3rd of October closing in - Hotline for Turkey

Quote:

---

It remains that basing political decisions on race is by definition racist.

---

Slightly OT but if that is true then the term racist loses a fair bit of meaning. After all, all immigration policy is based on race (OK, strictly nationality, which makes it only indirectly racist in strict legal terms. In day to day terms it comes to the same thing in most cases).

Anyway as far as Turkey is concerend the issues are surely not what race they are but whether they are geographically and culturally close enough to the rest of the EU to make integration possible. Which it seems to me they are.

Certainly on economic grounds I can see no reason on earth why the turks would be locked out when the greeks were let in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A.Saturnus

Turkey is historically and culturally part of Europe.

---

Not really. Historically they have arrived pretty late, about medieval times or late medieval times. Culturally they are nothing like any other state in europe. The fact that they have our alphabet is coincidental because it was all Ataturk's vision for turkey, not turkish culture itself.

There is nothing european about turkey. You can't make a case for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

I had also indicated that I am an anti-EU sider.

---

Continue that way. ~;) You don`t need EU. We`re not a part of it, still we`re the best country in the world to live in. And number 2? Iceland, yet another non-EU member state..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

What's going on in your country about Turkey lately? We are getting daily reports about politicians intentions and declarations everyday. But I'd like to know what the recent thoughts in individual terms are.

---

Nothing. ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

Not really. Historically they have arrived pretty late, about medieval times or late medieval times. Culturally they are nothing like any other state in europe. The fact that they have our alphabet is coincidental because it was all Ataturk's vision for turkey, not turkish culture itself.

There is nothing european about turkey. You can't make a case for that.

---

WRONG! Turkey, in ancient time, was part of Europe. In fact, pre-Hellenic society (before 336 bc.) was europe.

Edit: Come to think of it, Homer, in fact mentioned Europa as mainland Greece opposed to the isles.

@Byzantine Prince

Yes, it was Ataturk's vision about using the Latin alphabet. That makes sense because a hero is a hero sice he possesses an accurate vision. It was pretty difficult for Turks to handle their language in Arabic writing, and with his excellent vision, Ataturk declared that Turkish can be well expressed with Latin alphabet.

The adoption of new alphabet brought some exclusive letters that is not used in most of the countries that use Latin alphabet. And that explains that it was not just copying the Western, it was all about fitting the Turkish in the best suit available.

Quote:

---

Continue that way. You don`t need EU. We`re not a part of it, still we`re the best country in the world to live in. And number 2? Iceland, yet another non-EU member state..

---

Norway? Oil Revenues.....

Iceland? Oh, come on. I'm a big fan of Iceland, been there twice on holiday (but then I've been to the Faroes three times, and I'm confident no other Org member can claim that,) but the second best country in the world to live in?

Lets get real. Its a lava desert in the north atlantic just south of the arctic circle. Not really a good model for Turkey.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

WRONG! Turkey, in ancient time

---

I really hope you are joking... :laugh4:
Just to clarify to anyone who doesn't know, turks didn't exist in ancient times. The oldest they can trace their anciestry is the time of Osman.

Europa was not described by homer. Its an old myth about some chick. Then it was later adopted as a name to describe Europe. Greeks refered to Anatolia(incliding the western coast) and Asia Minor, meaning it's in Asia.

BP, Turkey has lands in mainland Europe, and for centuries. If they chose to ask for permission to join EU, then they clearly pass the first test: being in Europe.

Though Asia was indeed original name of Asia Minor. The Aenead has several passages refering to Troy as some sort of "lords of Asia."

Still, your bitter opposition against Turkish attempt to join the EU smells of racism.

Edit: Oh, and their ancestry could be traced before Osman. At least during the Seljuks, for sure. Of course, they are a mixed people of mixed blood.

Byzantine Prince

Please try your claims being more rational.

First of all, saying "tracing before Osman" is just ridiculous. Osman was no Adam, he was not a sole father in any way. You may be referring to Ottomans maybe.

Secondly, Orkhon Scripts prove the existence of Turks at least lasting since 6th century. The first of the three epitaphs were erected by Bilge Khan of Gokturks. Second was erected by his son and the third one was by Tonyukuk.

For more info on the first state to call themselves "Turk" :

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

The same link proves the Huns to be ancestors of Turks as well, which was opposed in another thread before..

Result is clear.

6th century is not ancient. Also those turks were in the steppes, nowhere near where they would later go.

Quote:

---

First of all, saying "tracing before Osman"

---

I never said before. I said the turks were first known in a big way after Osman. I am aware of the fact that there are Seljuks and others.

Quote:

---

Still, your bitter opposition against Turkish attempt to join the EU smells of racism.

---

Heh, I guess the EU better omit the word European then because it's not PC enough. A lot of people think Turkey shouldn't join for the same reasons as me. I saw an interview with the former french president Valerie D'Estaing and he had the same opinion on why they shouldn't join. I'm not the only one who understands there are differences in the cultures and people's of europe and the turkish one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

6th century is not ancient. Also those turks were in the steppes, nowhere near where they would later go.

