Are Koreans and Japanese part of Turkish people?
Posted in xn--kfs74mzzid01b.com edit by jane on January 7th, 2009
Ottoman and Azerbaijan people no longer look like the true Turks, but Uygurs are from their same family.
I think the Japanese and Koreans still look different from Uygurs. In China, I had a hard time telling difference between some Han Chinese and Uygurs. But, Japanese and Koreans I can tell instantly because of their distinctive eye shapes.
Do Japanese people have very high regard for Turkish people and their historic empires? For the Altaic people, the Turkish ones (including Huns, Seljuks, Ottomans, Tatars) conquered and absorbed many distant lands and peoples far from their original homelands. Turkey still has a dreams of uniting all the Turkic and Altaic people under their rule. Do Koreans and Japanese consider themselves part of this family?
Many Japanese fear China and I understand. When I went to Turkey, the local people always ask me if I get mistreated for being minority in China? I tell them it is much more complex situation.
As such, I am quite certain that Koreans and Japanese are not part of the Turkish, or even Turkic peoples.
These broad generalizations are ridiculous. Plain and simple. I'm sick to death of it.
japanese and korean mainstream seems to be c.asian clearly but the lands of the occupied territories were already settled both in japan and turkey, simply creating a new stereotype(turkish people belongs to the anadolu sub-race of turan and japan is estimated to be the specialized south mongoloid race)
even the main stream and mixture of proto turkic people(s) unknown.also c.asia gave birth to many cultures/races not only turkic people
its believed that the mixture of far north asian tribes(who are they?????)created the term of proto turkic people whow drove the settlers of c.asia.it is also estimated that proto kyrgiz people belongs those who were droven out of c.asia and gained a turkic language.
the c.asian cultures and settlements such as kelteminar ,andronova and etc are not obvious enough to be turkic already.
as the sumerian connection was discovered to those c.asian people it is said that turkic race settle c.asia from sumerian territories.
the origin of hun and hiung nu tribes also are not so clear. its hard sometimes as we call them turkic. :?
the mongolic turkic and other relevant races' link to each other is not so clearly understood. may be just linguistic derivations occured within the same territory. :relief:
there is a serious homological (race connection) link within the korean/japanese people and turkish people. but never forget that whales and homo sapiens share the exactly same homological link. :note:
This post will be a lengthy one, but please try to read till the end, as I believe it is important that we sort out our terminology.
The technical ethnic term for Turkish people in Anatolia is Turkish.
1. Actually as you can see "Turkish" is the English name given to us, not the one we use to call ourselves.
We say we are "Türk", or "Turk" in case that you can not view Turkish / (or as we call it Türkçe) characters of the Latin alphabet.
Therefore, first of all Turkish could only be the "western" technical term.
2. However, if "Turkish" is the English counterpart of the original Turkish/Türkçe word "Türk", then "Turkish" (as an ethnical term) can not possibly be a technical term for Turks only in Anatolia as it's counterpart is much more older than any Western technical terminology attached to the subject.
The word Türk/Turk is an old one that was first used in Asia - I will again come to this later in the following paragraphs, not in Turkiye, while the word "Turkic" has no roots in our history, as none of us Turks used it as a name to describe ourselves in any part of the history until now.
Therefore I resent and refuse any attempt of distinguishing as such, - distinguishing Turkiye Turks from the rest.
My objection proves to be righteous if we go deeper in the subject:
Many different propositions have been made about the meaning of the word Türk, but maybe the most widely accepted one among them is that "Türk" means "strong".
In the very old times this word was used as "Türük", which later changed into Türk.
It is known that in the very early years we used our clan names among ourselves, as Hun, Uygur, Oguz, Kipchak, Pechenek and etc.. (For instance I am an Oguz, as I descend from Oguz Khan. While Uygurlar is an Uygur.)
The real emergence of the word "Türk" or in its original form "Türük" is a mystery, however the earliest written form of "Türk" dates back to very ancient times. The oldest appereance of the word is in the Chinese Archives in 1328 B.C., when neither Ottoman Empire nor Turkiye did exist. Then who were those Turkish that Chinese talked about?
