Jump to content
Hellenism.Net

 

Sign in to follow this  
Guest eyoismos

outrageous claim: The Greek islands rightfully belong to Turkey

Recommended Posts

Guest eyoismos

 

Greek speaking peoples where a tiny minority in Greater Macedonia even in ancient times.

 

which would be the "greater" macedonia? ...so we at least have a common reference :P

 

800px-ExpansionOfMacedon.jpgancient-macedonia-1.jpgmac_empire_alex.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eyoismos

well, where you?

Have you ever been there?

back at you - guess you where not there, then, either :D

 

and yes i have been, in my wondering ..at least many places of greek macedonia ...and no , not fyrom, albania, bulgaria sections

 

after my first year varsity, i spent three months all over greece (in hich i made a huge effort to make out that i didnt have a clue of the greek language ... on purpose, for motives of my own ... and rucksack style no less, just so i could get the raw unadulterated "feeling" of the place) ...and i am a massive fan of northern greece, absolutely beautiful, not only geographically, but its people too, at least all those that i encountered, not that i categorize other regions any less ... main cities , and generally all the tourist traps? not so much ... they left me cold, and i mean the people of those cities generally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

this is greater Macedonia.

250px-Greater_Macedonia.png

And it was NEVER part of Greece. There have been a few Greek settlements on the coastal regions but other then that there is no trace of Greeks or Greek in Macedonia that predates the 4th century BCE. The people of Macedonia spoke Illyrian or Thracian and a mix between the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

well, I was born in Macedonia and I know for sure that the village I was born in used to have a Bulgarian Population from the 7th century onward. The Original inhabitants were driven out in 1920 and my Grandparents settled there after they were driven out of Turkey. Prior to the 7th century the region was inhabitted by Thracian tribes. Nothing Greek about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Recent genetic analysis comparing DNA samples of ancient Thracian fossil material from southeastern Romania with individuals from modern ethnicities place Italian, Albanian and Greek individuals in closer genetic kinship with the Thracians than Romanian and Bulgarian individuals.

 

Also, this whole area (Thrace) was heavily colonized by Miletians, Athenians and other Greeks since the 8th and 9th centuries BC. If I'm not mistaken that's way way before any Slav set foot in that land  :) The Slavic people were obviously not the original inhabitants of these lands as they came there way later.

 

In any case, I don't understand what the point of this conversation is and where you're going with this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eyoismos

dont you know, admin

 

he argues more for the sake of arguing, that greeks are not greeks and the ottomans are the beginning and the all pure

 

i mean, for fucks sake,  the four major tribes of greeks, the dorians, achaenians, ionians and aeolians where bonking each other till the cows came home, all while each claiming that they where the original greeks ... to the point that some athenian politician accused the macedonians of being barbarians , something that the skops often quote as proof, while completely ignoring the fct that some of the athenians called the spartan barbarians too

 

forget that he defines "the greater macedonia" , as the map shown, was really part of the conquered lands by the macedonians at one point in history ...apart from his claim that the ancient macedons spoke illirian and thracean....all the while that they both where the perpetual enemies of the macedons and constantly at each other ...and i ask ...based on what? what the skops say? or the albanians? or the bulgarians? i guess he probably maintains, for ll practical puposes,  the macodonians would be the equivalent of germanotsoliades of that era, fighting their own

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eyoismos

i swear .... sometimes ajax reminds me of mrs bucket ... oops, i mean mrs bouquet (of "keeping up appearances" fame)

:D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Also, this whole area (Thrace) was heavily colonized by Miletians, Athenians and other Greeks since the 8th and 9th centuries BC. If I'm not mistaken that's way way before any Slav set foot in that land  :) The Slavic people were obviously not the original inhabitants of these lands as they came there way later.

 

In any case, I don't understand what the point of this conversation is and where you're going with this?

Now you lay claim on Thrace and the Tharcians too? Based on "Greek DNA"!

 

Well buddy there is no such thing. But what does it matter. Every half way civilized country in the world acknoledges the existence of a Macedonian Nation, Ethnicity and Languagy. The broke Greeks meanwhile go on with their "DNA" claims instead of thanking the Macedonians for purchasing 1 bil Euro worth of Greek Products every year. And yeah go ahead and bash the Turks too. They are absorbing only about 12% of our exports and are thus our most profitable export market. Dream on about being "European" Greece's future, if there is gonna be one, is gonna be Ottoman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eyoismos

i hear ataturk also had equally absurd crackpot ideas and notions of history

 

Ataturk promoted a new theory of history that redefined Turks and their historic homeland in Central Asia as “the cradle of civilization.” Accordingly, pre-historic Turks had built a magnificent civilization in Central Asia, only to disperse to different parts of the world, to become the Sumerians who developed the first alphabet or the Egyptians who built the pyramids. (Ataturk even considered Mu, the mythical lost continent

, as the possible homeland of the Turks.) Some Turkish academics, personally promoted by Ataturk, developed these ideas into the “Sun Language Theory,” which is considered as a case pseudoscience
 
and the real beaut ...

