Origins of the Ghilzai tribe?

[RevolutionThroughReason]

They are a mongloid ethnic group.
I never said race and ethnic group is the same. many ethnic groups could be in one race. I already explained the change, you intitally said they are Turks and now your saying they are turkified indo-iranians. The reason you changed your argument is because it was you who did not read your own source in the correct context.

Mongoloid is a race not an ethnic group.
Mongoloid - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Mon·gol·oid adjective \ˈmäŋ-gə-ˌlȯid\

Definition of MONGOLOID

1
: of, constituting, or characteristic of a race of humankind native to Asia and classified according to physical features (as the presence of an epicanthic fold)

So by saying "Mongoloid Ethnic Group" you're conflating race with Ethnicity.Turk is an ethnic group, Turkic are groups of Turk ethnic groups; Not contingent on race. You have Caucasian and Mongoloid Turks. They are Turks all a Turk is, are people who speak a Turkic language and have Turkic culture. saying they're "Turkified" is basically saying They became Turks.

I'm saying the same thing in several different ways. They mean the same thing.

[khushal]

Your Strawman fallacie are not working here dumbass.
I said Turks are a Mongloid ethnic group. That means its an ethnic group that belongs to the Mongloid race or has Mongloid racial features. The Han Chinese are a Mongloid ethnic group. The Han and the Turks are two different ethnic groups that belong to the Mongloid Race.

Also your wrong, you dont have Caucasian Turks. You either have Mongloid Turks or a mixture of Caucasian/Mongloid Turks. The Caucasian in Anatolia are not ethnic Turks, they were ruled by Turks who were mongloid or a mixture of Caucasian/Mongloid for 600 years and they came to identify with Turks who ruled them just like you have Tajiks, Hazaras(possibly Turks) and Uzbeks(who are Turks) who identify themselves as Afghan because Afghans ruled them.

[Midnight_Sun]

Sir Olaf caroe theorized that lots of tribes from Khost + Paktia were also descendants of Turkic tribes.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Your Strawman fallacie are not working here dumbass.
I said Turks are a Mongloid ethnic group. That means its an ethnic group that belongs to the Mongloid race or has Mongloid racial features. The Han Chinese are a Mongloid ethnic group. The Han and the Turks are two different ethnic groups that belong to the Mongloid Race.

Also your wrong, you dont have Caucasian Turks. You either have Mongloid Turks or a mixture of Caucasian/Mongloid Turks. The Caucasian in Anatolia are not ethnic Turks, they were ruled by Turks who were mongloid or a mixture of Caucasian/Mongloid for 600 years and they came to identify with Turks who ruled them just like you have Tajiks, Hazaras(possibly Turks) and Uzbeks(who are Turks) who identify themselves as Afghan because Afghans ruled them.

That's still alluding to the same thing; Turks are not all Mongooloid therefore this is false. You're making a racial allusion which is still not correct. There is no strawman here; you're just trying to reword things to make it sound like you're saying something different but the minute you bring genetically infuenced physical characteristics. This is racial. Yes sometimes you can define "ethnicity" but by race, but the the reverse is not always true. And in the case of Turks it is clearly untrue.

The Turks of Anatolia ARE Ethnically Turks, they speak Turkish and are culturally Turk. This makes them Turks by ethnicity.

Ethnic | Define Ethnic at Dictionary.com

eth·nic [eth-nik] Show IPA
adjective
1.
pertaining to or characteristic of a people, especially a group (ethnic group) sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like.

You have trouble comprehending this because you have low intelligence and are uneducated.

the comparison with Uzbeks and Tajiks in Afghanistan is incorrect; Tajiks and Uzbeks call themselves NATIONALLY Afghan, meaning they identify their NATIONALITY as AFghan. ETHNICALLY they call themselves Tajiks and Uzbeks. Turks of Turkey call themselves ethnically Turk and SPEAK Turkish. Tajiks do not speak Pushto (except some exceptions) as their native language. Even those minorities that may speak Pushto , still call themselves Tajiks.

checkmate for the umpteenth time

[khushal]

Sir Olaf caroe theorized that lots of tribes from Khost + Paktia were also descendants of Turkic tribes.

RTR was talking very highly of you. Nice of you to show up.

I have read the Turk theory not of just Ghilzai but many pashtun tribes even the Abdalis and the tribes in Loya paktya. But its just theories and there are theories that say the opposite. I am not dismissing that Turks came down and assimilated with pashtuns that were already in the region but I have doubts that Ghilzai was originally Khalaj.
Assimilation = probable and very likely
Origination = doubtful and most scholars today are dismissing it.

[khushal]

That's still alluding to the same thing; Turks are not all Mongooloid therefore this is false. You're making a racial allusion which is still not correct. There is no strawman here; you're just trying to reword things to make it sound like you're saying something different but the minute you bring genetically infuenced physical characteristics. This is racial. Yes sometimes you can define "ethnicity" but by race, but the the reverse is not always true. And in the case of Turks it is clearly untrue.

