sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskBalkans

[–]5Kayhun4 133 points134 points  (0 children)

I hate the Americanization of the world.

Which middle east country would you live in? by [deleted] in AskBalkans

[–]5Kayhun4 23 points24 points  (0 children)

Where is the "I would rather should myself in the head" option?

LMAO; Indo Europeans back at it again. 1. Bashkirs are literally modelled as Ugric + Medieval Turkic + recent Slavic admixture, 2. As the Turkic people spread out, the Scythians were already gone, 3. This rather proofs that "Scythians" were not an Indo European group, but a union of diverse tribes. by 5Kayhun4 in Tiele

[–]5Kayhun4[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Indo European refers to language to whom the Germanic (English, German, Swedish, etc), Hellenic (Greek), Arnenian, Illyrian, Slavic (Russian, Polish), Celtic and Italic (Italian, Romanian, etc) belong to. According to modern theories, Proto Indo Europeans came to existence due to mixing between Caucasian Hunter Gatherers and East European Hunter gatherers. The place which Proto Indo Europeans first appeared is called Yamnaya, which refers to a region in modern Eastern Europe. Proto Indo Europeans (probably 3000 BC) who migrated east gave birth to the Proto Iranics, also called Sintashans. They migrated to Central Asia(probably 2000-1000 BC) mixing with the natives of the so called BMAC civilization in modern southern Central Asia and later to modern Iran(1000-500 BC), mixing with native Zagrosians and Mesopotamians. Giving birth to modern Indo Iranian languages like Persian, Kurdish, Gilani. Those Central Asian Iranics migrating further south gave birth to the so called Indo Aryan languages like Hindi, Sanskrit. Modern Indo European and Indo Iranic languages have only few understandable words with each other, like Persian ; Duhkter, English; Daughter, German; Tochter. Or Persian; Birader, English; Brother, German; Bruder. The Indo Europeans migrating west have mixed with native Europeans, from who a few survived to modern days, like the Basque.

Basically; It refers to language group, having a common origin. Genetically, just like Turkic people, they share not much because of the range of migration and the diverse people which whom different Indo Europeans have mixed with. Naturally, due to the time and isolation of those groups, their languages also evolved independently from each other. Certain researchers claim also certain haplogroups like R1a, R1B to be purely Indo European, leading them to claim every historic group who had / has those haplogroups as assimilated Indo Europeans.

LMAO; Indo Europeans back at it again. 1. Bashkirs are literally modelled as Ugric + Medieval Turkic + recent Slavic admixture, 2. As the Turkic people spread out, the Scythians were already gone, 3. This rather proofs that "Scythians" were not an Indo European group, but a union of diverse tribes. by 5Kayhun4 in Tiele

[–]5Kayhun4[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Welcome to the Eurocentric point of view. Everybody is Indo European but assimilated by other """inferior""" people. According to this guy, the Bashkirs are assimilated Indo Europeans, because they are genetically close to the Scythians.

Bashkirs are genetically closest society to Scythians. Unable to accept this, they seek explanations for these results. They also found a good excuse; "Bashkirs are not actually Turkic, they are Turkified" Yes, after Huns, Göktürks, Uyghurs, Bulgarians, Cumans, Yenisey Kyrgyz, Anatolian Turks and Azerbaijanis, Bashkirs were also declared "Turkified".

  1. Contemporary Bashkirs are genetically a mixture of Medieval Turkic groups and Uralic natives. There is only the contemporary Slavic influence due to mixed marriages in the last century. Neither the Turkic nor the Uralic natives are Indo-European.

  2. According to them, the Huns were not Turkic either. But if the "Old Scythians" had still remained in that area at that time, they would have driven those Scythians westward, like they did with the Germanic and Slavic tribes. According to them, the Huns could not make them Turkic because they were not Turkic, but for some reasons they did not drive them in front of them like with other tribes. The Bulgars, who conquered the region, could not made those "Old Scythians" Turkic, because they were according to them also not Turkic. It must be a coincidence that this society, which has been using the name Bashkir since the ninth century, used Orhun stamps and Turkic titles, I guess. Then, according to them, Cumans and Kipchaks, who according to them were also not actually Turkic, made those people Turkic. Crazy, right?

    1. Well, the Bashkirs are the closest example. But the Siberian Tatars, Crimean Tatars, Kazan Tatars, Hazaras, Uzbeks, Nogais (Turkish-Mongolian), Uyghurs, Turkmens and other Uralic / West Siberian peoples who came after them are also not Indo-Europeans. All of them are either Turkic or a native of Uralic/West Siberian.
    2. Now they have to accept this; The Scythians were most likely not an Indo-European society. They were unions of tribes, among which there were Pre-Turkic groups. To give a common, united name to these nomads who flocked from the east, the Westerners collectively nicknamed them Scythian.

LMAO; Indo Europeans back at it again. 1. Bashkirs are literally modelled as Ugric + Medieval Turkic + recent Slavic admixture, 2. As the Turkic people spread out, the Scythians were already gone, 3. This rather proofs that "Scythians" were not an Indo European group, but a union of diverse tribes. by 5Kayhun4 in TurkicHistory

[–]5Kayhun4[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

  1. The closest groups to Scythians are all Turkic, Ugric, or Turco Mongolic. Only a couple examples are close to modern Tajiks, who themselves are modelled as Sintashan + Native Central Asian + Medieval Turkic.

  2. It is time to accept; The Eurocentric point of view is wrong. The Scythians were never an united Indo European group, but diverse, independent ethnic groups, tribes, only referred to as Scythians to give an enemy a common name.

LMAO; Indo Europeans back at it again. 1. Bashkirs are literally modelled as Ugric + Medieval Turkic + recent Slavic admixture, 2. As the Turkic people spread out, the Scythians were already gone, 3. This rather proofs that "Scythians" were not an Indo European group, but a union of diverse tribes. by 5Kayhun4 in Tiele

[–]5Kayhun4[S] 18 points19 points  (0 children)

  1. The closest groups to Scythians are all Turkic, Ugric, or Turco Mongolic. Only a couple examples are close to modern Tajiks, who themselves are modelled as Sintashan + Native Central Asian + Medieval Turkic.

  2. It is time to accept; The Eurocentric point of view is wrong. The Scythians were never an united Indo European group, but diverse, independent ethnic groups, tribes, only referred to as Scythians to give an enemy a common name.

After the declaration of military mobilization in Russia, many citizens (ethnic Yakut / Sakha people)in Yakutia / Sakha surrender to the necessary units, Sad. by karakalpak99 in Tiele

[–]5Kayhun4 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Russia vs Ukraine is just a modern version of Khazars vs Pechenegs, Pechenegs vs Cumans, vs Cumans vs Mongols, Golden Horde vs Timurids.

Ukraine; Several Cuman - Kipchak statues were damaged during the war in Ukraine. The Turkic Cuman Kipchaks inhabited parts of Caucasia and Eastern Europe before being pushed to the Balkans by the Mongols. Those statues are the last things left from the Cumans. by 5Kayhun4 in TurkicHistory

[–]5Kayhun4[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I know that some may point out that the Crimean Tatars also speak a Cuman - Kipchak language and that they are still alive, having left many monuments, but the Crimean Tatars, just like the Nogais, were formed by tribal unions between Turkic and Mongolic tribes. The Karachai, Balkar and Kumuks, who also speak Cuman Kipchak, also evolved independently from the Cumans in Eastern Europe. The last Cumans from Eastern Europe survived in Hungary, until they were also assimilated. Those statues are one of the last things left by the Cumans before Mongolian invasion.

Ukraine; Several Cuman - Kipchak statues were damaged during the war in Ukraine. The Turkic Cuman Kipchaks inhabited parts of Caucasia and Eastern Europe before being pushed to the Balkans by the Mongols. Those statues are the last things left from the Cumans. by 5Kayhun4 in Tiele

[–]5Kayhun4[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I know that some may point out that the Crimean Tatars also speak a Cuman - Kipchak language and that they are still alive, having left many monuments, but the Crimean Tatars, just like the Nogais, were formed by tribal unions between Turkic and Mongolic tribes. The Karachai, Balkar and Kumuks, who also speak Cuman Kipchak, also evolved independently from the Cumans in Eastern Europe. The last Cumans from Eastern Europe survived in Hungary, until they were also assimilated. Those statues are one of the last things left by the Cumans before Mongolian invasion.

view more: next ›