 

Ataturk had a similarly inventive view of history. As explained by the Turkish Historical Society he founded, Native Americans were Turks, not Muslims.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eyoismos

Now you lay claim on Thrace and the Tharcians too? Based on "Greek DNA"!

 

Well buddy there is no such thing. But what does it matter. Every half way civilized country in the world acknoledges the existence of a Macedonian Nation, Ethnicity and Languagy. The broke Greeks meanwhile go on with their "DNA" claims instead of thanking the Macedonians for purchasing 1 bil Euro worth of Greek Products every year. And yeah go ahead and bash the Turks too. They are absorbing only about 12% of our exports and are thus our most profitable export market. Dream on about being "European" Greece's future, if there is gonna be one, is gonna be Ottoman.

 

why stop there ... i mean 9% of greek eports go to italy, which would make us italians, .... and almost 7% go to germany so that would make us germans ...

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

i hear ataturk also had equally absurd crackpot ideas and notions of history

 

and the real beaut ...

Do you realize that with his "Turkisation" policy Ataturk only followed the example the Greek state set with the "Greekisation" policy it started 100 years earlier?

 

The Committee of Union and Progress, from which the Nationalist Young Turks evolved, was not a Turk nationalist movement.

To the contrary, it was an attempt to transform the backward Ottoman empire into a Modern multi-ethnic state. Now that plan failed.

 

It was opposed for one by all religions of the Empire because it was seen as a secularist attack on the privilleges organized religions enjoyed in the old Ottoman empire. Look at the history of the Bulgarian Exarchate if you want to understand the role religion played in the Ethogenesis of the Balkans.

 

The Filiki Etairia started out as a secular movement of the European Enlightenment and in the end led to a Greek National Identity that was based on the Ottoman Millet with some "Myths" abound ancient origins and phyletic supperiority added. The transition from the Committee of Union and Progress to Kemalist nationalism follows the exact same pattern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest PatrickT

I thought to share this in this post, as we talked in here about European/Greek/German etc. ancestry. I guess we're all related one way or the other  :D

Read here: http://www.nature.com/news/most-europeans-share-recent-ancestors-1.12950 and also more info and answers to many common questions here: http://gcbias.org/european-genealogy-faq/

 

 

Its an interesting topic. All my family is german and my grandfather told me, that his father came from austria but i don´t know where exactly from. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

What makes you say that? Nature is one of the top publications of its kind.

Are you serious?

Lets take the following statement from the document you referenced:

 

Whether they are a Serb and a Swiss, or a Finn and a Frenchman, any two Europeans are likely to have many common ancestors who lived around 1,000 years ago.

 

 

If we take a generation to be 25 years 1000 years amount to 40 generations. That means, if we were to assume zero overlap, that every european alive to day must have had 2^40 = 1099511627776 male ancestors who lived 1000 years ago. That of course far exceeds the total male population of europe at that time which stood around 50000000. So clearly there is room for a lot of overlap.

 

BUT

 

What about the Americas? Almost everybody living on the Americas today has European ancestry. The same is the case with Oceania. So you could as well say: Any two EURO-AMERO-OCEANIANS, whether Serb, French, German, Mexican, Argentinean, Chilean, Mexican, Australian who live today are likely to share many common ancestors who lived 1000 years ago.

 

Consider the Arab conquest of spain and the sarazen raids in southern Europe and you can put Every North african in the mix too. Consider the Mongol invasion of Europe and the diffusion of slavic population into Central Asia and you can add all central asians into the mix too.

 

In other words,

The phrase "are likely to have many common ancestors" may be factually right yet misleading. The problem is with the word "MANY". How many is MANY?

A dozen?

Two dozen?

A few hundreds?

 

A more granular, aka scientific, quantization shows very well distinct clusters of populations. But that's exactly what the article tries to deny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it matter how many is "many". It could be just a handful for all it matters.

The argument still stands that this is still a really small world after all, and most of us are connected and share the genes one way or another.

 

I was under the impression that this connection would be going back to maybe 4,000 - 5,000 years but if it's only 1,000 years or less this makes the argument even stronger and makes the argument of different races and ethnic groups even more stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I don't think it matter how many is "many". It could be just a handful for all it matters.

The argument still stands that this is still a really small world after all, and most of us are connected and share the genes one way or another.

 

I was under the impression that this connection would be going back to maybe 4,000 - 5,000 years but if it's only 1,000 years or less this makes the argument even stronger and makes the argument of different races and ethnic groups even more stupid.