"Türk" most probably was a word that was used for "all" of the clans, some of which I mentioned above. And again as I mentioned in the above, we called eachother by clan names but we were known to outside as Turks. Therefore while Chinese were saying "Türk" they were meaning which one of them was politically active at the time, that is the strongest clan to lead the rest of the clans. Because it was actually how things worked at the time. When Uygurs got stronger, they established their own rule and got to rule the rest of us under the flag of the Uygur State, and while we were the strongest we establised our own rule of Oguz Yabgu State and so on...
In addition to this "Türk" as a state name has found its use again much earlier than Turkiye of the modern times, when the Oguz clan established a new State in Asia and called it the Göktürk State, meaning Empyreal or Celestial Turk.
One theory says that Türk was just another clan, which later gave it's name to all clans Huns, Oguz etc. I believe there is no sound proof on the existance of another clan named Türk. However, even if it is true, it again arrives at the same point that since the very early times all the clans called themselves Türk.
And even after a 1000 years since my branch left Central Asia to move to West nothing much has changed, we still call ourselves Türk, and in our language there is no such distinction as Turkish or Turkic among Turks in overall. That's why I do not feel that I need to adopt such a distinction when I'm talking or writing in English, and I believe we Turks should in fact avoid adopting such a distinction.
---
3. *** Most importantly, in continuation of my analysis of your sentence:
The technical ethnic term for Turkish people in Anatolia is Turkish.
So, now even if we say after all this that the word "Turkish" can not really be an English counterpart of the word "Türk", as its meaning is narrowed down for some purposes only to mean Turkiye Turks, we would still have problem in the word "ethnic" here.
Because when you exclude Turks living outside of Turkiye the word "Turkish" can not go beyond a political term and can not possibly be an "ethnical" one. Because as far as ethnicity goes, you can not give different labels to Turks in Turkiye or Turks in lets say Turkmenistan.
Any such attempt would be a clear sign of ignoring the fact that all these people in Turkiye, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Khazakstan, Kyrgizistan, Tajikistan, Tatarstan, Western Thrace, Northern Cyprus, Northern Iraq, Azerbaijan, Southern Azerbaijan (Northern Iran), East Turkestan and in the most extreme end Yakutstan (and yet many more I couldn't mention) are all sharing the same culture, same tradition, same history, same ancestory, same language. For God's sake we are all of the same ethnicity. If you admit that Turkish is an ethnical term - which you just did with your above post- you come to admit that Turkish then should apply to all of these people.
-
As for the subject line goes, do you now mean that Japanese and Koreans are Turkic as their language is also classified as an Altaic one?
____________________
Gökçe
Ever heard of the oppression of Uygurs in China? Could be a reason.
satoh 1,914
suzuki 1,692
takahashi 1,406
tanaka 1,324
watanabe 1,090
itoh 1,072
yamamoto 1,068
nakamura 1,041
kobayashi 1,011
saitoh 908
kato 853
yoshida 828
yamada 811
sasaki 709
yamaguchi 636
matsumoto 627
inoue 604
kimura 573
hayashi 537
shimizu 520
temperate, humid climate and archipelago with complex geographical features made the basis for a rich flora, paddy rice growing, protein rich sushi fishery, and a home for refugees from strife-torn east asian segment of the continet perhaps....
friendship and genetics are two different things.
Well said!
As for that if Turkish hate Chinese, Chinese hate Japanese, in fact, A nationality or ethnicity shouldn't be hated by another one, but i think it's a normal thing if a Chinese hate Japanese invasion of China during wwII and a Turkish hate Chinese racism crime againist their Turkic brothers Uighurs during the past 50 years.
The general consensus:
Turkey came into being after an Altaic people (the Oghuz) came from central Asia to Anatolia, interbred with and/or displaced the existing peoples, from the 9th century onwards. There is little claim to maintaining the traditions of previously existing kingdoms (ie the Hittites), in fact, as Okan's response suggests, there seems to be a cultural aversion to the idea.
Japan came into being after a possibly Altaic people (the Yamato) came from central Asia to the Japanese islands (with some Korean admixture), interbred with and/or displaced the existing peoples (the Jomon); from the 5th century BCE onwards. There is PLENTY of claim to maintaining the traditions of previously existing peoples.
