Is there such a thing as a Turkic race? If so, were they a mutation of Mongoloids, a separate race...

Ataturk knew that, which is why he encouraged civic, secular nationalism.

Alas, my friend. You were too good for the Turks.

rip in piece

Turks are greek-anatolian-armenian-levantine-turkic

...-slavic-kurd-northafrican-paleosiberian-hurrourartian-..

..-paleoeuropean-gedrosian-amerindian-semitic-caucasian-..

See Tuva

I am talking about the original sample hence turkic not turkish

So basically Mongols? One of the reasons I am asking is the Turco-Mongol distinction seems increasingly arbitrary to me. Outside of the fake world of linguistics.

Which was already very mixed

Fake? Fucking hell. I don't know why Linguistics catches this much heat when it's one of the more scientific and rigorous disciplines in the humanities.

But yeah on a genealogical level there aren't too many differences worth caring about.

>racial turanism

But everyone agrees the first Turks came from Altai and presumably at that point they did have a dominant phenotype. No one asked about fucking Turkey. We are talking about the original Turks who showed up as Gokturks. Everyone fucking knows the deal with Turkey.

Its fake in the sense that if I start speaking Old Turkic tomorrow no one would presume to call me a Turk.

You mean those that make up like 5% of Turkey's genetic composition? They were already mixed as fuck.

It is funny because Turks are top WE WUZ and they literally dont even resemble their own namesakes anymore

>Everyone fucking knows the deal with Turkey.
But it's not just Turkey. Volga Tatars for example are almost identical to Slavic Russians, Uzbeks and Kyrgizes are heavily mixed with Iranics, Azeris are Persian in everything but language, Uyghurs are about 40% European/West Asian and 60% East Asian, etc.

I am trying to figure out if the original people who invented the progenitor of Turkic languages were literally Mongols. Okay!?

Post the Turkiest pic you have

The image that triggered me to post this autism thread

They were probably already mixed as well, chances are he belonged to haplogroup c

Everyone has always been mixed. Question is was there a dominant phenotype and was it or was it not distinguishable from the Mongol phenotype.

No they weren't Mongols, Mongols are not related to Turkics really. Turkics are Altaic while Mongols are Mongolic which is a separate group.

They literally lived on the same lands. Altaic Tungusic and Mongolic are all closely related according to what I have read.

...

debatable

The difference between Altaic and Mongolic is about the same as between Indo-European and Semetic.

Basically fuck linguistics anyway I am talking about phenotypes. Not like these faggots had any culture but muh sky anyway.

It depends on what you want to call a race... It's hard to find a HUGE difference between their tribes when they branched out to settle in Anatolia, but maybe we could consider that almost a thousand years of cultural identity is enough to define a race?

Also, the Turks themselves blended up with the local populations. Not only after conquering the west side of the Bosphorus.

(disputed)
The Altaic theory has been thoroughly debunked by the academic community and only a few fringe elements supported by dumbass internet nerds like you keep it alive.

>the original specimen.

>Is there such a thing as a Turkic race?
No. Turkic is a language group, not a genetic one. Central Asia has been thoroughly mixed with Iranic, Turkic, and Sinitic speakers.
>were they a mutation of Mongoloids
You mean Mongolic? Also no, the "Mongols" arrived on the plateau after the Turkics did and adopted Turkic culture, not the other way around.

They're traditionally seen as an ethnic group distinct from the arabs, slavs, and greeks surrounding them. Moderns turkic people are united more around language family than ethnicity I think, if Turksoy is anything to go by at least. The contrast between Turks and Turkic Siberians is very distinct, for example.

the mongoloid expansion from east asia into central and western asia is really well documented

