Turkist Narrative, Culture

People have an Asia Minor do have a culture, but they name that culture incorrectly. The migrants who arrived in Anatolia melted away, assimilated into, and became part of the larger culture they arrived in. Their effect was minimal, proportional to their size [1]. Current narrative has them arriving, finding the place empty [4], and remaining as they were for a thousand years, bringing "civilization" to Anatolia.

I estimate the arrival of new ppl starting from 600s and continuing for a few centuries seems to be around 1 million arriving into a population of 8 million.

Genetic research proves [2] biologically only 9% of genetic structure (95% CI 7-11) of today's Anatolia is of Asiatic origin. Culture effects are always proportional with size, 90% of the culture of today's culture in non-Turkic.

A new label is needed, one is not as retarded and full of misinformation as the one in use now.

Similarities

Food

Organized agriculture was invented in Anatolia and its nearby regions, over 10,000 years ago ("Turk" migration is little over 1000 yrs old). So it should be no surprise inventions around food, tasty recipes, preservation methods were first invented there, not by nomads.

Yogurt was invented in the Mediterrenian region, Herodotus talks about it in the 5th century B.C.

The Turkish coffee is a Yemenese invention. I'm talking about using coffee beans ground into a fine powder, then boiled in a little brass pot. This product is called different names by countries, with many laying claim on its discovery. But since the first-use was in Yemen, it should be called Yemenese coffee.

Asia Minor tarhana soup is actually one of the oldest foods in the Eastern Mediterranean called in Greek trahana, it was traditionally made in August as an ingenious method of preserving milk for the cold winter months by combining the dairy with the wheat and leaving in the hot summer sun to dry over a few days.

Döner (meaning 'it turns') is similar to Greek gyro, Arabic shawarma, or Armenian tarna (which literally means to turn) are all variations of the same idea that were served all over the place in Eastern Europe and Middle East, for thousands of years.

Music

Below is Byzantine music which sounds awefully similar to "Turkish art music", sanat müziği.

Song 1, Song 2, Song 3, Song 4, Song 5, Song 6

Why the Subterfuge

The reasons are many.

• The collapse of the empire required an identity-rethink: the collapse was blamed on back-stabbing neighbors, and the ancient locals. The unblemished migrant (who was ignored, taken advantage of by others) had to be brought to the fore, in order to create a new republic.

• The last dominant sultan led a pan-Islam policy, the officers who rose up against him and later founding the Republic wanted to rock'n roll, they made the pure, unblemished migrant also a non-Islamic, shamanistic person. They would achive secularism indirectly, now the Turk had something he was connected to before Islam, and the narrative had the double side effect of ignoring the religion of the region, especially of the "backstabbers".

• Turk always meant Muslim in the Balkans, for recent migrants from Balkans who were Muslim this identity wasn't too off-putting (but per above founders pushed Islam in the background, creating a contradiction)

• The identity worked best for migrants who had arrived recently, Circassians, Tatars, and others - the narrative said Turks "just arrived" into these new lands and remained unchanged in the case of Tatars the identity worked even better - they looked Asiatic. However as the "scratch a Tatar you get a Russian" comment suggests the newly arrivals weren't exactly Turkic, then they assimilated into Anatolia which wasn't Turkic either. Their story became another tragic example of labeling gone wrong.

• Ever-present Russian danger necessitated strong allies. Britain was such an ally. Britain always fought against Russia in The Great Game, they wanted a bulwark against them. The "Turk" who is unblemished therefore still connected to Asia who could stir up trouble there among other Turkic nations causing trouble for Russia was a God-sent for Brits. In this narrative the nomadic Turk who is foreign to this "new land" could be the perfect frontier infantry, always ready to attack Russia or whoever causes trouble for him (creating additional animonsities which could be exploited such as in Cyprus) with the chaos potential reaching all the way into Central Asia, Caucuses, and even Xinjang.

• Old neighbors becoming enemies reinforced the narrative. As any good Ponzi schemes the Turkist nationalist narrative allowed a way in for everyone, bizarrely constructed as it was, if one said you were it, you could become it. But the story, rationalization of the identity had gone so beyond sanity, most of the notable "other" natives found it absurd, and would never accept it. Hence they were demonized, Kurds were labeled as being "mountain Turks" who just did not know what they truly were, since they were this stupid they could be jailed or killed. Attacks toward other "non-Turks" also increased. Opression led to rebellion, which caused Kurds to see themselves more and more distinct. Now, sadly, even some Kurds want Turks to be Turks - because it reinforces their seperatist wishes, them being a seperate Kurd.

• Same dynamic worked with Greeks - surely a people of Christian denomination, but in cultural matters, especially in Anatolia, that matters little. However the War of Independence caused the two people to demonize eachother, now they also need the other to be what they are so they can tell themselves fairy tales about hordes coming in from wherever causing terror in the lands therefore one must be on guard to protect the Greek nation at all times.

• After the 80 fascist coup the narrative was expanded to include Islam. But the Islamoturkist Synthesis was also strategically crafted to fit the needs of the US, Brits and the outer alliance in general. In the 80s Islamist Mujaheddin was fighting in Afghanistan against the Godless Soviets, religion was needed now, it was back en vogue in Pakistan, and neighboring countries as well. But The Synthesis increased the internal inconsistencies of the Turkist narrative even further. What Founder Kemal ignored was back, according to earlier story the Turk was a shaman, now a bizarre combo was being offered. Expansionist Ottomans were now a-ok along with its Khalif, in opposition to non-expansionist secular Republic. The reception of the synthesis was lukewarm, older city Anatolians brought up by the old system continued to believe in it, new ones pushed and pulled it into bizarre new directions, making it into everything, which implied previously already defective narrative now also meant nothing.

• The 80s coup leaders, while creating an Islamoturkist Synthesis, also "activated" the Turkist, Kemalist crowd alerting them to be "on guard" against the other elements of the Synthesis who might misbehave and do things secular folk might not like.. This act ushered in decades of internal conflict in an Anatolian version of US culture war, ignore the economic issues, just fight over hijab, "women's rights". Well-to-do Turkist Kemalist would fight to force women to take off their hijab, whereas conservative from usually poorer background tried to "defend their identity" by refusing.. The Turkist resurgence used the image of Kemal as its mascot [5].

Problems

Turkist narrative suffers from multitude of problems.

• Due to the many changes it experienced the identity suffers from lack of accuracy. The nomads, the real Turks who arrived from Central Asia adopted to their new homeland, taking up Islam was one of those transitions. Many others in Anatolia did the same, and later when 20th century wanted to label someone as Turk they simply referred to all Muslims as such. Therefore the set of Muslims labeled as Turks were always larger than the set of ethnic "true" Turks. From post

[F]ollowing the Turkish War of Independence in which Greece (The Ottoman Empire had lost Greece as part of its territory by this time) invaded Turkey in hope of a Greater Greece but was repelled, the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne was drawn up in the peace settlement. This is a very sad part of history as both Greece and Turkey agreed to a mutual exchange of populations, irrespective of those populations’ wishes. Greece expelled approximately 600,000... while the Turks expelled about 750,000 Anatolian[s]... (some were allowed to stay in Istanbul). These figures differ, depending on the source. In deciding ethnicity, the criterion used was religion. A Turkish-speaking Orthodox Christian in Turkey was thus considered Greek, and expelled to Greece, while a Greek-speaking Muslim who knew no Turkish was considered Turkish and expelled to Turkey

• But the founders wanted to "de-Islamize" the term as well, so Muslims who became Turks, who mostly were not Turks, had to de-Islamize (and later re-Islamize -post 80s-). Confused yet?

• As the Turkist ideology cannot be maintained logically, founders had to appeal to 10,000 years of Anatolian custom around ancestor worshipping (a problem in every agrarian society). Kemal took up to the task with fervor, placing himself at the center of that worship (notice the name he took for himself, The Grand Ancestor of Turks). Sadly in a modern, industrial world such an ask is near impossible to achieve, save for a small group of devout worshippers [5] which turns the founder into a niche figure, not someone that should unify all, as George Washington or Jefferson might have done for Americans.

• Since The Identity's function is in serious doubt, many chose to ignore it, but its past lingers on in its symbols and worse, in people's names. All TR lastnames were taken in a 30s law, and the common folk, seeing the propaganda associated with the Turkification (also seeing what happened to Armenians who fell outside it during the so-called (!) purge) went out of their way to take up solid Turkified names to come across as good citizens in the eye of the state. Many were also assigned such acceptable names by the government official himself visiting their towns that day. These names all follow a pattern, made up of a few base words with usually martial, sometimes racist themes, such as er (soldier), öz (essence, root, with racist overtones), or simply Turk. There are Ozturk, Turker, Erturk, etc. The names, since they refer to an incorrect, inconsistent take of the past, are now a sad reminder of a corrupted nationalization process.

• The word Turk meant different things to different people. In the Balkans (where most of the founders came from) it simply meant Muslim. In Anatolia it was actually considered an ethnic slur. A story can demonstrate this well - during the last days of the empire as the new nationalism was circulating among the cadres, one officer wanted to check how much the regular soldiers knew of "their identity". He first asked them about the sultan, the Caliph, etc. The soldiers weren't really sure, many were confused, they thought sultan was prophet, Caliph was God, etc. After a few tries frustrated, the officer finally said "but aren't we all Turks!??". To that all soldiers responded, in unison, with the word estağfurullah. This word is a mix of "c'mon that cannot be!" and "do not sell yourself short", indicating people though the officer had used a slur on himself.

Even a century later the legacy of such unfavorable meaning remains. I've seen well-educated people, proud citizens who loved their country, best and brightest of their generation, working for top corporations and still using the word in non-favorable terms. One time such a group called their somewhat heavily-built wrestler-type friend being of a "Turkish built". And the man would be offended by this. If The Identity is something that is supposed to describe everyone, why does it fall short in so many different ways, can only work as case-by-case basis, depending on context, region, and person. This sounds to me the nationalisation plan wasn't fully thought through, haphazardly done, without proper understanding. I believe it's high time to abdandon it. Anatolians need to accept there is no such thing as Turk.

References

[1] Population

[2] Turkish Population Structure and Genetic Ancestry

[3] Trahana

[4] National Narratives, Migrations, Anatolia

[5] A Nostalgia for Modernism

[6] Gellner, Nations and Nationalism