Japanese culture seems to have more of a syncretic tradition than Turkish culture. Very interesting.
Sorry for the delay, just arrived home last Sunday.
I will post my reply as soon as possible.
wait a sec uygurlar, so now it is a situation where Turkish people are anti chinese too?? Having to have chinese blood in me, I kind of wonder what Turkey holds against China??? I mean look at their distances from the map! Once in a while I get this evil glare from this Turkish girl in class this year, I never thought it meant anything but now that you mentioned it... Why do Turkish people hate Chinese people? Why are Chinese people hated more than Japanese people?? It is not like one is better than the other. I tried to talk to this Turkish classmate as peaceful as possible, but her response seems to become more aggressive towards chinese people by the day....... Yeah I have chinese blood and decendancy but should I be ashamed?
No offence intended, just some random ideas and questions and that is all, plain and simple...... or maybe it is another misunderstanding of my again???
And Uygurlar, you said you went to Turkey? Did the people their hold a special 1000+ years grudge against Chinese people when you were asked whether you were oppressed or not?? Which do they hate more, Saddam, Baathist, Kurds, Armenians or Chinese? Which gets mentioned more??
I am just asking this because I was wondering whether it will help solve my little problem at school. This Turkish girl just kinda appeared outta nowhere and after the 5th week of classes she admitted rudely in my face that she hates Chinese and that I should repent, but when I ask what I should repent for she called me an ignorant bum and spat on my shoe. What is that all about?? Ignorant of what?? Can someone guide me in the right direction here?
I do know a Japanese author, U. Masami, who holds that Japanese people have a more diverse cultural heritage than others give them credit for. All of my profs think this guy is crackpot. Masami even speculates that the Ark of the Covenant is in Shikoku.
Anyway...
To the best of my knowledge, there were 3 major migrations of people into Japan. And yes, on group was from North Central Asia, possibly Khazak but more likely Manchu. As far as nomadic Muslim culture goes, I doubt Japan has much of a connection.
We say we are "Türk", or "Turk" in case that you can not view Turkish / (or as we call it Türkçe) characters of the Latin alphabet.
Therefore, first of all Turkish could only be the "western" technical term.
Since we use English to communicate here, it's obviously the English terminology we should adopt. Everything here would become a bit complicated if we all used the terminology of our own languages.
The real emergence of the word "Türk" or in its original form "Türük" is a mystery, however the earliest written form of "Türk" dates back to very ancient times. The oldest appereance of the word is in the Chinese Archives in 1328 B.C., when neither Ottoman Empire nor Turkiye did exist. Then who were those Turkish that Chinese talked about?
Interesting, do you have any sources for this 1328 BC? For what I know, from those times we have only some (well, quite a lot, actually) Chinese oracle bones, no archives.
If you're talking of the Tujue (突厥), they appeared in Chinese history only in the 5th century AD, AFAIK.
Because when you exclude Turks living outside of Turkiye the word "Turkish" can not go beyond a political term and can not possibly be an "ethnical" one. Because as far as ethnicity goes, you can not give different labels to Turks in Turkiye or Turks in lets say Turkmenistan.
Well, in language not much is really as easy as it seems. If you take a look at M-W (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Turkish) you will see that Turkish & Turkic are partially interchangeable. But for what I know Turkic is mainly used as a linguistic term for the language family & sometimes people who belong to that language family, while Turkish mostly refers to the country, its people & national language.
Because when you exclude Turks living outside of Turkiye the word "Turkish" can not go beyond a political term and can not possibly be an "ethnical" one.
Ethnic is not as clearly defined as you seem to think, it can denote "groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background" (from M-W).
