To Ianus comment of 18 June
Reader comment on item: Does Turkey Still Belong in NATO?
Submitted by Glafira (Russian Federation), Jun 28, 2009 at 09:37
Your emotions are really strong but your expertise is obviously below the level needed to discuss the subject. Your deliberations look too much like demagogy. You DON'T WANT to get deeply into the subject discussed so as to provide the weighed and reasonable ideas/argumentation. You want just to assure everybody that your are an expert in this field - which is far from the reality, - and thus only your point of view (rather aggressive and intolerant) is worth to be accepted .....by whom? Armenian and Jewish people would mostly join you in your passionate tirade. Turkish people would probably take you as a lost cause. Slavic people would first divide but finally they would join Turks.
All that verbal flow you brought down in your last comment doesn't worth a penny since almost each point shows your ignorance. Because your knowledge is superficial and you are closed to a new one - otherwise your national sense of "chosen by God" will found itself in a threat. I'm really sorry to state this since I would be happier to support the bona fide (I like this definition, I admit) and cold-minded discussion. It is obvious that this is not the case.
There's an old Eastern proverb: "The dogs bark but the caravan goes on". You can be passionate in your unacceptance of the objective things – but will this help to understand the nature of things and then show wisdom in adjusting to the new upcoming changes in this real world?
I'm sure, such position is doomed to failure, both personal and at the ethnic level.
Re falsifications in history, particularly the European one, I'd recommend to read Uwe Topper's books.
Re linguistic issues, nobody of the bona fide linguists nowadays considers the vocabulary cited by you as a gospel. Let me bring to your notice that the well known Slavist, acad. Likhachev (the universally recognized authority in his field) had to agree with Mr. Suleymenov on most of points, finaly. Even on the origin of the name of such a day-to-day thing as spaghetti: it's originated from Turk "yspaghan (ypysken, in Qypchaque) ety". Which means "boiled meat". By the way, the German "der Spagat" also came from the same source. As well as "der Spigel" (mirror, in German) came from ancient Slavic "zrit' " (to see, to look).
As to Sumeric and Turk identity, there's a vast literature on this and the fact that you ignore this doesn't prevent it from existing.
In 1869, Jules Opert (who named this languge Sumeric), stated that it relates to the Turk, Finnish and Hungarian (Ugr) languages. In 1874, Francus Lenorment linked the Sumeric language to the Ural-Altay group. This point of view was shared also by Fritz Hommel, Izakar Andreas and Iren Iskender. But the most significant support for this relation was provided by such outstanding sumerologists as Falkenstein, A., Shmekel, Kh. and Kramer, S.
It's notable that in all Russian translations of Kramer's works, this idea is omitted. – which reminds to me your position: "Turks can't be before/older/more civilized, etc. than Jewish or any other (Russian, e.g.) ethnos".
Re Khazars – you should read carefully Gumilev's work. He provides the complete reference list of sources on this subject. It's quite clear, from his analysis, that the Khazar quaghanat was the state where the Jewish ethnos acquired the leading role and became the political elite, while the Turks-Khazars became an exploited group. The children from mixed marriages were not equal in their rights and future: those from mothers-Jewish had a lot of options to choose from, they were taught in Jewish schools by rabbis and then took the leading positions in the power hierarchy.
The fate of Khazars born from Khazar mothers was quite poor. But one can find this in the book mentioned above.
The immorality of the Khazar quaghanat was exactly in its structure. Gumilev also stresses that the Jewish state didn't leave ANY traces of material culture and their civilization. Just because their principal wealth was money and money exchange. They even didn't coin money – they used the Arabic dirhams which are found a lot between Caspian and Black seas. Doesn't this remind one the current situation in the world, particularly in Russia, where nothing is manufactured – last week I bought in our supermarket radish which was planted and brought from Israel…. ?
As to knowing in depth Gumilev's works, you show the same ignorance, unfortunately. But, maybe it's not your fault. The relation between Turk and American Indians' languages can be found in such work as "The Ancient Russia and Great Steppe" – which can be not available in English or German – you're the victim of the policy of those people who share your own approach to ignore everything that affects your/their sense of superiority. But it's your choice, of course.
I won't comment your attempts re genetic analysis since it's quite obvious that your at zero level their.
To resume, please, don't keep yourself busy and comment my comment to your comment – I won't waste my time anymore to read them due to the reasons above.
But thank you for revealing your nature – it helps to understand the nature of such phenomenon as a global national intolerance in general, and the everyday nationalism, in particular. It's the militant ignorance in it plus deep inferiority complex.
Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".
Reader comments (530) on this item
Comment on this item
Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum. Daniel J. Pipes