Duman said:
Maybe i should specify for you then to make it clearer - the Holocaust in WW2. It has everything to do with the question because it is the best comparison to the happenings in Turkey 1915. It was you who raised the topic about German ww2 archives anywho...
Er..., nope. Wasn't me. You started to talk about WWII in post 36.
Apparently alot seems to be irrelevant to the question. It's not irrelevant because it's the Armenians governments propaganda esp. since 1990 that has persuaded governments and in turn citizens of those governemnt like you to blindly accept a genocide.
Er..., nope. Both WWII & the behaviour of the Armenian government are totally irrelevant to the question whether the genocide happened. It's a matter of history, not politics.
Obviously? It did not neccessarily happen.
Because most governments say it did, including yours, you agree without actually taking a look at Turkish records, opinions, historians, scholars. You gotta listen to both sides (not just the exaggerated Armenian side) for an outcome to be credible.
Perhaps you should just have a look at the German records? Germany, after all, was an ally of the Ottoman Empire at the time. Then, you should think, they wouldn't have deliberately made the Turks look bad.
Of course, I bet you think every Turkish historian and scholar is 100% bias so you don't want to listen to the other side, well, I got news for you, the vast majority of Armenians are biased too and so are your kinda governments
Lost your bet. I don't know every Turkiskh historian & scholar & hence don't have an opinion about them. I do have an opinion about those who deny the genocide, though.
& why you keep bringing up the Armenians of today? I'm talking about history.
You sound like one of those Japanese revisionists who deny the Nanjing massacre.
"There is no proof for a massacre."
- "Plenty of records exist."
"Those records aren't Japanese. It's Chinese propaganda."
- "The records are not only Chinese but also German, US American, etc."
"They aren't Japanese & cannot know what really happened."
- "There are Japanese witness accounts."
"They are lies."
- "A lot of historians have researched it."
"But there are Japanese historians who deny the fact."
a.s.o.
Well, you certainly give the impression that you are trying to tell me i'm wrong about my understanding of the term ethno-linguistics.
Because you are. Just a definition from the Encyclopaedia Britannica:
"that part of anthropological linguistics concerned with the study of the interrelation between a language and the cultural behaviour of those who speak it."
If you don't know about it and in particular the Altaic and indo-european groups don't try to preach a point you can't be sure of.
Who said I don't know about it? You don't need to be an expert in ethnolinguistics to know what it is about. & I'm pretty sure about the point I make.
You haven't shown any evidence yet that there is any scientific systematics which equates the Indo-European language family to an Indo-European race, or the Altaic language family to an Altaic race. The speakers of Proto-Indo-European or Proto-Altaic may have been members of only one race. But that's not enough to say that modern speakers of said languages are members of an Indo-European or Altaic race. Indo-European languages are mostly spoken by caucasoids (but also, due to colonisation, by negroids, mongoloids & others), Altaic languages are spoken by caucasoids (eg. Turks) or mongoloids (eg. Mongols).
Why the hell do you want to know how to say "races" in Turkish?
I don't necessarily want to know. I mentioned it because it's possible that anthropological terminology in Turkish differs from English & German. Maybe what we in English call caucasoid you in Turkish call Indo-European, what we call mongoloid you call Altaic. Although, I can't see how you could group Turks as mongoloid.
The majority if web-based publications will reffer to only the Altaic languages because a racial link isn't widely adopted by anthropologists. (Which is strange when you consider 'Indo-European' reffers to both.)
Nope, Indo-European does not refer to a race. Speakers of Indo-European languages are members of various races. The people who spoke Proto-Indo-European were probably members of one particular caucasoid population, but other caucasoid populations spoke other languages (as that which Basque derived from).
Hence, if you find references to an Indo-European race, it is not in the biological meaning of race, but in the social meaning (as in M-W: "b : a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics <the English race>"). Or you found some idiotic nazi-website which wants to prove some Indo-Aryan superiority.
But it is a fact that the people who speak Altaic languages have an ethnic link in varying strengths too, so for you to deny that just because it isn't widely accepted by 'big thinkers' is a perfect example of how people rely on 'experts' who are all too often just as biased, ignorant and narrow minded as the rest of us...
Ethnic as in cultural? Or do you mean biological?
I'm sorry but there is simply not a strong racial link between Indo-Europeans and Turks. Please provide me with some evidence to show a strong racial link between the two
Look at post #39, there is a reference.
Another one:
"Trading Genes along the Silk Road: mtDNA Sequences and the Origin of
Central Asian Populations (1998, by Comas, Calafell, et al.)
[...]
Whereas the historical and cultural consequences of the
Turkic invasion of Anatolia were profound, the genetic
contribution of the Turkic peoples to the modern Turkish
population seems less significant. Previous studies (Cal-
afell et al. 1996; Comas et al. 1996) have shown that
the mtDNA pool found in Turkey can be interpreted as
the result of upper Paleolithic and/or Neolithic expan-
sions from the Middle East to Europe, with a small con-
tribution by Asian sequences.[...]"
- the example of Janissaries is pathetic because not only were they a minute group but weren't even drawn from Ottoman/Turkish ranks!
Pathetic? Well, wasn't mine, anyway.
