Is Anatolia in middle east? (geographically)

Mar 2012
1,210
Magdeburg
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
1,210
Magdeburg
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
5,904
Portugal
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.
 
Mar 2016
806
Antalya
Anatolia is the middle east. Turks are not.
Anatolia is influenced by different cultures. Southern Anatolia is influenced by Levant, Eastern Anatolia is influenced by Armenian/Caucasus. South Eastern Anatolia is influenced by Mesopotamian Culture. North/North West Anatolia is influenced by "Anatolian Greek" /Byzantine culture. Western Anatolia is part of Aegean culture. Calling Anatolia to be "Middle Eastern" is ignorant. And yes, we are not Middle Eastern. We are Anatolian. You can have your ME tho, spare us Turks from your misery.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,904
Portugal
Anatolia is influenced by different cultures. Southern Anatolia is influenced by Levant, Eastern Anatolia is influenced by Armenian/Caucasus. South Eastern Anatolia is influenced by Mesopotamian Culture. North/North West Anatolia is influenced by "Anatolian Greek" /Byzantine culture. Western Anatolia is part of Aegean culture. Calling Anatolia to be "Middle Eastern" is ignorant. And yes, we are not Middle Eastern. We are Anatolian. You can have your ME tho, spare us Turks from your misery.
“Middle East” is mostly a concept of the Physical Geography. It is a concept people use to identify a region, not specifically a culture. Anatolia is considered to be in the Middle East. So calling other “ignorant” for knowing physical geography is odd.
 
Mar 2016
806
Antalya
“Middle East” is mostly a concept of the Physical Geography. It is a concept people use to identify a region, not specifically a culture. Anatolia is considered to be in the Middle East. So calling other “ignorant” for knowing physical geography is odd.
Which authority includes it to Middle East? It was considered Near East by Brits, but that makes sense from a euro-centric point of view because it is the nearest region after Europe as the centre of world. What is the logic or authority behind it? Calling Anatolia Middle East is not only ignorant, but also stupid. If Anatolia is in Middle East, this does make Italy to Greece Near East. Geography is not a Social Science, it needs to make sense or people will call it out.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,904
Portugal
Which authority includes it to Middle East? It was considered Near East by Brits, but that makes sense from a euro-centric point of view. What is the logic or authority behind it? Calling Anatolia Middle East is not only ignorant, but also stupid.
It is Eurocentric, in that we may agree.

But as you surely know there is no central authority is the human and social sciences, like History and Geography. There are concepts that are widely used and recognized by the users. It allows communication and understanding. So it becomes acceptable by that community and than passes to the general population and to the works, like generic books and encyclopaedias that spread those concepts. Try some, online or in paper:

Middle East - Wikipedia

Middle East | Countries & Facts

Middle East - Wikitravel

Again, insulting people that use this definition ignorant and stupid is… well, not kind, to use an euphemism.
 
Mar 2016
806
Antalya
I did not insult you or anyone. I am sorry, as it sounded that way. However, stupid in sense that a geographical term does not make sense from geographical point of view. It is not a "name" like "Portugal". Portugal doesn't need to make sense, it is just a random word (probably not, but you get my point). Middle East, however, is a name given from a relative perspective and misused. Turkey is in Near East, not in Middle East.


--


For the record, Geography is not a branch of Social Sciences, at least Physical Geography. And Physical Geography is not interested in political terms. I personally would not put History into Social Sciences too, but that's another subject.
 
Last edited:

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,904
Portugal
I did not insult you or anyone. I am sorry, as it sounded that way. However, stupid in sense that a geographical term does not make sense from geographical point of view. It is not a "name" like "Portugal". Portugal doesn't need to make sense, it is just a random word (probably not, but you get my point). Middle East, however, is a name given from a relative perspective and misused. Turkey is in Near East, not in Middle East.

--

For the record, Geography is not a branch of Social Sciences, at least Physical Geography. And Physical Geography is not interested in political terms. I personally would not put History into Social Sciences too, but that's another subject.
Side note, “Portugal” comes from “Portus cale”, “Portucale”, the Port of “Cale”, “Cale” evolved to today’s Gaia: Vila Nova de Gaia - Wikipedia

Middle East and Near East are often used as almost synonymous, as we could read in the links that I posted, even if the term “Near East” come to be less used:

“The term has come into wider usage as a replacement of the term Near East (as opposed to the Far East) beginning in the early 20th century.” (from the Wikipedia link);

“The central part of this general area was formerly called the Near East, a name given to it by some of the first modern Western geographers and historians, who tended to divide what they called the Orient into three regions.” (from the Britannica link).

And yes, Physical Geography is not a Human and Social Science, but Human Geography is, as History, at least they are considered that way for a wide range of people, including in Academic papers and UN documents. And the concepts of Physical Geography are used by the Human and Social Sciences.

If the concept is misused or not, if you agree with it or not, that is your opinion and perspective. But, in my opinion, you also should respect those, many, that use the concept to communicate, even if knowing that those concepts are generalized but not universal.