Is Anatolia in middle east? (geographically)

Mar 2012
1,168
Magdeburg
#71
As I said before, I have seen enough Turks and balkanoids to make judgement on my own.

Now, if you desperately want to connect your people with Balkanoids due to inferiority complex or pretend to be same as White Europeans it's not my problem.
There is no such thing as "balkanoid" the term is absurd as hell in the beginning. That sounds like a term which is used in these stupid DNA websites that is full people who think everybodys ancestors were blonde nordic people.

Well, i am not here to prove you since you seem to be completely clueless about turkish people and culture yet acting like a scholar THAT makes clean cut judgments about an ethnicity by putting a random picture from google and reading wikipedia. Turks look both midle eastern and european and what binds them together is that they feel turk. Most turks feel just turkish and do not associate theirselves with middle east or europe, do not confuse politics with ethnicity. I could give 0 crap about what an indian, european or american groups us in a geolocation as long as it is what we feel matters.

Second, using words such as "inferiority complex" does not belong to here, this is not a pissing contest. You are either misinformed or trying to push your false opinion on people who read this topic. There is a difference between the infeiority complex and talking against wrong facts. Having a middle-eastern appearance is not considered a bad thing in turkey nor i deny it, it is simply not true since ethnic turks have both mid-eastern and european appearance on an equal scale, and being muslim does not put turks in the same category as other muslims, we have our very unique history full of warfare and conquests.
 
Last edited:
Mar 2012
1,168
Magdeburg
#72
Well you are gravenly mistaken. You are confusing a political zone with ethnicity. Besides, I do not think that you have seen "enough" turkish people since your judgment seems astronomically out of the place. Please do not comment on things that you have no idea about.



Magic word is "partly". Turks absorbed everything around them, that including genes. You are totally clueless.



No you haven't, and judging from your clueless post, i doubt if you have seen any at all. Again, don't comment on things that you have zero idea about.
Knock off the naame calling, now.
I get carried on when people talk so surely about things they clearly have not enough information about, is not about turks but everything in general.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
4,330
Portugal
#73
Geographical definitions mean very little, they are just a convenient way to create common points of reference when communicating with each other. Some of these conventions are clear-cut because geography itself offers distinct features to separate and categorise regions, others not as much. Cultural implications often complicate geographical definitions, as people find it convenient to identify geographical regions with distinct cultures. Therefore, they are often subjective and may vary according to whom you ask, even change through time.
Agreed.

How much percentage of Anatolia is considered in middle east?
From what I have learned, and from what I teach in the same line, in the same school of thinking, Turkey (including all Anatolia) is in the Middle East. As Solidaire pointed out it is a question of convenient Geographical definitions, we use the words in Social Sciences and in Sciences in general so we can know about what we are talking about. It is a communication convenience to have a common definition. And most of the geographical concepts are a mix of physical and human, and thus often colliding the two main areas of the Geography.
 

Similar History Discussions