Istanbul? - Konstantinopolis? - Byzantium?

[ancalimon]

Mhm. The scientific method of looking for proof, having doubt and trying to find holes in your peers' theories, that's simply rubbish. It's much better to make up stuff as you feel it should be. That produces much nicer results.

I already found the hole in every other scientists theory. Turks didn't come from space. I will prove it.

Another hole in every other scientists theory. Nations cannot forget how to read and write for 1 hundred years and suddenly start reading and writing again. (Ancient Greeks)

 

[Merlkir]

Mhm. The scientific method of looking for proof, having doubt and trying to find holes in your peers' theories, that's simply rubbish. It's much better to make up stuff as you feel it should be. That produces much nicer results.

I already found the hole in every other scientists theory. Turks didn't come from space. I will prove it.

And of course sane scientists claim they did, right?

 

[ancalimon]

Mhm. The scientific method of looking for proof, having doubt and trying to find holes in your peers' theories, that's simply rubbish. It's much better to make up stuff as you feel it should be. That produces much nicer results.

I already found the hole in every other scientists theory. Turks didn't come from space. I will prove it.

And of course sane scientists claim they did, right?

Exactly! They say Turks don't have ancestors. I tell you: Turks didn't spout out of the tail of a cow either.

For example can you imagine this tribe suddenly becoming rulers of the world?: http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/2642/

Can this tribe become advanced by taking things from surrounding people? Would neighboring cultures accept their culture?

 

[Kvedulf]

I'm confused.  What the flying **** do Brazilian Indians have to do with Turks?

And all those various archaeologists and historians that apparently "say Turks don't have ancestors" don't actually say that.  They aren't claiming that the Turkish people suddenly appeared from nowhere.  All the various archaeological, historic, linguistic and ethnographic evidence points to the Turkish cultures evolving/adapting from the previous cultures in their area with an influence from their neighbouring cultures.  No culture appears in a vacuum.  Turkish culture is the result of the cultures of their ancestors and their interactions with each other and the cultures around them.

That said, no one is claiming that the Turkish people don't have a rich and varied history with long traditions and a unique culture.  They do.  But so did the Roman people, the Gallic people, the various Indian peoples and every other group of people on the world.  The Turkish people should be proud of their heritage, but let everyone else be proud of their heritage as well, which is just as unique, rich and important as the Turks'.

Cheers
Kvedulf

 

[ancalimon]

I'm confused.  What the flying **** do Brazilian Indians have to do with Turks?

And all those various archaeologists and historians that apparently "say Turks don't have ancestors" don't actually say that.  They aren't claiming that the Turkish people suddenly appeared from nowhere.  All the various archaeological, historic, linguistic and ethnographic evidence points to the Turkish cultures evolving/adapting from the previous cultures in their area with an influence from their neighbouring cultures.  No culture appears in a vacuum.  Turkish culture is the result of the cultures of their ancestors and their interactions with each other and the cultures around them.

That said, no one is claiming that the Turkish people don't have a rich and varied history with long traditions and a unique culture.  They do.  But so did the Roman people, the Gallic people, the various Indian peoples and every other group of people on the world.  The Turkish people should be proud of their heritage, but let everyone else be proud of their heritage as well, which is just as unique, rich and important as the Turks'.

Cheers
Kvedulf

Nobody can show me those archaeological, linguistic and ethnographic evidence. Only some "historic" evidence which is totally unrelated with the rest of the evidence.

And no... That history tells me that Turks were primitive and they stole (or were given) everything they knew from advanced Indo-European groups that brought civilization to Asia. Like horseriding, mining, writing, architecture, irrigation, etc. History tells me that Turks were "wild" nomads.  The European scientists work in a rather satiric way. They see an iron smelter that shouldn't exists at all because it doesn't fit in history, and stamp "Indo-Europeans were here. Another mystery solved".

Every other credible evidence tells me the opposite. Even the first sailors were ancestors of Turks!

I don't want to steal anyones achievements. Moreover, I don't even care. I just give Turks what I think is theirs.

 

[Merlkir]

Nobody can show me those archaeological, linguistic and ethnographic evidence. Only some "historic" evidence which is totally unrelated with the rest of the evidence.

And no... That history tells me that Turks were primitive and they stole (or were given) everything they knew from advanced Indo-European groups that brought civilization to Asia. Like horseriding, mining, writing, architecture, irrigation, etc. History tells me that Turks were "wild" nomads.

