posted
According to the university of Calgary, the main body of Turks (excluding those that came as Slave soldiers of the Arabs - Mamluks), they didn't just come to the west from Asia: THEY WERE DRIVEN WEST BY THE MONGOLS!
It seems only fair to me, that all Blacks who can prove genetic heritage in Turkey, Eastern and southern Europe, have a valid claim for reparations from the Chinese! Who just happen to be getting rich these days.
For the Blacks in Africa and Arabia, the guilty party is the Arabs for bringing the Turks in the first place. But alas, where is one to find a Black Arab with money, those ass-holes are long gone, replaced by their Turks.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness: who were the black ancestors of the Turks?
The earliest pictures of Turks, show them to be of the same appearance as all other Albinos from Asia. They did not take on the Brown coloration of today's Turks, until they started to cross-breed with the native Blacks.
posted
^^^^^so you would say that white people are albino Dravidians of the India region.
You also say that the real Europeans were black people, that whites are really central Asians. So it seems inconsistent if you say that that "albino Dravidians" came into Anatolia and took over indigenous black people there that "turk" is an acceptable term. "Turk is is the first part of that word "Turkey" the geographical region. So if you believe it's improper to call whites in Europe Europeans then why would you consider it acceptable to call whites (or part whites) Turks if they are not indigenous to that area.
If the are indigenous to India or somewhere bordering India what date or range of dates would you say that the first white community (Dravidian albino) could have formed?
__________________________________________
The lands of the Anatolian peoples were invaded by a number of peoples and empires at high frequency: the Medes, the Persians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Galatian Celts, the Phrygians and Bithyni (who were related to the Thracians and other Balkan peoples), and the Oghuz Turks.
The period between Alexanders death and the Roman conquest of Anatolia is called the Hellenistic age. The mixture of Greek and Anatolian cultures resulted in a new civilization, the Hellenistic.
After Alexander's death three major monarchies emerged out of the wars of the Diadochi; Macedonia under the rule of Antigonus, Egypt under that of Ptolemy and Anatolia under that of Seleucus.
Then followed the rise of a number of independent states in Anatolia among them Bithynia, Cappadocia, Pergamum and Pontus all of which were eventually absorbed by the Roman Empire in the 1CBC
Thus by the time that these first White invaders of Europe; the Hellenes (Greeks) and the Latin's (Romans), had learned to read and write, and were recording their own history, almost 500 years had passed..... This then is what the White Greeks were faced with, now that they could finally write, all memories of their former lives in Asia had been lost, and all memories of their early beginnings in Europe were in the form of oral history, passed down from generation to generation.
so it appears that non-Turk whites were in Anatolia well before Turks.
This also leads to the Hellenes (323 BC - 27 BC) BC), who you say are white and the Romans who you say on the site who became predominantly white in 506 BC. Of course it would be ridiculous to call these Greek and Roman whites "Turks" since this is far before the Turks entered history.
So according to your theory the periods where Greece and Rome became predominantly white was due to migration or invasion be albino Dravidians originating in India or nearby.
The first historical mention of the Turks is in Chinese accounts of a great empire established by a confederation of nomads in the 6th century AD. Stretching from north of the Great Wall in the east to the Black Sea in the west, the empire is known to the Chinese as T'u Küe and to the Turks themselves as Gök Türk, meaning Sky Turk.
It is generally agreed that the first Turkic people lived in a region extending from Central Asia to Siberia with the majority of them living in China historically. The earliest separate Turkic peoples appeared on the peripheries of the late Xiongnu confederation (contemporaneous with the Chinese Han Dynasty). Turkic tribes, such as Khazars and Pechenegs, probably lived as nomads for many years before establishing the Göktürk Empire in the 6th century. These were Chinese herdsmen and nobles who were searching for new pastures and wealth. The first mention of Turks was in a Chinese text that mentioned trade of Turk tribes with the Sogdians along the Silk Road. The first recorded use of "Turk" as a political name is a 6th-century reference to the word pronounced in Modern Chinese as Tujue.
So this history of the Turks, whether you agree with it or not is not even in the BCE period.
We white people as your website mentions hundreds of years into the BC period.
Within this period there would have been white Greek and Romans, some having children with Africans. If these children would have married other whites we would have quadroons etc., people that are mainly white but have darker skin. perhaps some people in the Middle East fall into this category rather than calling them all "Turks"
But you have the tendency to call anybody who looks like this a "Turk" to the extent making it seem like there were no white people before the Ottomans.
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Damn lioness, when you talk sensible it gets scary, like expecting an Earthquake or something - oh wait, there WAS an Earthquake in New Zealand.
Anyway, yes, of course there were Whites before the Turks - but in numbers noway near the Turks - Except the Germanic's in Europe. (Now - almost everyone in Europe is a Germanic).
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^In the dark, you can't tell who is who, until you start stepping on toes. Then you know who is who by the SQUEAL!
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Turkish ethnicity historically stretches far into East Asia somehow -- this does not prove all these people Mike(binarysev) comments are related are actually related. I'd like to see some genetic evidence.
posted
The Natufians had primitive features but they were not Negroid.
Posts: 695 | From: وكان المصريون القدماء القوقازين | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
So I'll take it Mike knows nothing about genetics, jsut a little about history?
Plus I'd wonder how all those people could be related and all be descendants of mainly Mamluk slaves.
Plus I'll tek it from the picture spam that Mikey's ignorant of a thing called convergent evolution.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember how a few months ago, right before the war started in Lybia. People of Turkish descent moved back to Turkey.
Lots of them were at the airport....trying to get out as fast as possible.
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
The basal population in lands you now find Turks was African / Negro / black.
Turks are dark because when snow white whites came from the north, these populations below were there and Turk dark skin comes from the descendants of the Africans / blacks / Negroes below:
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic