Originally posted by indigen
View Post
No doubt there are some (visible) genetic remnants amongst some Macedonians, here and there, but the vast majority of Macedonians do not have any visible features of the Turko-Mongol type as there was little genetic input in the first place. Also, I have no issue with any Macedonian (ethhic or national) of whatever genetic, ethnic or cultural background as long as they are pro Macedonian.
it makes sense to think that a small Turko-Mongol military elite established a state system over a foreign Anatolian element and, due to many factors, over time its language prevailed. This is similar to what the Arabs achieved over vast non-Arab populations (and areas) and what Magyars (Hun/garians) did in Hungary.
The ethnogenesis of Central Asia
Have a read of what PROUD Turko-Mongols of Central Asia think about this topic at the link above and it may help your understanding of Turkish ethogenesis.
The ethnogenesis of Central Asia
Have a read of what PROUD Turko-Mongols of Central Asia think about this topic at the link above and it may help your understanding of Turkish ethogenesis.
Your facebook link contains other fallacy, the theory of "Scythians=Aryans only". According to that, literally all people of Eurasia, Caucasus was white, Aryan Indo-Eu speaking Scythians in 1st BC, then the "Turko-Mongols" dropped from sky at 2th century AD and managed to assimilate all the people in vast central Asia, so in like 200 years of time, "beautiful" Indo-Eu language erased from the minds of Scythians and replaced by the language of "Turko-Mongols" without any education system whatsoever!!!
Tell me, why should i believe this western european theory invented after 19th century when they were trying to eradicate Turkish presence by any means from Europe? I read and believe the Roman, Byzantine, Arab, Jewish archives of medieval era and our own Turkic inscriptions of that time where it does relate the events as exact opposite of these 19th century inventions.
I see you have caught the "Europeids" bug of the revisionist Bulgar "historians" such as Petar Dobrev! Hahaha....:-)
Well, there are some clear races with distinguishing features and all else are a mixture of those. You are not happy because, like the Magyars, Turks in the main are only Turkish in language (and elements of culture) but not much by blood whilst your Turko-Mongol Bulgar cousins did not preserve either language or culture (except for newly invented myths of the modern era). :-)
Besides, danube Bulgars are not my cousins since they have zero connection with the real Bulgars except their name anymore. They have been totally assimilated and i only take account of the ideas, not the blood.
Comment