BTW, what is actually with the Kurds (edit: not to forget Zaza & some other smaller minorities)? They are Turks, but their mothertongue is not Turkish. Their language is Kurdish, which belongs to the Iranian branch of Indo-European languages.
so sorry mandylion but i didnt catch what you mean really... ı suffer english that it takes more than 8 years that i didnt use english...(my quality of english WAS almost native) but now as you see my other texts.....no grammar/vocab.and pron. left behind ...
i posted the explanation for uygurlar,showing that there İS a link between japan and turkish people geneticly.as you carefully consider my text i tried to mean how genetic may be nothing.all people on this globe carries out to be the same human being.the important thing is the culture we carry.culture is the software of human being.i mean that we MAYBE relatives or not but this wont change anything.we are just departed cultures...but carry out friendship
and i used the word RACE as an scientific explanation,just a biological term ... i never mentioned racist mind or explanations...
i just used the term/word of race from the encyl. Meydan Larousse
My reply to a similar theory to yours - a post about "so-called" studies on a small sample of people - can be found on this address: http://forum.japantoday.com/m_128756/mpage_2/key_//tm.htm#153448
You can see my objections on the issue, if you read that thread, you can also find following replies about the issue there.
Uygurlar - I'm not sure if you are still logging in but -, I must say I find terms like "true Turks", that discriminate Turks regarding facial structures highly offensive. It is true that Seljuk / Ottoman / Turkiye Turks mostly look different than Saha or Uygur Turks. But then I have to remind you that it is not the shape of your eyes that makes you a "true" Turk.
Because if we follow this form of reasoning, my family, which looks not much different than Turks in East Turkestan, and some members of which are thought to be Uzbek Turks while some are mistaken to be Japanese!, would be called true Turks, but I would then be left out because I do not look like any of the Uygur, Saha, Mongol or even Japanese. !?
And aaltun, I believe you abuse the word "Turkish", by only using it for Turks in Turkiye, which you choose to call "Asia Minor". Foreign politicans may do that, but we as Turks should not do so.
It is equally offensive if not more as the term "true Turks". You call yourself Turkish while calling Turks not living in Turkiye "Turkic". Is it because you think they are less Turk than you are?
And one other interesting point I noticed is that you give Turkmens as an example to "Turkic people". Are you not aware that you are also a Turkmen? Turkmen means a Muslim Turk of the Oguz Clan. And don't you know that Turks in Turkiye are overwhelmingly of Oguz branch of Turks? Don't you remember that Ottoman Emperor Family is also of the Kayi clan of the Bozok branch of Oguz Turks? Did you forget that you descend from Oguz Khan just like Turks in Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan, Iraq and etc. do? If not please tell me why you distinguish even among Oguz Turks?
My above remark on Oguz Turks, was just because you gave Turkmenistan as an example. However I believe calling Saha or Uygurs "Turkic" is equally absurd.
Would you call Attila and his people Huns "Turkic"? Or would you call Teoman and his people "Turkic"? Would you call Uygur State of the old times "Turkic"? If not why do you now call their descendants Turkic? Why do you call Saha that claim to be the grandchildren of the Huns Turkic? Why do you call Uygurs of the East Turkestan Turkic? Why do you call Turks of the Central Asia Turkic? What has changed? Is it because they were/are occupied by Russia and China?
You keep telling that Turks in Central Asia don't want to be called Turks. And you are making broad generalizations about them, which fortunately can not be applied to all. Because many people I have spoken to or many people I've heard of from Iraq, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Kyrgizistan do consider themselves Turk, as oppose to what you say. They pay frequent visits to Turkiye, and try to build strong ties with us.
Both of you are doing the same thing, and causing offense to both sides - one by "true Turks" the other by "Turkic ones", but guess I am the only one, who sees the wrong in this.
I once or twice may have done the same mistake because of repeated exposure to the word "Turkic". However I believe everyone of us Turks should protest the usage of the word "Turkic" to describe Turks outside of Turkiye.
They are not less Turkish than we are, and we are not less Turkish than they are. "Turkic" is a made up word, a propaganda. And we should be clever enough not to buy that! And no matter how much we are exposed to such imposations by foreigner politicans, we should understand its true danger and agree on refusing it completely.
Because in the end we are all Turkish.
hi wang ! nice to meet you
so you are so sure about it.Then a bat is a bird.Ornitorenk is a duck.
this type of classification seems to be so much general . what else matters ...i am quite sure ...i am a homo sapiens
the youth and sports festival was cngrltd 2 days ago...
