight reminder to respect those who differ with you. This is not the way to do it: Do you know what the problem of people like you are? You hate Türks, thats why you will try to change everything that is getting his way in favour of Türks. ------------- |
Posted By: Sarmat
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 19:08
|
Yeah, my wife is Tuvinian and I indeed have problems with Turks (in a meaning as a member of any of the peoples speaking Turkic languages) when I have another argument with her.
I dont know with what your mind is filled with. This is what Bulldog's "source" says:
Mr. POPE: ...And even if you ask someone like President Nazarbayev, `What are you?' and his first answer's...
SIEGEL: He of Kazakhstan. Mr. POPE: Yeah, the president of Kazakhstan. He says, `I am a Turk.' And you look at him slightly oddly because Turk now means a citizen of Turkey. He says, `No, not like that. We sent armies from here 500 years ago, a thousand years ago, to conquer Turkey. They married the local population, and now they're called Turkey. But the real Turks are still here in Central Asia, and it's us.' ........
Yeah. It's Mr. Pope says not Mr. Nazarbaev. Moreover, now I doubt Mr.Pope's competence in Turkic studies, since it's for sure that Kazakhs didn't send any armies to conquer Turkey 500 years ago.
------------- ΣαυÏομάτης
|
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 07-Aug-2007 at 19:12
|
Central Asia: Turkey Lifts Visa Requirement For Post-Soviet States mailto:Saidazimovag@rferl.org -
 (RFE/RL) | |
Turkish Foreign Ministry spokesman Mehmet Gunay told RFE/RL's Uzbek Service on July 30 that Ankara has unilaterally abolished short-term visas for citizens of the four former Soviet republics as well as Mongolia starting on August 1.
Visa-Free Regime
"The decision of the cabinet of ministers was announced in the [official] 'Resmi Gazete' newspaper and came into force," he said. "According to the decree, holders of passports from Azerbaijan, Mongolia, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan do not need a visa for tourist visits of up to 30 days. They can come [to Turkey] without visas."
Turkey has had a visa-free regime with Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan along with Georgia have also enjoyed visa-free relations with Turkey.
Officials in Ankara first voiced the intention to abolish visa regimes with the four former Soviet republics and Mongolia earlier this month. Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul told the Istanbul-based daily "Zaman" that Turkey would become the second home for all Turks and Muslims.
The decision comes after the victory of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Justice and Development (AK) Party in parliamentary polls July 22.
Authorities in the affected countries welcomed the move.
An Aid To Businesses
Tajik Economy and Trade Ministry spokesman Ghafurjon Rasuli spoke to RFE/RL’s Tajik Service.
"Of course, it will help strengthen [mutual] cooperation," he said. "It will also give an opportunity to Tajik businessmen to go to that country without difficulties and do business there."
Turkish entrepreneurs doing business in the post-Soviet countries also see Ankara’s decision as opening a door to new business opportunities.
Kenan Saglikli is the head of the Turkish company Akgul in the Azerbaijani capital, Baku.
"Turkish businessmen who wanted to come here have faced many difficulties," he said. "Now, the abolition of the visa regime opens a great opportunity for businessmen from both Turkey and Azerbaijan. It's a great move. It will be even better when the Azerbaijani government will make a similar decision."
Turkey was one of the first countries to declare its support for the newly independent countries of Central Asia and Azerbaijan after the 1991 Soviet collapse. Turkish people have also said they were happy to embrace their Turkic-speaking "brother nations."
Reviving Pan-Turkism?
Turkish businesses brought a great deal of investment to Central Asia, Turkish colleges opened throughout the region, while many Central Asian students also came to Turkey to study at universities.
Turkey has also quickly become one of the major destinations for shuttle-traders from the post-Soviet republics, while Turkish resorts like Antalya have become a familiar place for some of the wealthier people from Central Asia and Azerbaijan to spend their vacations.
But the closer ties between Turkey and Central Asian countries have also brought some drawbacks. Turkey has become a transit route and a destination country for prostitutes and other illegal migrants from the former Soviet republics.
Shortly after the euphoria of independence passed, some Central Asian politicians started voicing concern over Ankara's possible intention to replace an old "big brother" -- Russia -- while some scholars worried about the possible revival of pan-Turkism.
Over the years the relationships between the former Soviet republics and Turkey have calmed and become more pragmatic.
Turkic-Speaking Countries 'Flagman'
However, Ankara's decision now to lift visa requirements seems to have stirred up concern about Turkey's possible hegemonic intentions.
Qubat Ibadoglu, the director of the Baku-based Center for Economic Research, spoke to RFE/RL's Azerbaijani Service.
"One of the important goals of Turkey is to become the flagman of the Turkic-speaking countries and to expand its hegemonic opportunities among them," Ibadoglu said. "It wants to expand cooperation in the fields of foreign trade, currency exchange, and exports. [The recent move to end the visa regime] is the first step."
Among the new countries included in the visa-free policy, Uzbekistan has had the most politicized relations with Turkey.
Uzbek President Islam Karimov made critical remarks about the Turkish leadership's alleged support for Uzbek opposition members who found refuge in Turkey. Among them was the leader of the Uzbek opposition party Erk, Muhammad Solih, who fled Uzbekistan in 1993 after facing harassment at home.
Turkish-Uzbek Problems
The relations between Ankara and Tashkent soured even further after the February 1999 bombings in Tashkent.
The Karimov government accused Solih of masterminding the bombings. Solih was tried in absentia and sentenced to a lengthy prison term on terrorism charges.
Solih was forced to leave Turkey and received political asylum in Europe.
Uzbekistan citizens were able to buy $10 visas at airports and other border points until June 1, 2003.
Afterwards, Turkey introduced a full-visa regime for Uzbek citizens after reports of Turkish businessmen having difficulties getting Uzbek visas.
The new $80 visa fee did not stop Uzbeks from traveling to Turkey: numerous shuttle-traders continued to go to Istanbul and other Turkish cities, while many others stayed and worked there illegally.
Muhsin recently spoke to RFE/RL's Uzbek Service from Istanbul.
Vacation Destination
"Yes, there are many of them," he said. "One can see a lot of young Uzbeks, mostly in big cities like Istanbul, Ankara, and Antalya. There are very few among them who came to study here. Others have come to work and earn money."
The number of tourists and labor migrants -- both legal and illegal -- is likely to rise in the aftermath of the abolition of the short-term visa.
Over 40,000 Kazakhs and nearly 2,000 Uzbeks visited Antalya resorts in 2006.
Ankara has lifted these short-term visa requirements for the four post-Soviet countries unilaterally.
Turkish citizens willing to visit Uzbekistan or Tajikistan have so far had to go through a regular procedure to get visas from the embassy and consulates. Will Central Asians reciprocate to Turkey with a similar friendly move?
"It is up to them," said Turkish Foreign Ministry spokesman Gunay.
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2007/07/D5DDD3EF-4CFB-4964-8FCA-592241578000.html - http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2007/07/D5DDD3EF-4CFB-4964-8FCA-592241578000.html
-------------
“What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”
Albert Pine
Nazarbayev,
mesajında şöyle dedi: