Cyprus-Forum.com

[GreekForumer]

Almost half of the MPs of ROT government comprise of Kurdish origin people; mostly they were elected from ruling party, AKP.

That's not exactly a rebuttal, is it ?


So you want to explain to me what this 2009 fact has got to do with what political future the various Kurdish leaders agreed to in 1919 ? You seem to have jumped over the (attempted) cultural genocide in between - that started soon after victory was assured at Lausanne.

Allegations regarding Ataturk's promises to Kurds for autonomy might be true(I haven't researched much abt it)

I think you may be in luck with this one. Unlike most allegations, this should be easy to substantiate - even for amateurs. Simply find out who the civil servants, diplomats and negotiators were at Lausanne and see what they wrote in their memoirs- Curzon, Venizelos, etc . I would be extremely surprised if all the European and American diplomats were not on the same page with this "allegation" as you call it. But this will only tell us what the Turkish negotiators said at Lausanne.

Obviously Ataturk discussed some sort of post-war political arrangement with the Kurdish leaders, presumably equal in value or better than Sevres. I think we both agree he did not promise them cultural genocide. So what exactly did Ataturk offer the Kurds ? What did Kurds think they were dying for on the battlefield ?

but it is a well known fact that foundation of ROT based on secularism.

What's that supposed to mean ? What "well known fact" ? Are you saying that Ataturk went around the countryside imploring Turks and Kurds to come forth and join the struggle to create a secular state ? What is this foundation you speak of ? Is this "foundation" a political majority composed of Secularists ? I don't think so.

Therefore, most probably, if allegations regarding Kurdish autonomy was true;

What do you think Kurds thought they were fighting and dying for ? Try and find out, for the record. Let's get to the bottom of this.

Ataturk couldn't keep his promises to Kurds because of not to endanger the secular spirit of ROT.

That's like saying........
"Makarios couldn't keep his promises to TCs because of not to endanger the democratic spirit of ENOSIS". After all, the vast majority (4 to1) of all Cypriots wanted union with Greece. How many Anatolians wanted a Kurd-free secular state ?

Makarios simply needed to apply a democratic principle, a referendum for ALL Cypriots, to legitimize and fulfill his personal wish. Ataturk needed to kill a lot of Kurds and their leaders to fulfill his. And presumably, some religious Turks too. What percentage of the Anatolians were secularists in 1919 ?


But anyway, what has secularism got to do with Kurdish ethnicity?? Or equal partnership ?? or autonomy ?? Why not a secular-Kurdish state which is politically equal to a secular-Turkish state ? What's wrong with that ?

On the other hand, ROT couldn't make rational nation building policies because of various reasons mainly economic conditions that directly affected the educational matters.

I really don't know what you are talking about here. Sounds like some sort of justification for an unjustifiable betrayal.

et's see what will happen now... Recently, one of the RoT's main focus point has been resolving the Kurdish problem... An autonomous Kurdish region is seen on the horizon... I don't think it would end up with an independent Kurdish state as long as secular islam unites Turks and Kurds.

I must admit Turkey has been surprising me lately. Interesting times.
http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/news- ... levis.html
http://www.asbarez.com/2009/11/13/kurdi ... -genocide/

I hope it continues.

[GreekForumer]

All of the early Kurdish revolts were based on religous motives...

All of them ? Kurds did not have a problem with the state suppression of their Kurdishness ? Where did you get this information ? From the same regime who betrayed the Kurds ? The same regime that created the "mountain Turk" lie ? Don't you think this source is biased just a little ? Isn't it fairer to say the Kurdish revolts were based on opposing a betrayal ? Saying "religious motives" make the Kurds look like nutters and hides the real villain of the piece.

[insan]

GF, Turks of Turkey; unlike all other independent and semi-independent Turkic states has much more hybrid ethnic elements. Throuhout the Seljuk and Ottoman era which lasted abt 900 years; Islam was the most significant element what united Turks, Kurds and other muslim ethnic groups.

However, because of misinterpretation and abuse of Islam by the last several Ottoman Sultans, religious degeneration had begun undermining the exitence of Ottoman empire and unity of it's muslim population.

Under these circumstances Ataturk and his friends had prepared for an independence war to establish a secular Turkish state. Ataturk believed that including himself all inhabitants of Turkey had share that very hybrid ethnicity which included Turkish ethnicity too.

Ataturk, as a member of dominant ethnic group Turks named the new republic as Turkey and wished/worked to unite the citizens of this new republic under the nationality consciousness of Turkishness.

Due to various internal and external resons unity of Turkic people of Turkey failed.

As i previously explained and u may confirm it with a little research. Nationalist character of Kurdish movement was very weak, it was rather based on fundamentalist religious motives. All fundamentalist religious movements were considered as a threat against the secular principles of RoT by then the dominant Turkish elements of RoT.

So, if even Ataturk promised the Kurds a type of autonomy; the main reason behind why he didn't abide by his words should have been the fundamentalist religious structure of Kurdish community.

Ataturk's presidency lasted just 15 years and he couldn't manage to solve the problem. His predecessors and consequtive Turkish governments couldn't sove the Kurdish problem either.

Currently there r some good movements towards the solution of Kurdish problem at least the part of Kurdish problem that exists in borders of Turkey. However Kurdish problem as a whole is related with the political attitudes of 3 more neighbouring countries of Turkey. Maybe this Kurdish opening process will end up transformation of RoT into a Turkish-Kurdish Federation in few years time...

I'm underlining one more time again that Kurdish problem of Turkey has nothing in common with Cyprus problem....

[Oracle]

I'm underlining one more time again that Kurdish problem of Turkey has nothing in common with Cyprus problem....

Except for the fact both problems are caused by Turkish Expansionism and its intolerance of indigenous peoples ...

[denizaksulu]

I'm underlining one more time again that Kurdish problem of Turkey has nothing in common with Cyprus problem....

Except for the fact both problems are caused by Turkish Expansionism and its intolerance of indigenous peoples ...

'Turks' in Turkey are not 'indigenous' themselves. They are a worse 'hot-potch' than 'ratatouille'.

In the borders of Modern day Turkey, perhaps I am right in saying that the 'purest' group of people are the Kurds.

[zmx]

All of the early Kurdish revolts were based on religous motives...

All of them ? Kurds did not have a problem with the state suppression of their Kurdishness ? Where did you get this information ? From the same regime who betrayed the Kurds ? The same regime that created the "mountain Turk" lie ? Don't you think this source is biased just a little ? Isn't it fairer to say the Kurdish revolts were based on opposing a betrayal ? Saying "religious motives" make the Kurds look like nutters and hides the real villain of the piece.

the oppresion of Kurds started in the 1980's after the military coup led by Kenan Evren ousted the government and banned the Kurdish language etc.

Many Kurds were involved in the leftist/Marxist circles in Turkey during the turbulent period of the 70's when the right and left wing movements in Turkey bought the country to the point of civil war.

the PKK itself is an offshoot of leftist Turkish groups which was founded by Kurds who were members of various extreme leftist groups. the PKK actually started its operations after the assasination of a leading Marxist leader of ethnic Turkish origin

so the whole issue of Kurdish separatism in Turkey is alot more complicated then what alot of people think. The PKK itself has stated many times it doesnt want a separate Kurdish state but would rather Turkey became more decentralized.

the most well known "Kurdish revolt" was the "Dersim uprising" and that was indeed due to religious reasons as the inabitants of that region are primarly Alevites, who follow a more "liberal" form of Islam more akin to Shiism than to Suniism which is the dominant religion in Turkey. the Alevis were traditionally persecuted by the Sunnis, and this history of persecution led to the uprising.

however many dispute the Dersim uprising was Kurdish, but rather a Zaza uprising. The Zaza are a distinct ethnic group who live in the Dersim/Tunceli region of Turkey. Eventhough they have similarities to Kurds the Zaza consider themselves a totally different ethnic group with a separate language and identity to the Kurds.

'Turks' in Turkey are not 'indigenous' themselves. They are a worse 'hot-potch' than 'ratatouille'.

In the borders of Modern day Turkey, perhaps I am right in saying that the 'purest' group of people are the Kurds.

I posted in another thread genetic studies which showed the "indigenousness" of present day Anatolian Turks, i dont really want to go into all that again. The Kurds are supposedly descended from the Medeans who settled in Anatolia from whats now modern day North Western Iran a few thousand years ago although they themselves have absorbed various peoples into their genepool and that includes Turkic peoples so they arent particularly "purer" than Anatolian Turks are.

[Oracle]

I posted in another thread genetic studies which showed the ....

Oh yeah!

You dramatically failed to convince us of your newly-hatched Hittite theory of Turkish descent ... flying in the face of evidence and credulous interpretation of well-aged scientific papers.

[zmx]

I posted in another thread genetic studies which showed the ....

Oh yeah!

You dramatically failed to convince us of your newly-hatched Hittite theory of Turkish descent ... flying in the face of evidence and credulous interpretation of well-aged scientific papers.

what evidence? You didnt provide anything which countered what I said.

But anyway heres some results from a more recent study carried out in 2007:

source : Alu insertion polymorphisms and an assessment of the genetic contribution of Central Asia to Anatolia with respect to the Balkans

In the evolutionary history of modern humans, Anatolia acted as a bridge between the Caucasus, the Near East, and Europe. Because of its geographical location, Anatolia was subject to migrations from multiple different regions throughout time. The last, well-known migration was the movement of Turkic speaking, nomadic groups from Central Asia. They invaded Anatolia and then the language of the region was gradually replaced by the Turkic language. In the present study, insertion frequencies of 10 Alu loci (A25 = 0.07, APO = 0.96, TPA25 = 0.44, ACE = 0.37, B65 = 0.57, PV92 = 0.18, FXIIIB = 0.52, D1 = 0.40, HS4.32 = 0.66, and HS4.69 = 0.30) have been determined in the Anatolian population. Together with the data compiled from other databases, the similarity of the Anatolian population to that of the Balkans and Central Asia has been visualized by multidimensional scaling method. Analysis suggested that, genetically, Anatolia is more closely related with the Balkan populations than to the Central Asian populations. Central Asian contribution to Anatolia with respect to the Balkans was quantified with an admixture analysis. Furthermore, the association between the Central Asian contribution and the language replacement episode was examined by comparative analysis of the Central Asian contribution to Anatolia, Azerbaijan (another Turkic speaking country) and their neighbors. In the present study, the Central Asian contribution to Anatolia was estimated as 13%. This was the lowest value among the populations analyzed. This observation may be explained by Anatolia having the lowest migrant/resident ratio at the time of migrations. Am J Phys Anthropol, 2008. © 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received: 31 May 2007; Accepted: 5 November 2007

Results indicated that the Central Asian contribution was 13% for the Turkish population. Furthermore, it was observed that the Central Asian contributions in the neighboring regions were higher than that of Anatolia and ranged between 20% and 33%. The Central Asian contribution was highest in Syria and Azerbaijan. Moreover, the estimates were approximately the same for Armenia, Georgia, and the Northern Caucasus."

Below is a diagram from the paper that shows the admixture estimates for each population (indicated under the title "Median"):

TABLE 4. Summary statistics for the posterior distributions of Central Asian admixture estimates (p1) in admixed populations:

Admixed population _ Median _ HPDa

Anatolia _____________ 0.127 ___ 0.000–0.474

Azerbaijan ___________ 0.315 ___ 0.000–0.843

Armenia _____________ 0.201 ___ 0.000–0.707

Georgia _____________ 0.217 ___ 0.000–0.596

Northern Caucasus ___ 0.221 ___ 0.000–0.771

Syria ________________ 0.326 ___ 0.000–0.858


As stated in the above quotation, the highest Central Asian contribution is seen in Syria (~33) and Azerbaijan (~32) in the diagram, while the lowest contibution is seen in Anatolia (~13). Again in line with the quotation, Armenia, Georgia and the Northern Caucasus display approximately the same ratio of Central Asian contribution (~20).

As can be seen the non Turkic speaking eastern neighbors of Turkey seem to have stronger Central Asian influences than Turkey does where CA influence is estimated at 13%. Central Asian influence in Armenia seems to be around 20%, around 22% in Georgia and the North Caucasus whereas in Syria its as high as 33% !

However it must be said that not all of the Central Asian influence found in Turkey (or in Armenia, Georgia, Syria etc) is down to Turkic settlement. Population movements between the Balkans, Asia Minor and Central Asia have been going on for thousands of years, back to a period before the Turkic peoples existed in Central Asia so a signicant level of Central Asian influence in Turkey today is down to prehistoric movements.

A segment of it is of course down to Turkic settlement however its very hard to determine how much. The same applies to the other regions sampled.

however its no surprise that the Caucasus nations have a stronger amount of CA influence, since they are closer to CA it makes sense they would have stronger influence from that region.

I dont really see why you are so hostile to the idea of whats very obvious.

[Oracle]

I posted in another thread genetic studies which showed the ....

Oh yeah!

You dramatically failed to convince us of your newly-hatched Hittite theory of Turkish descent ... flying in the face of evidence and credulous interpretation of well-aged scientific papers.

what evidence? You didnt provide anything which countered what I said.

But anyway heres some results from a more recent study carried out in 2007:

source : Alu insertion polymorphisms and an assessment of the genetic contribution of Central Asia to Anatolia with respect to the Balkans

In the evolutionary history of modern humans, Anatolia acted as a bridge between the Caucasus, the Near East, and Europe. Because of its geographical location, Anatolia was subject to migrations from multiple different regions throughout time. The last, well-known migration was the movement of Turkic speaking, nomadic groups from Central Asia. They invaded Anatolia and then the language of the region was gradually replaced by the Turkic language. In the present study, insertion frequencies of 10 Alu loci (A25 = 0.07, APO = 0.96, TPA25 = 0.44, ACE = 0.37, B65 = 0.57, PV92 = 0.18, FXIIIB = 0.52, D1 = 0.40, HS4.32 = 0.66, and HS4.69 = 0.30) have been determined in the Anatolian population. Together with the data compiled from other databases, the similarity of the Anatolian population to that of the Balkans and Central Asia has been visualized by multidimensional scaling method. Analysis suggested that, genetically, Anatolia is more closely related with the Balkan populations than to the Central Asian populations. Central Asian contribution to Anatolia with respect to the Balkans was quantified with an admixture analysis. Furthermore, the association between the Central Asian contribution and the language replacement episode was examined by comparative analysis of the Central Asian contribution to Anatolia, Azerbaijan (another Turkic speaking country) and their neighbors. In the present study, the Central Asian contribution to Anatolia was estimated as 13%. This was the lowest value among the populations analyzed. This observation may be explained by Anatolia having the lowest migrant/resident ratio at the time of migrations. Am J Phys Anthropol, 2008. © 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received: 31 May 2007; Accepted: 5 November 2007

Results indicated that the Central Asian contribution was 13% for the Turkish population. Furthermore, it was observed that the Central Asian contributions in the neighboring regions were higher than that of Anatolia and ranged between 20% and 33%. The Central Asian contribution was highest in Syria and Azerbaijan. Moreover, the estimates were approximately the same for Armenia, Georgia, and the Northern Caucasus."

Below is a diagram from the paper that shows the admixture estimates for each population (indicated under the title "Median"):

TABLE 4. Summary statistics for the posterior distributions of Central Asian admixture estimates (p1) in admixed populations:

Admixed population _ Median _ HPDa

Anatolia _____________ 0.127 ___ 0.000–0.474

Azerbaijan ___________ 0.315 ___ 0.000–0.843

Armenia _____________ 0.201 ___ 0.000–0.707

Georgia _____________ 0.217 ___ 0.000–0.596

Northern Caucasus ___ 0.221 ___ 0.000–0.771

Syria ________________ 0.326 ___ 0.000–0.858


As stated in the above quotation, the highest Central Asian contribution is seen in Syria (~33) and Azerbaijan (~32) in the diagram, while the lowest contibution is seen in Anatolia (~13). Again in line with the quotation, Armenia, Georgia and the Northern Caucasus display approximately the same ratio of Central Asian contribution (~20).

As can be seen the non Turkic speaking eastern neighbors of Turkey seem to have stronger Central Asian influences than Turkey does where CA influence is estimated at 13%. Central Asian influence in Armenia seems to be around 20%, around 22% in Georgia and the North Caucasus whereas in Syria its as high as 33% !

This would suggest the population of Turkey is a newer arrival since it does not fit in with the demographics of the nearest neighbours.

However it must be said that not all of the Central Asian influence found in Turkey (or in Armenia, Georgia, Syria etc) is down to Turkic settlement. Population movements between the Balkans, Asia Minor and Central Asia have been going on for thousands of years, back to a period before the Turkic peoples existed in Central Asia so a signicant level of Central Asian influence in Turkey today is down to prehistoric movements.

What are you trying to say here?

A segment of it is of course down to Turkic settlement however its very hard to determine how much. The same applies to the other regions sampled.

however its no surprise that the Caucasus nations have a stronger amount of CA influence, since they are closer to CA it makes sense they would have stronger influence from that region.

How do you explain the Syrian percentage?

Perhaps the markers used were meaningless for such a study!

I dont really see why you are so hostile to the idea of whats very obvious.

Nothing is obvious and I am only hostile to racists who try to use genetics to prove revisionist politics ... and once again you yield to the desire to interpret without evidence.

Not only did you fail to provide evidence last time of Turkish "evolution" from Hittites but you failed again.

What is more, as I showed you last time with the world-wide haplotype distributions, lack of similarity to your neighbours (who have been there thousands of years), such as you present above (although it's meaningless without knowing the numbers tested) merely confirms Turkey is populated by relatively recent arrivals ... Quite the opposite of what you rushly propose.

Once again, you have picked an isolated study (without providing the actual science) which shows nothing more than disparate percentages. Your attempts to draw meaningful population demographics and migrations from such a simple study are absurd.

[runaway]

I posted in another thread genetic studies which showed the ....

Oh yeah!

You dramatically failed to convince us of your newly-hatched Hittite theory of Turkish descent ... flying in the face of evidence and credulous interpretation of well-aged scientific papers.

what evidence? You didnt provide anything which countered what I said.

But anyway heres some results from a more recent study carried out in 2007:

source : Alu insertion polymorphisms and an assessment of the genetic contribution of Central Asia to Anatolia with respect to the Balkans

In the evolutionary history of modern humans, Anatolia acted as a bridge between the Caucasus, the Near East, and Europe. Because of its geographical location, Anatolia was subject to migrations from multiple different regions throughout time. The last, well-known migration was the movement of Turkic speaking, nomadic groups from Central Asia. They invaded Anatolia and then the language of the region was gradually replaced by the Turkic language. In the present study, insertion frequencies of 10 Alu loci (A25 = 0.07, APO = 0.96, TPA25 = 0.44, ACE = 0.37, B65 = 0.57, PV92 = 0.18, FXIIIB = 0.52, D1 = 0.40, HS4.32 = 0.66, and HS4.69 = 0.30) have been determined in the Anatolian population. Together with the data compiled from other databases, the similarity of the Anatolian population to that of the Balkans and Central Asia has been visualized by multidimensional scaling method. Analysis suggested that, genetically, Anatolia is more closely related with the Balkan populations than to the Central Asian populations. Central Asian contribution to Anatolia with respect to the Balkans was quantified with an admixture analysis. Furthermore, the association between the Central Asian contribution and the language replacement episode was examined by comparative analysis of the Central Asian contribution to Anatolia, Azerbaijan (another Turkic speaking country) and their neighbors. In the present study, the Central Asian contribution to Anatolia was estimated as 13%. This was the lowest value among the populations analyzed. This observation may be explained by Anatolia having the lowest migrant/resident ratio at the time of migrations. Am J Phys Anthropol, 2008. © 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Received: 31 May 2007; Accepted: 5 November 2007