---

However the 6th Century is enough considering you stated that you would allow Israel to join the EU - and they have only been settled by Europeans since just before WW2 - with the main immigration after the war. It seems you want to allow Israel into the European Union when it also sets in Asia.

Lets refresh our memories with your statement

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince post #60

I am aware that they are semites, but none of the look like it. A lot of Israelis are blonde and red headed, and also most of them look pure white. That indicates a mostly european background. Think about it, they arived in France in the medival times . They mixed in a millions times since then.

So yeah Israel could enter the EU.

---

The country that is Turkey has a varity of peoples that have lived there with many even remain there - and as mentioned before - lets see Rome even had a second capital there. Same as it seems that many people of Greek decent also live in Turkery. (by all means correct me if I am wrong LeftEyeNine). If the nation that is now Turkey has had over the last 2500 odd years intermingling of culture, peoples, and have in fact been invaded and held by European Powers - and in fact have also invaded and held lands in Europe don't qualify for the European Union - then Israel surely does not either.

Quote:

---

Heh, I guess the EU better omit the word European then because it's not PC enough. A lot of people think Turkey shouldn't join for the same reasons as me. I saw an interview with the former french president Valerie D'Estaing and he had the same opinion on why they shouldn't join. I'm not the only one who understands there are differences in the cultures and people's of europe and the turkish one.

---

Yep but your one of the ones who stated that Israel can join the European Union but Turkey can not. You opened the barn door to the arguement.

Byzantine Prince

6th century is an old time as it was when the Migration period occured by how the modern European nations were formed.

Interesting, huh ? :laugh4:

Right now Europe's economy is a shambles, if Turkey enters I fear for old Blighty!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

Iceland? Oh, come on. I'm a big fan of Iceland, been there twice on holiday (but then I've been to the Faroes three times, and I'm confident no other Org member can claim that,) but the second best country in the world to live in?

---

IIRC the UN said so, based on Human Development Index.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

Lets get real. Its a lava desert in the north atlantic just south of the arctic circle. Not really a good model for Turkey.

---

I know. I was just looking at some interesting facts.

For friends denying the long roots of Turks :

Quote:

---

According to Mahmud of Kashgar, an 11th century Turkic scholar and various other traditional Islamic scholars and historians, the name "Turk" stems from "Tur" who can be identified with the Biblical "Tiras" one of the sons of Japhet, who also comes from the same lineage of Gomer (Cimmerians) and Ashkenaz (Scythians, Ishkuz) who were some of the earliest Turks. Japhet was the son of the Biblical Noah, whos descendants settled in the land corresponding to Central Asia and Euroasia, the region between the Ural and Altai mountains, a land described as Turkistan or Turan. In the Zend Avesta (Yasna 46.12) the "Tur" people are mentioned.

In the earliest Turkic dictionary extant, the eponymous hero of the Turks, Alp Er Tunga, is identified with the character Afrasiyab in Persian literature. Alp Er Tunga dates from the time of the Scythians (Ishkuz) and is a symbolic figure in Turkic tradition; the Gokturks of the sixth century carried on the tradition of Alp Er Tunga and they too believed to be descendants of a wolf, just as Alp Er Tunga had. He appears with the name "Frangasyan" in the Zend Avesta, and according to the "Book of Kings" written by the Farsi author Ferdowsi, Afrasiyab was hunted down and killed in Azerbaijan. The name "Turk" was initially pronounced "Turuk, Tur-uk" is a plural of "Tur." Thus one meaning of the word Turk is "The Turs." The second meaning of Turk is "strong" or "powerful." Some have stated that the name Turk is a name of a helmet-shaped hill in present-day Xinjiang yet the lineage of Turks to Japhet and the early Tur people and the designation of strong/powerful are the definition and root of the word

---

Quote:

---

It is generally believed that the first Turkic people were native to Central Asia. Some historians claim that the Turks originated in Western Asia, and migrated to Central Asia in prehistoric times; while others believe that migration to Western Asia occurred via Central Asia before the advent of the Huns. Some scholars consider the Huns, whose origins may go back to 1200 BC, as one of the earlier Turkic-Mongol tribes.

The precise date of the initial expansion from the early homeland remains unknown. The first state known as "Turk", giving its name to the many states and peoples afterwards, was that of the Gokturks (gog = "blue" or "celestial") in the 6th century AD. The head of the Asena clan led his people from Li-jien (modern ZhelaiZhai) to the Juan Juan seeking inclusion in their confederacy and protectioon from China. His tribe were famed metal smiths and were granted land near a mountain quarry which looked like a helmet from which they got their name 突厥. A century later their power had increased such that they conquered the Juan Juan ad set about establishing their Gok Empire

---

First one is Nomenclature and second part is from the History topics about Turks extracted from Wikipedia..