the recent expansion was participated by various mongoloid groups:
Xiongnu 匈奴, Xianbei 拓跋部, Donghu 东胡, Dingling 丁零, Shiwei 室韦, Tántán 檀檀 (Rouran Khaganate), Tuòbá 拓拔, Yueban 悅般, Nirun, Tūjué 突厥 (Gokturk), Chigan 叱干, Xue 薛姓, Xueyantuo 薛延陀, Tiele 鐵勒, Huns 匈人, Khazar 可萨人, Avars 阿瓦尔人, Bulgars 保加尔人, Xi tūjué (Onoq - Western Turkic Khaganate), Dōng tūjué (Eastern Turkic Khaganate), Gu-su (Oghuz) 烏古斯人, Ogurs, Utigurs, Huíhé (Uygur) 回纥, Onogurs, Kutrigurs, Kangar 康國聯盟, Kimak 基馬克汗國, Kuman 庫曼汗國, Kereit, Gelolu (Karluk) 葛逻禄, Kara-Khan 黑汗, Tūqíshī 突騎施, Yugur 甘州回鶻, Pachanaq 佩切涅格人, Qīnchá (Kipchak) 欽察, Nogais 諾蓋人, Karachays 卡拉恰伊人, Seljuk 塞尔柱帝国, Kirghiz 柯尔克孜族, Chigil 處月, Qangli 康里, Shalgan, Chulyms 楚利姆鞑靼人, Kumyks 庫梅克人, Dada (Tatars) 韃靼,
Güchügüd (Naiman) 乃蛮, Ongud 汪古部, Dolugad 杜格拉特, Bashkirs 巴什基爾人, Chuvash 楚瓦什人, Gagauz, Uzborgs, Kazakhs 哈薩克族, Khakas 哈卡斯人, Qashqai 卡什加人, Tuwans 图瓦人, Báxīmì 拔悉密, Shatuo 沙陀, Oirat 四衛拉特, Buryats 布里亚特人, Arghun 阿魯渾王朝, Kara Del 哈密國,
Khitan 契丹人, Khamag 蒙兀国, Mongol 蒙古帝国, Dzungar 准噶尔汗国, Chagatai 察合台汗國, Khilji 卡爾吉王朝, Telengut, Teleuts 铁列乌特人, Kalmyk 卡爾梅克汗國, Khoshut 和硕特汗国, Tonggu (Tungus) 通古, Dolgans 多尔干人, Sālāzú 撒拉族, Shors 索尔人

...

>live the same arctic, tundra, steppe reindeer, fishing lifestyle
>live next to each other
>all look the same
>be language isolates

Nivkh
Ainu
Mongolic
Tungusic
Turkic
Yenisei
Uralic
Koreanic
Japanic
Yukaghir
Eskimo–Aleut
Chukotko-Kamchatkan

paleosiberian language families are distinct from one another yet the people are basically the same
all the paleo-siberian families are identical except linguistically

Being turk or turkic is a cultural/linguistic thing. Also

TURAN
U
R
A
N

Thank you lads. I think we can close the book on this one. The original Turks closely resembled Mongols and even gave the Mongols their culture that was made known through the great Khanates.

Almost all of the modern day 'Turkic' peoples with a few exceptions in the more easterly Siberia do not resemble the original Turks because they are a mishmash of Muslim and Central Asian rape babies who speak the language of their own rapists, whom they no longer even resemble.

Most 'Turks' are rape babies who name themselves after the rapist.

turk doesnt mean turkic fuckin morons

>6 inches

>basically the same
Most are genetically quite different from each other

People in Turkey are Caucasians with very minor admixture from actual Turks.

I would argue that the Pardos of Brazil and Coloured (Khoisan, European, Bantu, Asian, Indian, Malay all in one) people in South Africa are more mixed.

Wait there are no (you)s anymore? Fuck you gookmoot

>TURAN
The irony is that the concept of Turan is indo-iranian in origin.
It literally means "Land of the Tur's" in Persian and is about steppe-iranians noted in the Avesta living in Central Asia well before the formation of the first Xiongnu confederation.

How some Finn managed to use the name to create a Pan-Turkic movement is way beyond me.

F

Original Turkics(Oghuz) lived in the Altai/Mongolia assimilating Indo Europeans to the west and being subsumed by Mongolic speakers to the east.

Whether the original Turkics resembled the East Eurasian shifted Buryats,Tuvans etc. or or the West Eurasian shifted Bakshirs,Khakas etc. is unknown.

Regardless,the Altai was originally inhabited by people with an Amerindian/Beringian/Siberian autosomal affinity,while East Asian was spread during historical times(Xiongnu?).

>retard that misuses linguistic terminology
Your so called "paleosiberian" race is a farce.
mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2016/04/21/molbev.msw055.full

The original Turks were flat-faced Northeast Asians and they absorbed more and more Caucasian influence as they made their way West

It's ironic that today their descendants are peoples with some of the largest noses on the planet, Anatolians

turk literally means mixed in old turkic language.

turks were mixed race at the very beginning of their journey in history. mixed of white and mongoloid race. some migrated to the west and got more white dna, some stayed in central asia and got more mongoloid dna.

that is it.

>Mongoloid
What is this, the 19th century? Do you call Central Asia "Tartary" too?

Is it not Tartary?

Yukaghir and Uralic share more features with Indo-European than they do with Altaic.

Proto-Indo-European in general seems turbo-Siberian but some kind of autismal desire to be European is preventing people from processing that fact.

IE is not agglutinative though