TR Identity Summarized, via RAG

The description of the nationality of a Turk, according to the sources, involves understanding the distinction between the constructed national narrative and the historical and cultural reality of the people of Anatolia.

The Constructed Turkish National Narrative

The concept of a self-perceived 'Turkish nation' did not exist before the nineteenth century. The notion of a 'Turkish state' as a home for the 'Turkish nation' was radically and comprehensively implemented following the founding of the Turkish Republic after 1923..

The foundation of this identity, known as the Turkist narrative, is rooted in the dictates of nationalism, which often invents or radically modifies the cultures it claims to defend and revive. This national narrative intentionally framed specific events in the past to highlight a glorious history.

Key elements of this narrative include:

• Central Asian Origins: The Turkish History Thesis contended that Turks were a great and ancient race that created a bright civilization in Central Asia. Due to climatic changes, they left their original home and moved in all directions, including to Anatolia, to civilize the rest of the world. This historical vision gives a prominent place to migration from Central Asia.

• The Ideal Turk: The founders of the Republic chose an identity that was "outside" the imploded Ottoman structures—the Turk from Central Asia, who was considered ideal and pure. This identity was initially constructed to be secular and sometimes shamanistic, to move away from the realm of Islam.

• A Blended and Inconsistent Ideology: Following political upheavals, particularly the 1980 fascist coup, the identity was later changed to include religious aspects, making it a combination of secularism and Ottomanism, which the sources describe as a "weird potpourri of ideologies" and an example of fascism.

• Exclusion of Others: The national narrative requires homogeneity. It assumes Turks arrived in Anatolia, found the place empty, and remained unchanged, thus rejecting the history of pre-Turkish Anatolian migrations. For example, Kurds were labeled as "mountain Turks" who simply did not know their true identity, leading to decades of internal conflict and oppression.

This constructed identity led to the adoption of Turkified last names (like Ozturk, Turker, Erturk) following a 1930s law, often having martial or racist themes, which are considered a "sad reminder of a corrupted nationalization process".

Cultural and Historical Reality

In contrast to the nationalist narrative, the sources suggest that the culture of the people of Anatolia is rooted in the region's long history and geography.

• Assimilation and Genetic Makeup: Arrivals in Anatolia, including those referred to as "Turks" from Central Asia, assimilated into the larger culture they found. Genetic research indicates that only about 9% (with a confidence interval of 7-11%) of the genetic structure of today’s Anatolia is of Asiatic origin. The cultural effect of the migrants was minimal, proportional to their size.

• A Culmination of Cultures: Today’s Anatolians are described as being culturally close to Greeks, Armenians, or Kurds, or as a culmination of all of them, including migrants, but in a small fashion. The region invented organized agriculture and carries the cultural baggage of having been centrally located within Roman and Byzantine (Rome II and III) and Ottoman governance, leading to a "peasant/palace dynamic" culture.

• Historical Connotation of the Name: Before the rise of nationalism, the word "Turk" often meant "Muslim" in the Balkans. However, in Anatolia, the word "Turk" was historically considered an ethnic slur. As recently as a century ago, Ottoman soldiers responded to the question "but aren’t we all Turks!?" with estağfurullah (meaning roughly "c'mon that cannot be!" or "do not sell yourself short"), indicating they considered the term derogatory when applied to themselves. This unfavorable meaning of the word persists even today among some well-educated citizens.

In summary, the sources suggest that the nationality of a Turk is defined by a modern, often inconsistent, nationalist narrative rooted in distant Central Asian ancestry and constructed to serve political purposes. However, the cultural and genetic reality of the people living in Anatolia is primarily a culmination of millennia of civilizations and populations within that geography, with minimal demographic impact from the groups whose name was adopted for the modern nation. This contradiction leads to pathologies in the identity, such as the persistence of the term "Turk" as a slur despite being the national designation.