Mongols of Genghis Khan were a Turkic Tribe - Mongol (2008) Discussion

[–] Tsotha-lanti 16 years ago

Why would I want proof?

"Turkic" and "Turkish" mean entirely different things in English, yet you seem to imply that they are the same.

reply

[–] XuDai 16 years ago

They're are more closer to Turkish people than to other ethnicities.

reply

[–] metto81 16 years ago

xiaowenzu, I thought I cleared this up with you in another post? That the Mongols are from the same race as you(chinese), the Japanese and Koreans.

Trust me, Mongols look a whole lot more like you than they do to me. I myself am part turk, the rest Greek, Morrocan and Egyptian. And again, I have a Turk friend from Kazakhastan who is pure white, blue eyed and blonde.

So please do not tell me that Genghis and the rest of the Mongols are closer to him than they are to you.

This is just more proof that the Chinese are masters of putting their problems and blames on anybody else, but themselves!

reply

[–] XuDai 16 years ago

Mongols are many things, but Chinese they are most certainly not. However, you would be correct to say that they are Asiatics - ie from the Asian regions just like Turks, persians, etc etc. And believe you me, the scientific world is still debating about this very topic, and there are more than a fair share of Turks, Persians and other Arabians who share Mongols genes - and vice versa - and loooking remarkably similar in appearance. Just like Spanish people can have dark hair, light hair.... so too exists discrepanicies WITHIN ethnicitis. Not all Chinese look alike, for that matter also.

Many Mongolians today are devout Muslims and Christians, a result of assimilation into the cultures which they had try to invade. To be fair, it's likely there's a small percentage of Mongol genetics in Chinese people, just like there's a bit of African blood in every person on earth. So, it's possible that some Mongols did fornicate with Chinese women, just like Mongols fornicated with Turks, Persians, etc. But Chinese, they are certainly not.

reply

[–] metto81 16 years ago

I love this guy! Can you believe that Mongols are closer to Arabs and Persians than they are to Chinese. Have you seen drawing of Genghis Khan, or how about his grand son, Kublai Khan. That man has the word Chinese written all over him.

reply

[–] XuDai 16 years ago

You have much to learn, my friend. Maybe if you are Chinese, then you'll understand.

Some enlightment for you:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_ article_id=456789&in_page_id=1811

Still Chinese?

reply

[–] metto81 16 years ago

Genghis Khan and his people raped my foreign women like Persian and Arab, yes. I'm not arguing with you on that. However, this does not mean they are of Arab/Persian ancestry. Mongols are from the same yellow race as you, Koreans and Japanese.

You take me for example, I am part Turk, Greek and Arab and I sleep with your women. Does that MAKE ME of Chinese origin???

reply

[–] XuDai 16 years ago

The Mongols also raped foreign women such as the Chinese and Koreans too. We were all victims of the Turkic Nomadic tribes, who were blood related to Arabs... Even the name 'Khan' is non-Chinese.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rachid_usmc 16 years ago

They're are more closer to Turkish people than to other ethnicities.

You mean turkic, not turkish. Two different words. But besides the matter, Mongols have more in common with Chinese, Korean, and other asiatic countries.

reply

[–] metto81 16 years ago

That's what I been trying to tell him for the past week. I'm glad to see that there is another sane and down to earth person on these threads :)

reply

[–] sexfiendjoy 16 years ago

Lol, this whole debate is cracking me up; Saying the Mongols and Chinese are similar is like saying people from India is related to Latinas, because they are both brownies, and are from south of the equator. LOL

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] metto81 16 years ago

latinos were Mestizos (Native Americans) indigenous to South America. While Indians are indigenous to India. Completely different people.

But Mongol and China are STUCK together!

reply

[–] XuDai 16 years ago

Good to see you are learning.