Every other credible evidence tells me the opposite.

No. I don't think you actually read any current history books on the subject. Most of your criticism is copy pasted and aimed at scholars from the early 20th or even 19th century.
You're trying to pass a false dichotomy - that either Turks were the master race, the Atlanteans of the ancient world, or that they appeared from outer space fairly recently (which you claim is what "eurocentrist" scientists think).

Neither of those is obviously true. This is a typical behaviour of a religious fanatic, by the way. To present only two options - mine and the enemy's. The opposition is bundled up into one bad conspiracy and everyone who disagrees with you is accused of believing this nonsense. And it's deliberately nonsense, this imaginary opposition of yours, because that allows you to show how wrong it is. A fanatic hopes that by showing someone this imaginary nonsensical opposition is wrong, that this proves his hypothesis right. Because as he presents it, there are only two sides of the argument and only one is right.

That's how you abuse the false dichotomy, just like a religious fanatic.

 

[ancalimon]

Nobody can show me those archaeological, linguistic and ethnographic evidence. Only some "historic" evidence which is totally unrelated with the rest of the evidence.

And no... That history tells me that Turks were primitive and they stole (or were given) everything they knew from advanced Indo-European groups that brought civilization to Asia. Like horseriding, mining, writing, architecture, irrigation, etc. History tells me that Turks were "wild" nomads.

Every other credible evidence tells me the opposite.

No. I don't think you actually read any current history books on the subject. Most of your criticism is copy pasted and aimed at scholars from the early 20th or even 19th century.
You're trying to pass a false dichotomy - that either Turks were the master race, the Atlanteans of the ancient world, or that they appeared from outer space fairly recently (which you claim is what "eurocentrist" scientists think).

Neither of those is obviously true. This is a typical behaviour of a religious fanatic, by the way. To present only two options - mine and the enemy's. The opposition is bundled up into one bad conspiracy and everyone who disagrees with you is accused of believing this nonsense. And it's deliberately nonsense, this imaginary opposition of yours, because that allows you to show how wrong it is. A fanatic hopes that by showing someone this imaginary nonsensical opposition is wrong, that this proves his hypothesis right. Because as he presents it, there are only two sides of the argument and only one is right.

That's how you abuse the false dichotomy, just like a religious fanatic.

No... I don't say Turks are the master race because I think the concept of race is some stupid fabrication of a moronic imagination. Race was never about "shape". It was about "location, place, destination,breeding. (thus UR (place)>YER(place, ground)>IRZ(honour,chastity)>OUR(our)>Earth(Earth))" It's like that with Turkic culture, and it was like that with all other cultures in the past. Because all those cultures were the same cultures with the Turks.

As you can see I don't claim any "master race status". I say every other human being shared the same characteristics with those Turks who were what advanced humans were.
I dare to say that people living in Turkey today have almost "nothing in common left with that advanced human kind". So it's not any nationalistic attitude or anything similar.

Furthermore I can say that people living in Turkey are not as advanced as people living in England today. They are better than us today. Changing the language that people use for daily communication is no small feat. Whatever it was they were doing  in Africa, Asia, America... definitely paid off.

 

[Merlkir]

Soo, I put words in your mouth that were not in fact what you're trying to say?

 

[ancalimon]

Soo, I put words in your mouth that were not in fact what you're trying to say?

I don't get it.

 

[Nodscouter]

You're a troll.
The End.

 

[Merlkir]

Saying that "you think Turks are the master race" is a similar fallacy as when you tell us "eurocentrist historians say the TUrks appeared from space".

Get it now?

It's what we're trying to explain to you all this time. We're not saying Turks appeared from space, or from nowhere. We understand you're not pushing any racial agenda. We're just very uncomfortable with your fantasies of ancient Turks being the bearers of all civilization. For reasons explained a thousand times, calling any people BC Turks doesn't make any sense. It's not just about the name, you're projecting the Turkish culture backwards and that's not how cultural evolution happens.

Hey, if you told me you're a descendant of Scythians, I might even agree it's plausible (considering genetic and cultural diversity nowadays, I could have my own share of scythian heritage too) . If you tell me the Scythians were Turks, I know I have to disagree with that.

 

[ancalimon]

You're a troll.
The End.

