The controversy and mis-understandings of having a "Turk" identity

[Tabriz_Han]

I'm writting this post to try and debate about the controversy and mis-understandings commongly associated with having a "Turk" identity.

Firstly I'd like to tackle the myth that all Turks are from Turkey and a Turk can only be from Turkey.

Recently I had an amusing experience regarding this issue...

I went to a near-by shop which recently opened, I was speaking with the owners, anyway they asked me what i am, i said A Turk, they said ah your from Turkey its a lovely country I want to go one day to which I replied no actually I'm from Iran. I asked them what they are, they smiled and said they're Turk aswell, they were infact Ozbek Turks from Northern Afganistan.

This example points at the fact that most Turks in the world are not even from Turkey and they lie outside it.

We all know the original homeland of Turks is Turkistan/Central Asia so naturally Turkey cannot be the only country in which people are "Turks".

Sometimes I have to explain this to people in London for some time before they understand, I feel there is such a big mis-understanding regarding this matter. Practically 40% of Iran are Turks, they call us "Tork" anand we speak Turki, Republic of Azerbaycan is the same. However, its as if we have to say were "Azeri Turks", why can't we just simply say were Turks aswell, my language isn't "Azari" there is such a language and its a non-Turkic old regional Caucasian-Indo-Euorpean language. We don't speak this language its extinct so why do some peole think that we speak an extinct language. On Tv here they'll say "Azeri" as if its some different language. We speak Turki and understand Turkiye Turks. Why arn't they called Anatolians or their language Anatolianish.......

Ozbeks are also Turks, I'd like to ask you about your views regarding this, is it similar to mine or do yours generally differ?

The reason I find it pretty controversial is that the Turks in the original homeland of Turks have all these pollitical names while the Turks most distant from their homeland use the ethnic Turk term and identity.

Its like Saudi Arabia/Yemen, original homeland of Arabs, they today are called Arabs and their land Arabia. However, if they were called Saudians or Yemenish while Syrians or Libyans were called Arabs and called their land Arabia it would cause alot of mis-understanding.

[Frida]

I prefer Turkic to Turk. When people ask me what Uzbek mostly close to I say it is Turkic, therefore close to all the languages from this group: Azeri, Turkish, Kazakh, etc.

If any one word for defining all the Turkic people should be chosen, I would vote for Turkic and not for Turk. Why? I guess there is a conroversy about being called Turk, as Turk already is a name of the particular nation. Turkic is a name of the language group and also there is no one nation under this name. So imagine an Uzbek person, calling himself Turk, it is wierd, isn't? Maybe for some people it is not but for others it is. But Turkic is another thing. It can be easily said, "Uzbek, a Turkic nation". But combining both and just calling it Turk, sounds neither good nor equal to me.

[bacha]

I know some people will get angry, but here is a question.

The author of the topic says the word Turk needs to be used for all turkic nations, he brings example of "azari" and "turk" issue in Iran.

If further question asked of what languages he/she can speak, can an uzbek/kazah/kirgiz etc. claim that they speak Turkish? Because, logically a Turk should speak Turkish. Also take into account the fact that not everybody is going to listen to your lengthy explanations.

P.S. Uzbeks/kazah/uygur guys I know prefer to simply say "Russia" or "Former Soviet Union". Answering this way gives a good explanation with whom you are talking. If a Kazakh would say he was Turk, the person who asked the question would think of him as of a Middle-Easterner, while he has a totally different culture.

[gulamus]

No Bacha I think Uzbeks/Kazah/Uygur do not say Russia. When they want to clarify the teritory for someone they say mostly or Russia or Aphganistan, I agree because few people know where is Uzbekistan.
However when we talk about the ethnic group: I say I am T'urk not Turk from Turkey, but T'urk ethnicity.
On the other hand, I think we can use Azeri Turk, Ozbek turk, Kazah turk because it is division of the T'urks, and we can use it the same way as for language. Because when we talk about languages we say it is the branch of this and that, by the way, we should not say Turk language group, but ,if i am not wrong, Tatar-Turk?
cheers
GA

[Frida]

we should not say Turk language group, but ,if i am not wrong, Tatar-Turk?
cheers
GA


Language groups is called Altaic-Turkic. The Altaic part of this language group includes Altaic languages, i.e. Korean,etc. Turkic part - the languages such as Uzbek, Tatar, Turkish, Turkman, Kirghiz, etc.