-peace at home peace at world -M Kemal Atatürk
The frigate Ertuğrul was constructed at the İstanbul Shipyard in 1864. She sailed to Japan to pay a goodwill visit after an inoperative period of 13 years. On 18 September 1890, on her return voyage, she ran aground and sank in Japanese territorial waters. However, this loss, devastating though it was, brought with it a warm, sincere and emotional relationship between the Japanese and the Turkish Nations and in some sense, the Ertuğrul became the symbol of the Turkish-Japanese friendship. The Japanese youth wrote various poems and composed songs for the martyrs of Ertuğrul. In 1974, one of these songs was presented to the Naval Museum by the Consul General of Japan in İstanbul.Full Article (http://www.dzkk.tsk.mil.tr/English/Tarihce/ErtugrulFirkateyni.asp) Link 1 (http://www.turkey2003.jp/e/message.html) Link 2 (http://www.byegm.gov.tr/YAYINLARIMIZ/newspot/2003/may-jun/n6.htm) Link 3 (http://www.nhk.or.jp/projectx/135/)
http://www.town.kushimoto.wakayama.jp/kushimoto/kanko/gazo/toruhi1.jpg
This is nonsense. Japanese, Koreans, Mongols and Turks might be linguistically related, but the title of the thread is highly misleading, as the only common ancestor are not the Turks, but the Mongols. Besides, Japanese are probably mixed ethnically, with not only Mongol elements, but also Han Chinese, and most probably Ainu and Indonesian as well.
Please read my article on the origin of Japanese people (http://www.jref.com/culture/origins.shtml) for more info.
But which side of the middle east to they support more, Fundamentalist or Democratic??
Do you really need to ask that ? This is not even a matter of culture, language or ethnic group. Japan obviously supports democracy, and also supports the US before any middle eastern country. Without US pressure there would be no Japanese troops in the Middle East.
Why do Turkish people hate Chinese people? Why are Chinese people hated more than Japanese people??
Give me a break ! These are just things you've heard somewhere. Why would the average Turks "hate" (watch your vocabulary, as "hate" is a powerful word ; didn't you mean "dislike" or "have little affinity" ?) Chinese without having even met one. If one thing is true, it is that China is the world's most populous country and has been led by a vicious communist regime (vicious because under Mao, millions of Chinese died due to the foolishness of their leaders), and that brings fear to other countries. Fear leads to hate. Modern Japan has been symbolized by hi-tech, anime/manga and cuteness. Hardly something to be affraid of. That's why there are more foreign Japan-related sites and forums than there are for the 10 more populous China.
not all Turks are caucasoid. It depends on what you mean by Turk.
http://forum.japantoday.com/m_75640/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm ??
i.e., fatty facial covering, very thin eyes, wide faces, short forehead, etc.)
I think you obviously have not seen many koreans' looking,
Those physical features can be found many Koreans because Koreans were heavily mixed with Mongolian during the Koryo dynasty.(for nearly 100 years under Mongolian reign)
Especially the wide face feature.
Well said, Mad Pierrot!
Almost all situations are more complex than they seem in the news. Just like it is for you in your community, the situation between Japan and China is very complicated. I don't think it is quite right to say Japanese people fear China. The issue is much more complex than that.
All this speculation about which group of people came from that group etc. is a fun thought experiment, but when things start to get political (thinking money is being sent to the middle east because of some age-old lineage connection) things only get muddled up. If you want to take this argument to the extreme, since mankind as we know it seems to have come out of the Riff Valley in Africa, we are all Africans.
Trying to attach modern geo-politicial lables to gene study is a bit moot in my opinion. It only serves to confuse discussions on international issues.
friendship and genetics are two different things.
They are not less Turkish than we are, and we are not less Turkish than they are. "Turkic" is a made up word, a propaganda. And we should be clever enough not to buy that! And no matter how much we are exposed to such imposations by foreigner politicans, we should understand its true danger and agree on refusing it completely.
Because in the end we are all Turkish.
The technical ethnic term for Turkish people in Anatolia is Turkish. The name "Turkic" encompasses a whole range of Altaic groups throughout Eurasia.
#If you have any other info about this subject , Please add it free.# |