Results indicated that the Central Asian contribution was 13% for the Turkish population. Furthermore, it was observed that the Central Asian contributions in the neighboring regions were higher than that of Anatolia and ranged between 20% and 33%. The Central Asian contribution was highest in Syria and Azerbaijan. Moreover, the estimates were approximately the same for Armenia, Georgia, and the Northern Caucasus."

Below is a diagram from the paper that shows the admixture estimates for each population (indicated under the title "Median"):

TABLE 4. Summary statistics for the posterior distributions of Central Asian admixture estimates (p1) in admixed populations:

Admixed population _ Median _ HPDa

Anatolia _____________ 0.127 ___ 0.000–0.474

Azerbaijan ___________ 0.315 ___ 0.000–0.843

Armenia _____________ 0.201 ___ 0.000–0.707

Georgia _____________ 0.217 ___ 0.000–0.596

Northern Caucasus ___ 0.221 ___ 0.000–0.771

Syria ________________ 0.326 ___ 0.000–0.858


As stated in the above quotation, the highest Central Asian contribution is seen in Syria (~33) and Azerbaijan (~32) in the diagram, while the lowest contibution is seen in Anatolia (~13). Again in line with the quotation, Armenia, Georgia and the Northern Caucasus display approximately the same ratio of Central Asian contribution (~20).

As can be seen the non Turkic speaking eastern neighbors of Turkey seem to have stronger Central Asian influences than Turkey does where CA influence is estimated at 13%. Central Asian influence in Armenia seems to be around 20%, around 22% in Georgia and the North Caucasus whereas in Syria its as high as 33% !

This would suggest the population of Turkey is a newer arrival since it does not fit in with the demographics of the nearest neighbours.

However it must be said that not all of the Central Asian influence found in Turkey (or in Armenia, Georgia, Syria etc) is down to Turkic settlement. Population movements between the Balkans, Asia Minor and Central Asia have been going on for thousands of years, back to a period before the Turkic peoples existed in Central Asia so a signicant level of Central Asian influence in Turkey today is down to prehistoric movements.

What are you trying to say here?

A segment of it is of course down to Turkic settlement however its very hard to determine how much. The same applies to the other regions sampled.

however its no surprise that the Caucasus nations have a stronger amount of CA influence, since they are closer to CA it makes sense they would have stronger influence from that region.

How do you explain the Syrian percentage?

Perhaps the markers used were meaningless for such a study!

I dont really see why you are so hostile to the idea of whats very obvious.

Nothing is obvious and I am only hostile to racists who try to use genetics to prove revisionist politics ... and once again you yield to the desire to interpret without evidence.

Not only did you fail to provide evidence last time of Turkish "evolution" from Hittites but you failed again.

What is more, as I showed you last time with the world-wide haplotype distributions, lack of similarity to your neighbours (who have been there thousands of years), such as you present above (although it's meaningless without knowing the numbers tested) merely confirms Turkey is populated by relatively recent arrivals ... Quite the opposite of what you rushly propose.

Once again, you have picked an isolated study (without providing the actual science) which shows nothing more than disparate percentages. Your attempts to draw meaningful population demographics and migrations from such a simple study are absurd.

You will soon start claiming Kurds are Islamized Armenians you ignorant bitch.