Indians and China are STUCK together! They are Asians! LOL

reply

[–] rachid_usmc 16 years ago

This reminds me of that one big debate in the Attila movie forum when I was trying to reason with some of the "Turkish" folks over there. This one fella was totally convinced that the Mongols and people from Turkey are the same! When I brought up that it was the culture similarity thing he flipped out and said i was "turk hater" ...lol!

reply

[–] bladeseed 16 years ago

glad this has turned into a civilised debate. But metto81, can you please reduce your racist remarks? You know what I'm talking about and don't bring up your nonsense holier-than-thou rhetoric to say otherwise. Please learn to act like an adult and not some hot-headed kid.

reply

[–] pk_000 16 years ago

and drawings of jesus make him look like leonardo da vinci's cousin..

reply

[–] marenqo 16 years ago

What are Chinese anyways? They are a collected political entity. Are they Han? Than most Chinese are not Chinese. The Mogols are more more mongol than the Chinese are Chinese.

"May the outward and inward man be at one""

reply

[–] douglucchetti 15 years ago

Some very interesting arguement going on here. Thanks Asian Film Guru for much of your input. I would however caution that much of the difference in perspective is due to the imprecise use of words such as Turk or turkic. In most contexts the word Turkic referrs to the language/culture, which can easily be very different from the genetic contribution of the original speakers of the language. It all gets particularly murky when odd notions of nationality and race, two equally imprecise words when used as they have been used here, are employed. Hopefully people will go on to do some research and come away somewhat enlightened...though humans aren't all the famous for that, sadly.

reply

[–] ContinentalOp 12 years ago

''I myself am part turk, the rest Greek, Morrocan and Egyptian''

And a complete idiot too. Mongols and Turkic people (including Turkish people regardless of the ''theories'' of pop scientist who do genetic tests without taking genetic drift into account) are closely related hence grouped as Turko-Mongol and Altaic. They are not very closely related to Han Chinese, ignoring the fact that many Altaic peoples (Turks, Mongols and Manchus) were ''Hanified''. Mongols and Turks are related somewhat closely to Japanese and Korean (Macro-Altaic) but not very much to Chinese (again ignoring some inevitable mixing)... at least not closely; but all humans are, technically, related groups.

If you hate Jesus Christ and are 100% proud of it copy this and make it your signature!

reply

[–] DurakSuka 8 years ago

What would a sand *beep* like you know about "race" anyway? You don't even know that that term has been rendered obsolete. A white Turk? Hahaha...that's why your ilk are referred to as *beep* in Germany. Stop dreaming and *beep* off back to your *beep* you poor twat.

Hama cheez ba-Beer behtar meshawad!

reply

[–] DurakSuka 8 years ago

What would a sand *beep* like you know about "race" anyway? You don't even know that that term has been rendered obsolete. A white Turk? Hahaha...that's why your ilk are referred to as *beep* in Germany. Stop dreaming and *beep* off back to your *beep* you poor twat.

Hama cheez ba-Beer behtar meshawad!

reply

[–] serenity159 8 years ago

Yeah it looks like the Germans need another spanking. Third time's a charm :P

~Luca Brasi sleeps with the fishes~

reply

[–] acidbenvolio 16 years ago

The Turkic tribes were from the northern parts of central and eastern asia as you say, and thus influenced and were influenced by their neighbours, especially in their pre-Mongol push into China and Western states.

When nomadic tribes push into many different areas, they tend to leave some behind that intermarry, and MAGICALLY, everyone's a bit Turkic, and the Mongolians are a bit everyone.

Common sense, people.

reply

[–] EnronForPresident 16 years ago

There is not a lot in common between Chinese and nomadic people of central Asia except for phenotype. Culturally, we are completely different and closer to Turks. Why does that sound so outrageous?

reply

[–] LiveTogetherDialAPhone 16 years ago

"They're are more closer to Turkish people than to other ethnicities."

Not necessarilly. The Turks who invaded and conquered Anatolia, such as the Seljuks, were relatively small in number compared to the people who were already living in Anatolia when the Turks arrived. They left a small genetic impact, but the dominance of Turkish language and customs in modern Turkey was more a process of acculturation of the indigenous populations than a full replacement of the people with ethnic Turks. The same can be said about the Byzantine Greek impact on Antolia before the arrival of the Turks.