[UzLand]

Do not worry, guys, soon thanks to Borat, everyone will know about Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan:)

[Tabriz_Han]

Frida_Kahlo
I prefer Turkic to Turk. When people ask me what Uzbek mostly close to I say it is Turkic, therefore close to all the languages from this group: Azeri, Turkish, Kazakh, etc.

If any one word for defining all the Turkic people should be chosen, I would vote for Turkic and not for Turk. Why? I guess there is a conroversy about being called Turk, as Turk already is a name of the particular nation. Turkic is a name of the language group and also there is no one nation under this name. So imagine an Uzbek person, calling himself Turk, it is wierd, isn't? Maybe for some people it is not but for others it is. But Turkic is another thing. It can be easily said, "Uzbek, a Turkic nation". But combining both and just calling it Turk, sounds neither good nor equal to me.

I get your point, I know what your saying when I call myself a Turk here in London people think I'm from Turkey, here were bettern known as being "Turkic". However, in our area where were originally from were known as "Tork"(Turk).

I don't think Turkey Turks can have Turk just reserved to themselves, in the same way, Syrians, Jordanians, Saudi Arabians, Kuwaities etc are Arabs, were also Turks. However, as this topic is blurred and the issue hasn't really been tackled by anyone there's a level of confusion regarding it all.

Bacha
The author of the topic says the word Turk needs to be used for all turkic nations, he brings example of "azari" and "turk" issue in Iran.

If further question asked of what languages he/she can speak, can an uzbek/kazah/kirgiz etc. claim that they speak Turkish? Because, logically a Turk should speak Turkish. Also take into account the fact that not everybody is going to listen to your lengthy explanations.

Answering this way gives a good explanation with whom you are talking. If a Kazakh would say he was Turk, the person who asked the question would think of him as of a Middle-Easterner, while he has a totally different culture.

I see your point but Turks are originally from Central Asia, logically ofcourse Central Asian Turkic states are Turks, if some Turks from Central Asia had never migrated Turks would only be in Central Asia.

A Kazak should obviously be able to call him/herself a Turk as they and Central Asia Turk people, Ozbeks, Turkmen.... are the reason today Turkey is called Turkey and its people Turks.

What I'm trying to get across is, Turks in Turkey are only there because they kept their national identity, language, historical ties and so on from their homelands even though they mixed alot with locals in the area's they migrated to and took over. This logically means that Turks outside Turkey are Turk, have the right to use the term and that it isn't solely reserved to Turkey. Everyone else ie people's surrounding us call us Turks, Persians in Iran call us Tork, I spoke to Tajiks who call Ozbeks Turks.

[Iqbol]

I prefer Turkic to Turk. When people ask me what Uzbek mostly close to I say it is Turkic, therefore close to all the languages from this group: Azeri, Turkish, Kazakh, etc.

If any one word for defining all the Turkic people should be chosen, I would vote for Turkic and not for Turk. Why? I guess there is a conroversy about being called Turk, as Turk already is a name of the particular nation. Turkic is a name of the language group and also there is no one nation under this name. So imagine an Uzbek person, calling himself Turk, it is wierd, isn't? Maybe for some people it is not but for others it is. But Turkic is another thing. It can be easily said, "Uzbek, a Turkic nation". But combining both and just calling it Turk, sounds neither good nor equal to me.

How would you say it in Uzbek or in Turkish, Fridahon?

[kipchak]

Мне кажется что разница между словами "Тюркский" и "Турецкий" не так отчетлива на турецком языке. Turk ve Turkiy (mi acaba?) - как на русском или на английском языках. По крайней мере есть больше шансов путать их. И отсюда и весь сыр бор. Хотя я могу и ошибаться.
Мир вам.

[UzLand]

Расхлебываем кашу дедушки Ленина:)

[Tabriz_Han]

In my opinion, a Turk is a Turk regardless of what country they are in across the world. When I say I'm comfortable and proud of what I am this doesn't have anything to do with Turkey, it's to do with Turks as were not just from Turkey.

I am here on this forum to learn more about my brothers and sisters of Ozbekistan, I read your post's in Ozbek Turki and now can watch Ozbekistan tv, I wish to learn about the country, culture and become more knowledgable. I must do this because Turkiston-Central Asia is our national root, our language, identity, culture, civillisation has its base with you.

Men Ozbekistani ko'p seviyorum :)