Piratis wrote:shahmaran wrote:insan wrote:shahmaran wrote:I don't think they are thought wrong insan, I think they just choose to ignore certain facts of history for their convenience.
Surely the great civilised European Greeks would not teach wrong history on purpose would they?
shahmaran, they have nothing to ignore because their ancestors skipped all the essential facts and invented totally artificial history text-books for the new generations. A kind of false nation building process, i guess.144 Turks also intermarried with Greeks and Georgians. Greek sources style the offspring of such unions mixovarvaroi. "Though this phenomenon of intermarriage and the appearance of a new generation of mixovarvaroi is only briefly mentioned by the sources, one must assume that it was no rare or isolated occurrence. These mixovarvaroi suffered occasionally from a dichotomy of political sympathy and allegiance, but in the long run their appearance in Anatolia resulted in a process that favored the growth of the Muslim population at the expense of the Christian population, because Muslim society dominated politically and militarily. It is interesting, but unprofitable, to speculate about what would have happened to the Anatolian mixovarvaroi under different political circumstances" (DMH p. 176). Vryonis continues elsewhere: "There is every reason to suppose that intermarriage took place rather extensively from the very beginning of the Turkish occupation of Anatolia and for several centuries thereafter. Anna Comnena speaks of the offspring of such unions as mixovarvaroi, and the twelfth-century Balsamon refers to their curious practises. When the Greek historian Nicephorus Gregoras passed through Bithynia en route to Nicaea in the middle of the fourteenth century, just one generation after the conquest of Nicaea, he observed that the population consisted of Greeks, mixovarvaroi (Graeco-Turks), and Turks. Thus intermarriage of Muslim and Christians at every level of society played a very important role in the integration and absorption of the Greek Christian element into Muslim society" (DMH pp. 228-29). The Turkish-language equivalent of mixovarvaroi may have been ikdish, signifying a gelding or cross-bred animal, particularly a mule. See PT pp. 192-93.
http://rbedrosian.com/Dft139t161.htm
What a shame that they do need such process...
But most people here are old enough to be grandfathers, shouldn't they know better?
The quote of insan refers to Asia Minor, not to Cyprus. You really didn't tell us anything new. The so called Turks have really very little to do with the original Turks. Why they call themselves Turks only themselves know.
Here is how real Turks look like:
How many of you look like that?
Ouch.