The how many is the essential part. If a few Austrian or Polish mercenaries entered the service of Alexios Comnenos and settled in Capadokia 1000 years ago you can expect their genetic traces to be present in every Capadokian living today. But that doesn't put you in the same cluster as the Poles or the Austrians.

 

Yes you may share perhaps up to a dozen common ancestors with an Austrian or a Pole.

But you share hundreds of common ancestors with any Syrian or an Iraqi.

You share perhaps 1000 common ancestors with any Turk and

several 1000 ancestors with any Capadokian.

 

In other words you are closest to your fellow Capadokians, very close to the Turks, and still close to Syrians and Iraqis.

When it comes to Northern Europeans, they are no closer to you, or me, than the Mexicans for example. And yet the Article, by avoiding quantizations, attempts to promote the notion of "Our Big European Family".

 

The truth is, Southern Europeans are closer to North Africans and Levantines than they are to Scandinavians. But that's something most don't want to here. The reason for this is Latent Racism. And in my opinion, denying Race is also a form of Latent Racism because it denies people their Genetic History. If you deny the Racial branch that connects you to the trunk of the Human Species you deny your Humanity. Yes we are all different. And there is nothing wrong with that. In my experience the pseudo liberals who deny the fact do so because they are unable to accept Differences without raising the question of "Superiority". Being different means just that, Being Different. No more no less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Close in what sense? Genetically or culturally?

 

Genetically you're most likely pretty close to them knowing full well that Greece (and Asia Minor) was invaded at various time by Romans, various Germanic tribes, later Venetians, Spaniards, Brits, Italians, French etc. and who knows who else in between.

 

Especially the invasions/migrations of the Germanic tribes in the area of modern day Greece and Turkey between the 2nd and 5th centuries are well documented. Here's a map I found with a quick search, but I'm sure you can find much more info if you google about this: 

 

Karte_v%C3%B6lkerwanderung.jpg

 

 

This article of course talks about genetics, not culture. Culture is a different question all together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

What ever influence migrations or invasions had shows up in the Y-Hablogroup maps.

The most common Y-Hablogroup in Greece is J2 which originates in the Caucasus.

It is very common in Anatolia and also in Italy. In Greece its frequency is highest in the south.

This is the common Genetic Stratum of all ancient peoples in the Region. Pelasgians, Dorics, Ionians, Medes, Persians.

J2 is their legacy.

Haplogroup-J2.jpg

 

Germanic (R1b) and Slavic (R1a) forays into Greece thined J2 prevalence in the mainland out. There is quite a bit of R1a in Greece.

Haplogroup-R1a.gif

 

Middle Eastern T hablogroup is also present in Greece but even more so in Spain certain parts of Italy. A remnant of Arab conquests no doubt.

Haplogroup-T.gif

 

Nordic I1 hablogroup on the other hand is rather rare in Greece

Haplogroup_I1.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eyoismos

incredibly interesting thing this genetics thing, and fascinating

 

apart from it all being by nature very confusing, to say the least, we also have a basis to some real "mind-fuck games"

 

typical example, .....dicking around the website ajax bought to the fore, i found this, that kinda puts a cat amongst the pigeons

 

Haplogroup_R1b_World.png

 

cameroon and scotland/ireland and the basques region (amongst others)?

hell of a "jump" if you ask me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, it sure is all very confusing. Which highlights my point that at some level we're all very closely connected genetically no matter where we live. The argument made by those researchers I mentioned earlier is that most people of European origin seem to have common ancestors only 1,000 years ago. If you go 3-4,000 years ago you'll certainly find connections and common ancestry with people from Africa or who know from where else.

 

Trying to define one's ethnic identity based on genes is a futile exercise. Our gene pool is so messed up that even though certain ethnic groups do have some common traits and share more common genes than others, if you look at the bigger picture (and depending how far back in time one is willing to go) you'll find that we're all brothers and sisters sharing common ancestry not as far back as one would have thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

It isn't complicated at all.

Greeks are geneticaly almost indistinguishable from Anatolians and clearly distinguishable from the Danes or the Irish.

 

And what else should one familiar with history and mythology, or someone in possesion of a mirror, expect?

Asia was the consort of Iapetos and Mother of Prometheus. Perseus was the founder of Mycenae and his son Perses was the founder of the royal house of Persia. The Heraclide established the first full fledged Iron culture on European Soil. An art they brought with them from their Anatolian motherland. After mainland Greece was depopulated in late antiquity by the Goths it was repopulated with Anatolians. So there can be no doubt where our Genetic affiliations lie.

 

And yet, I notice that Greeks are always eager to search for a connection to Northern European Peoples but are quick to denounce their own ancestry. Why is that?

 

And no admin WE ARE NOT ALL BROTHERS AND SISTERS. We have brothers sure, but we also have cousins who are once, twice, thrice or thousand fold removed. So why are we eager to acknowledge the most distant of cousins as close kin but denounce the ones closest to us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eyoismos

i have to agree with ajax , that bit about greeks and anatolians and all that

 

for example, and i think it was in this forum, i brought up the origins of the Achaeans, or Mycenaean greeks , theories of which being Ahhiyawa , a kingdom west of the Hittites and enemies thereof

 

what i dont agree with is the concept of "Greeks are always eager to search for a connection to Northern European Peoples but are quick to denounce their own ancestry" - nothing could be further than the truth ....except if you mean culturally, and even then its highly debatable

 

but in the mean time can somebody explain the " cat amongst the pigeons" example i posted above?

 

it would seem that r1b , being dominant in western europe, ..... some random "scott"  (and i choose scott randomly too) took a voyage to gabon, fucked his way north, and then went really ape in cameroon from where his seed expanded, but never reaching anywhere close to its origins

 

some things just dont seem to add up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

but in the mean time can somebody explain the " cat amongst the pigeons" example i posted above?

 

it would seem that r1b , being dominant in western europe, ..... some random "scott"  (and i choose scott randomly too) took a voyage to gabon, fucked his way north, and then went really ape in cameroon from where his seed expanded, but never reaching anywhere close to its origins

 

some things just dont seem to add up

R1b1 is the toplevel classification. There are subgroups of that haplogroub of which

 

R1b1a2 is common in Western Europe

and

R1b1c is common in West Africa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eyoismos

 

Xerxes, it is said, before he set forth on his expedition against Greece, sent a herald to Argos, who on his arrival spoke as follows: "Men of Argos, King Xerxes speaks thus to you. We Persians deem that the Perses from whom we descend was the child of Perseus the son of Danae, and of Andromeda the daughter of Cepheus. Hereby it would seem that we come of your stock and lineage. So then it neither befits us to make war upon those from whom we spring; nor can it be right for you to fight, on behalf of others, against us. Your place is to keep quiet and hold yourself aloof. Only let matters proceed as I wish, and there is no people whom I shall have in higher esteem than you."  (Histories of Herodotus, 7.150)

bullshit propaganda by xerxes? (considering there is no mention of perseus amongst persian "literature")

or perhaps a link lost in time of persians and ionians? if at all

 

 but i did find this interesting gem

 

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/persianempire/fl/Greeks-Persians-and-Perseus-Oh-My.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eyoismos

R1b1 is the toplevel classification. There are subgroups of that haplogroub of which

 

R1b1a2 is common in Western Europe

and

R1b1c is common in West Africa

if we are talking about sublevels and subgroups, surely there must be some kind of link or relationship?

otherwise it sounds awfully like a random classification, sort of genetics playing dice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

if we are talking about sublevels and subgroups, surely there must be some kind of link or relationship?

otherwise it sounds awfully like a random classification, sort of genetics playing dice

You have to be carefull here. You can not jump to conclusions by looking at just ONE haplogroup. Remember the Georg Soros Open Society bankrolled "Study" of Arnaiz-Villena? Well the guy looked at just ONE haplogroup and concluded that Greeks are closest to the Somali people. That's of course idiotic. Arnaiz-Villena ignored history, geography, linguistic and all of genetics aside from ONE haplogroup in order to arrive at the conclusion he was paid to arrive at. In some fields close to 80% of scientific publications are politicaly and/or economicaly motivated junk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest eyoismos

i am fully aware of that, but that still does not answer my question.

if there are subgroups, then that mean there is a "group" , and to be subgroups there has to be a link

 

its a tree structure, supposedly ...and if one looks at Darwinian type of trees, the elephant is related to a rodent, and not a hippo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

My fields are Physics and Aerospace engineering when it comes to genetics I'm just a layman.

 

Anyhow, you are of course right to point out this peculiarity. It gets even weirder when you take into consideration that the further left in the designation the difference appears the further back in time the split between two Haplogroups occured. Which means that the split of R1 to R1a and R1b predates the split of R1b1 to R1b1a and R1b1c by tens of thousands of years. Which would place the Poles geneticaly at a greater distance from the Irish than lets say the Nigerians. That doesn't make any sense at all.

 

I did bring the issue up in a genetics blog run by an actual geneticist years back but I didn't get any explanation there either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

ΒΟΗΘΕΙΣΤΕ ΤΟ HELLENISM.NET!

Εάν σας ενδιαφέρει να γίνετε ενεργό μέλος του Hellenism.Net σαν moderator στο forum, ή αν σας ενδιαφέρει να γράφετε άρθρα/κείμενα στους λογαριασμούς Facebook, Twitter και Google+ του Hellenism.Net, ή αν ασχολείστε με προγραμματισμό ιστοσελίδων, τότε επικοινωνήστε μαζί μας!

Χρειαζόμαστε εθελοντές για να κρατησουμε το  Hellenism.Net ζωντανό!

Follow us

Hellenism.Net Facebook Feed

×