According to YOUR theory, if Crimean Tatars want to join Turkey, that should be fine with you too! — neomac
The official number of Crimean Tatars in Turkey is 150,000 with some Crimean Tatar activists estimating a figure as high as 6 million. - Crimean Tatars, Wikipedia
During the Mesolithic, the EHGs inhabited an area stretching from the Baltic Sea to the Urals and downwards to the Pontic–Caspian steppe. Eastern Hunter-Gatherer – Wikipedia
The people of the Yamnaya culture were likely the result of a genetic admixture between the descendants of Eastern European Hunter-Gatherers (EHG) and people related to hunter-gatherers from the Caucasus (CHG), an ancestral component which is often named "Steppe ancestry", with additional admixture of up to 18% from Early European Farmers. – Wikipedia
As various nomadic groups became part of Genghis Khan's army in the early 13th century, a fusion of Mongol and Turkic elements took place, and the invaders of Rus' and the Pannonian Basin became known to Europeans as Tatars - Tatars, Wikipedia
The Crimean Khanate originated in the early 15th century when certain clans of the Golden Horde Empire ceased their nomadic life in the Desht-i Kipchak (Kypchak Steppes of today's Ukraine and southern Russia) and decided to make Crimea their yurt (homeland) - Crimean Khanate, Wikipedia
I want to share with you the recent results obtained from my participation in the Genographic Project, sponsored by the National Geographic Society, a reputable organization in the US. By analyzing the DNA samples, the Project aims to trace the journey one’s ancestors may have taken over the centuries. The test is easy and painless. I ordered DNA Ancestry Kit Geno 2.0, collected two samples and mailed them to the designated laboratory. My identity remained anonymous throughout the process. (https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/about/)
I was born in Istanbul, but I am of Crimean Tatar descent. All of my grandparents originated from Crimea. My paternal grandfather’s family lived in Yevpatoria on the west, my maternal grandfather’s family came from Yalta in the south, and paternal grandmother’s family was from the Kerch peninsula on the east. My maternal grandmother’s family migrated to Turkey from Romania. All these families left Crimea in the 19th century, but they considered themselves Crimean Tatars and their native language was Crimean Tatar.
Here are the results of my DNA tests:
28% Northern Asian
22% Northern European
20% Southwest Asian (Middle East)
20% Mediterranean
7% Southeast Asian
2% Native American
In sum, I am 37% Asian, 42% European and 20% Middle Eastern. Perhaps the most surprising finding is the 2 percent Native American genes that I carry. This does not mean that any of my ancestors married Native Americans. Rather, some of my very distant ancestors were among those who migrated to the North American continent about 20,000 years ago. Similarly, one can explain the presence of the 7 percent Southeast Asian genes.
The above DNA test results reaffirm what we have known from history that Crimean Tatars are descendants of the various peoples who settled and lived in Crimea for centuries. The Crimean Tatars, indigenous people of Crimea, did not just come from the East, as many are inclined to think. Rather, they are the descendants of the people who moved to Crimea from different directions: Scythians, Goths, Byzantines, Genovese, and Turkic groups such as Khazars, Kipchaks, Tatars and Ottoman Turks.
No doubt, there are thousands of Crimean Tatars living in Crimea today who have a similar genetic makeup to mine. Some may have more Asian genes or more European genes perhaps. To those ultranationalist Russians who say to Crimean Tatars “Go back to where you came from,” one may respond: “Where should they go? They have nowhere to go but Crimea.”
With Russia, it's all about control and influence. — ssu
You're from Finland and Christoffer is from Sweden. Is that wrong? — Isaac
Then why are so many trying to emigrate there, or in Europe? — Olivier5
You're forgetting stalemates. — Benkei
There's differences.With Russia, it's all about control and influence.
— ssu
Well, how is it different with America? — Apollodorus
There's a difference in how the US has acted in Europe and how it has acted in Central America and the Caribbean. Just as how Russia acts in it's "near abroad" and towards other countries let's say in Western Europe or Latin America.What Russia obviously wants in the region is neighbors that are friendly toward it or at least neutral.
Which is exactly what America wants in its own "backyard" that apparently includes Europe, parts of Asia, and the Pacific .... — Apollodorus
Just look at what the Warsaw Pact did compared to NATO. — ssu
Well, I think you know why they're in France? It's because "La Grande Nation" screwed up their countries! — Apollodorus
There is a reason why Ukrainians don't want to live under Putin's boot.
— Olivier5
Most of the world don't want to live under America's boot, either. — Apollodorus
it's not (factually not) because Europe ruined their country, as implied by Apo. It is because they perceived Europe as a haven of peace and prosperity, where one can hope to improve one's lot. — Olivier5
stating historical or other facts --even straight from Wikipedia -- can be revolutionary — Olivier5
as Europe was being developed, Africa was being underdeveloped via resource extraction. His conclusion is that the structure of present-day Africa and Europe can through a comparative analysis be traced to the Atlantic slave trade and colonialism
The natives, who were portrayed as uncivilised by the Europeans, were excluded from the rights of citizenship.
colonial powers demanded use of African bodies in particularly violent ways for the purpose of labor as well as the shaping of subservient colonised identities.
violence in the colony was exerted on African bodies largely for the purpose of labor and submission.[24] European colonial powers sought natural resources in African colonies and needed the requisite labor force to extract them and simultaneously build the colonial city around these industries.
Because Europeans viewed native bodies as degenerate and in need of taming, violence was necessary to create a submissive laborer.
Colonisers viewed this violence as necessary and good because it shaped the African into a productive worker.
The African’s day-to-day life then became a show of submission done through exercises like public works projects and military conscription.
Critical theory on the colonisation of Africa is largely unified in a condemnation of imperial activities.
Europe did ruin Africa, but to say that the Africans today who want to emigrate to Europe do so because of that is incorrect. — Olivier5
Which as it's only military operation occupied one of it's own members.Yes, but the Warsaw Pact (WP),[5] was a collective defense treaty signed in Warsaw, Poland, between the Soviet Union and seven other Eastern Bloc socialist republics of Central and Eastern Europe in May 1955. — Isaac
If only you were capable of proving it but you haven't. All you have is disdain for someone who disagrees with you and confuse your feelings on the matter with actually knowing what you're talking about. — Benkei
Which as it's only military operation occupied one of it's own members.
And that just tells where the real threat was: the main aim wasn't NATO, but also in crushing revolts that sporadically happened in Eastern European countries — ssu
it makes a good case for burning all of France to the ground. — Streetlight
Why is it so hard to consider the possibility that it might actually be good for a country to ask Russia to take it under its wing? Or at least to see it as a matter of their own interest to be on friendly terms with Russia? — baker
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.