First of all, I have no intention of trolling the forum. All I do is to state my ideas. I know my ideas are not similar to mainstream. But that doesn't make it trolling.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll

troll is derived from the Turkic name "Dumrul".

the M sound was dropped and Dumrul became Tuğrul>Durul>Troll.  (Tuğrul is another Turkic name)

It's a myth. Mad Dumrul. He took money from anyone that passed his bridge and beat and took more money from those that refused to pay.

http://www.folk-tales-comenius-project.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=117:legend-of-deli-dumrul-turkey&catid=66:turkey&Itemid=82

 

[Lord Donar]

Now even Trolls are Turkish.

/facepalm

 

[Merlkir]

Now even Trolls are Turkish.

/facepalm

like we didn't know that before.

 

[MuKuK]

Any one here know how to play a Bird-Language game ?

Istanbul is a lovely place , I like it a lot .

Why is everyone picking on ancalimon ?

 

[ancalimon]

Any one here know how to play a Bird-Language game ?

Istanbul is a lovely place , I like it a lot .

Why is everyone picking on ancalimon ?

Because I tell people that their ancestors were the same as mine and they were Turks until someone decided to divide us...

and Turks themselves built Istanbul thousands of years ago.

Because my theory is that to became advanced, ancient people must be warriors, and whenever they migrated to somewhere and intermingled with the sedentary primitive population of a place, they brought civilization to that culture and became more sedentary.. and became enemies of the newly coming warriors. And those nomads were always Turks speaking a Turkic language.

 

[MuKuK]

Any one here know how to play a Bird-Language game ?

Istanbul is a lovely place , I like it a lot .

Why is everyone picking on ancalimon ?

Because I tell people that their ancestors were the same as mine and they were Turks until someone decided to divide us...

and Turks themselves built Istanbul thousands of years ago.

hah , I understand why you face such a mockery .



If you want to tease them further , you can always mention the Turkana Boy from Turkana Lake but make sure you don't say anything about out of Africa theroy .

As for building Istanbul thousands of years ago , well , that is not really proven , is it ?



Are you pontificating about Istanbul's foundation and passing it as hidden truth ?

 

[ancalimon]

Any one here know how to play a Bird-Language game ?

Istanbul is a lovely place , I like it a lot .

Why is everyone picking on ancalimon ?

Because I tell people that their ancestors were the same as mine and they were Turks until someone decided to divide us...

and Turks themselves built Istanbul thousands of years ago.

hah , I understand why you face such a mockery .



If you want to tease them further , you can always mention the Turkana Boy from Turkana Lake but make sure you don't say anything about out of Africa theroy .

As for building Istanbul thousands of years ago , well , that is not really proven , is it ?



Are you pontificating about Istanbul's foundation and passing it as hidden truth ?

*The name of the city and its importance in Turkic culture. "Astana" "balık"
*The decipherments of Kazım Mirşan.
*The conspiracy of Constantin which hurts todays Europeans more than Turks.

 

[Merlkir]

Because my theory is that to became advanced, ancient people must be warriors, and whenever they migrated to somewhere and intermingled with the sedentary primitive population of a place, they brought civilization to that culture and became more sedentary.. and became enemies of the newly coming warriors. And those nomads were always Turks speaking a Turkic language.

Except every possible shred of evidence disagrees with this hypothesis completely. To become civilized, non-nomadic cultures are much more suitable. Static agricultural people are those who need to build cities, to protect themselves with walls. They're the ones who need to build irrigation systems to water their crops. They're the ones who have towers and the time to study the movement of celestial bodies.
And again with the false dichotomy - the idea that an agrarian based culture is not a warrior culture is laughable.

I realize you want to prove your ancestors were the bearers of wisdom and civilization, but history and common sense simply prove you wrong. Nomads obviously can learn all these things, but they don't have any need for them. If such people became sedentary, it was BECAUSE they liked the stuff sedentary life and civilization offered.

 

[MuKuK]

*The name of the city and its importance in Turkic culture. "Astana" "balık"
*The decipherments of Kazım Mirşan.
*The conspiracy of Constantin which hurts todays Europeans more than Turks.

* While not denying the coincidence before me , I am going to need more evidence pls.
* Jury is still out there on Kazim Mirsan . The decipherments can't be taken into account as of today.
* Here I give you the Mikhealogullari and have a little smile .