The base of the modern-day population of Turkey goes back to Neolithic times, and was bolstered by the arrival of Indo-European peoples such as the Hittites, Luvians, and Phrygians, as well as the Iron Age. Smaller invading Indo-European groups, like the Cimmerians, Galatians, and Persians left a small impact. Greeks populated the coasts. The area was then Hellenized, as it remained throughout the Roman and Byzantine periods until the Seljuks arrived.

The modern-day Turks, then, are largely a mix of pre-Indo-European and Indo-European groups with various amounts of admixture from the many groups that passed through the area, including a substantial but not predominant contributation by Turkic peoples.

reply

[–] cagdas-2 16 years ago

ehm not the mongols my friend hahaha thats funny. Im a turk and we have nothing to do with our neighbours the mongols ..... yes we were together in the age of the Huns but not mongol my friend thats stupid. the Most of the Turk Tribes moved to anatolia in 1071 against the byzantine empire and settled there hahaha .... the rest stayed in old turkestan which is now kazahkstan, uzb4ekistan kirgistan, azerbaydjan and so on .....

reply

[–] largo-9 16 years ago

Actually the Turkish tribes did start their migration centuries before 1071. And funny enough they had to leave the central Asia because of the Mongol and Persian pressure.

reply

[–] JMongrel71 16 years ago

The original Turks, like the Mongols, were from the Mongoloid race of people, just like the Chinese and Koreans. As the Turks slowly advanced westward, they conquered and intermingled the Caucasoid peoples of Central Asia (who outnumbered them) until they look like what they do today, which is predominately Caucasian. There are still Turkic speaking peoples in Siberia who look Mongoloid, however.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] JMongrel71 16 years ago

The Chinese are actually a mixture of Mongoloid and Austronesian. The Austronesians are a broad group that includes the Malays and Polynesians. The original Mongoloid Han Chinese inhabited the North China Plain, while South China was originally inhabited by Austronesians. Eventually, the North conquered the South and the two groups interbred. Even today, the farther south you go in China, the more likely you are to find people with some Austronesian characteristics (darker skin, wider noses, less pronounced epicanthic folds in the eyelids). One of the only pure Austronesian groups left are the Aborigines of Taiwan, who look very similar to Polynesians.

reply

[–] [email protected] (1640) 2 years ago

Austronesians are mongoloids, Austroasiatics are also mongoloids fyi. And you'll find more pure Austronesians in the Philippines and Indonesia than in Taiwan, though majority of Indonesians are half austroasiatics.

reply

[–] smelius88 16 years ago

are ppl getting confused with the words tatar, turkic, turkish and mongol.. cos i always thought they were different (with some having related ancestry).. i have just got so confused reading this thread... i am turkish.. but my father is a crimean tatar (but raised in turkey, so he doesnt know the language or anything).. and i always thought that the tatars were a turkic group originally from mongolia.. that moved westward and became so intermingled with the inhabitants, that alot of ppl from those areas (some areas more greatly) are partly tatar.. so the word tatar is only loosely used right?..

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] xfuryx 16 years ago

Mongol this. Mongol that. Stop acting like a bunch of mongols. Unless you really are a mongol. Then, by all means continue.

reply

[–] HellRaidertr 15 years ago

Lol,

best post

__________________
Hey soldier, do you know who's in command here?

reply

[–] KORKUSUZCAN 15 years ago

ffs.......... ghengiz khan mongols r turkic-mongol which came from GOKTURKS.
Göktürk Khans...
- 551-553 Bumin Kağan -- was the founder of the Göktürk Empire
- 553-576 İstemi Yabgu

The mythologies of the Turkic and Mongolian peoples (both groups speakers of Altaic languages) are related and have exerted strong influence on one another. Both groups of peoples qualify as Eurasian nomads and have been in close contact throughout history, especially in the context of the medieval Turco-Mongol empire.
The oldest mythological concept that can be reconstructed with any certainty is the sky god Tengri, attested from the Xiong Nu in the 2nd century BC.

which the split of the gokturks empire brings us here. Todays mongols and many others in asia including the chinese (some) have todays known turks blood in them and it doesnt stop there.
www.wiipedia.org has everything you need.

The Old Turkic script (also Göktürk script, Orkhon script, Orkhon-Yenisey script.

START THERE and seek ur answers.

reply

[–] aliaksar2000 15 years ago

Quoted by metto81: I love this guy! Can you believe that Mongols are closer to Arabs and Persians than they are to Chinese...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, although I don't really understand why the origin of Turks or Mongols or Chinese is so important, and although I don't care about nationalities at all, but personalties, I have difficulty to understand why when some people hears something new to them, they react by simply opposing it without any search or reading, instead of asking the question 'is this really like that? let me make some readings'.
I am neither linguistic nor historian nor ethnologist, but I read in many different sources, Turks and Mongols are bounded together in many ways.
Just a little info can be found in wikipedia in 15 minutes by a few clicks and typing:
From wikipedia
Turkish language: is spoken as a first language by over 63 million people worldwide,[6] making it the most commonly spoken of the Turkic languages. (...) The roots of the language can be traced to Central Asia, with the first written records dating back nearly 1,200 years. (...) Turkish is a member of the Turkish, or Western, subgroup of the Oghuz languages (...) Some linguists believe the Turkic languages to be a part of a larger Altaic language family: which is a language family that is generally held by its proponents to include the Turkic, Mongolic, Tungusic, Korean, and Japonic language families ...

Mongolic languages are a group of languages spoken in Central Asia, notably including Mongolian. Mongolic is sometimes grouped with Turkic and Tungusic as part of the larger Altaic family.

Chinese or the Sinitic languages is a language family consisting of languages mutually unintelligible to varying degrees.[3] Originally the indigenous languages spoken by the Han Chinese in China, it forms one of the two branches of Sino-Tibetan family of languages. The Sino-Tibetan languages form a language family composed of, at least, the Chinese and the Tibeto-Burman languages, including some 250 languages of East Asia, Southeast Asia and parts of South Asia. They are second only to the Indo-European languages in terms of the number of native speakers.

Back to my personal opinion, the linguists' grouping the languages never suggests any relationship between Mongols and Chinese , but some of them suggest the relationship between Mongols and Turks.
Anyway, who cares and why it is important besides of some 'knowledge'.

reply

[–] pol-edra 15 years ago

I'm 100% with you on the "do a little research before you refute anything" thing, but quoting a 15mn search and a wikipedia entry as your proof that it's easy to find answers? That's got me worried. I'm not saying wiki is lying to us, or that it must be inaccurate. But stopping at wiki when you want to do research is an open door to laziness and uninformed opinions. Go to a library and compare different books and bibliographies before forming a definite opinion, please. That's a teacher speaking (PS: not adressing you directly aliaksar, I understand that you checked "many different sources", which is great and is exactly what everyone should be doing, my point exactly; just felt the need to stress what research really is).

"Sometimes I'm callous and strange."

reply

[–] aliaksar2000 15 years ago

You are perfectly right, pol-edra! I know that you weren't addressing me, however you could have, since I didn't mentioned that we studied this ancient Mongol-Turk-Chinese thing in history books for years -not detailed though- and I was kind of saying 'check the wikipedia or internet, if you are too lazy to go into a library.' But I agree, if you really want to be enlightened, you always have to some research/reading from different sources. Actually, making a research of only 15 minutes or an hour from the same sources can lead us frequently to wrong information, which is even worse than 'not knowing'. As I said, I am perfectly agree with you.

reply

[–] aliaksar2000 15 years ago

And another note, I still can't say I know this issue. It is too complicated and old issue to be lightened. Even academicians are not in a total agreement over the issue , as far as what I see. But I have an idea on the issue, am not really interested though. I am just interested in 'denying of doing any effort to be informed' and as a result of this: 'ignorance and prejudice'.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] toofast-1 12 years ago

what a load of BS

reply

[–] Smith006 10 years ago

Hey you know what guys. Deep deep down, we are all related :)

reply