The Turks of Anatolia ARE Ethnically Turks, they speak Turkish and are culturally Turk. This makes them Turks by ethnicity.

Ethnic | Define Ethnic at Dictionary.com

You have trouble comprehending this because you have low intelligence and are uneducated.

the comparison with Uzbeks and Tajiks in Afghanistan is incorrect; Tajiks and Uzbeks call themselves NATIONALLY Afghan, meaning they identify their NATIONALITY as AFghan. ETHNICALLY they call themselves Tajiks and Uzbeks. Turks of Turkey call themselves ethnically Turk and SPEAK Turkish. Tajiks do not speak Pushto (except some exceptions) as their native language. Even those minorities that may speak Pushto , still call themselves Tajiks.

checkmate for the umpteenth time

You are wrong. In Turkey, ethnicity is hotly debated because of it history of being ruled by Turks for 600 years. People identified themselves as Turks because they were citizens of the Empire for 600 years and have lost their identity.

The word Turk or Turkish also has a wider meaning in a historical context because, at times, especially in the past, it has been used to refer to all Muslim inhabitants of the Ottoman Empire irrespective of their ethnicity.[19] The question of ethnicity in modern Turkey is a highly debated and difficult issue.

Plus you initially said that the Khalaj were Turks and now your saying Turkified. This is a clear example of how desperate you get when your wrong. You have to be a descendent of a Turk to be an ethnic turk or part Turk. You dont become an ethnic Turk by learning the language and following a culture besides that turkish people have different cultures and languages in different regions but they are still all Turk and mongloid or part mongloid.

Your a moron who has been proven wrong and to ego driven to admit it.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

You are wrong. In Turkey, ethnicity is hotly debated because of it history of being ruled by Turks for 600 years. People identified themselves as Turks because they were citizens of the Empire for 600 years and have lost their identity.
Plus you initially said that the Khalaj were Turks and now your saying Turkified. This is a clear example of how desperate you get when your wrong. You have to be a descendent of a Turk to be an ethnic turk or part Turk. You dont become an ethnic Turk by learning the language and following a culture besides that turkish people have different cultures and languages in different regions but they are still all Turk and mongloid or part mongloid.

Your a moron who has been proven wrong and to ego driven to admit it.

Is this where you got this quote from?

Demographics of Turkey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ok in that quote it linked to citation #19 which links to the American Heritage dictionary.

Let's look the citations ok it links to the American Heritage dictionary; Which gives the AMERICAN English Dialect definition of Turk

Turk (tûrk)
Share:
n.
1. A native or inhabitant of Turkey.
2. A member of the principal ethnic group of modern-day Turkey or, formerly, of the Ottoman Empire.
3. A member of any of the Turkic-speaking peoples.
[Middle English, from Old French Turc, from Turkish Türk, fro

Doesn't really seem very hotly contested; It seems pretty standard, that Turk here has a meaning of culturally Turkic peoples. There's the Nationality Turk which would compare to the Nationality Afghan, but Turkic as an ethnicity is clearly defined by culture. Which is what I said.

Turks can be "Turkified" l by definition once you start speaking Turkic languages and adopt the culture; you're a Turk ....Turkified just means that they MAY have been from other ethnic origins PRIOR to that. It does not conflict with being Turk ...so I say this they were TURKIFIED Indo-Iranian TURKS. Just like Syrians and Lebanese are ARABIZED, Levantine Arabs.

No conflict at all ....just your lack of education, inferior intelligence and ignorance having trouble computing the relation between all of this

checkmate ..Umpteenth times + 1

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Hey Midnght sun ....does one necessarily have to be Mongoloid to be a "Turk"?

[khushal]

Is this where you got this quote from?

Demographics of Turkey - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ok in that quote it linked to citation #19 which links to the American Heritage dictionary.

Let's look the citations ok it links to the American Heritage dictionary; Which gives the AMERICAN English Dialect definition of Turk



Doesn't really seem very hotly contested; It seems pretty standard, that Turk here has a meaning of culturally Turkic peoples. There's the Nationality Turk which would compare to the Nationality Afghan, but Turkic as an ethnicity is clearly defined by culture. Which is what I said.

Turks can be "Turkified" l by definition once you start speaking Turkic languages and adopt the culture; you're a Turk ....Turkified just means that they MAY have been from other ethnic origins PRIOR to that. It does not conflict with being Turk ...so I say this they were TURKIFIED Indo-Iranian TURKS. Just like Syrians and Lebanese are ARABIZED, Levantine Arabs.

No conflict at all ....just your lack of education, inferior intelligence and ignorance having trouble computing the relation between all of this

checkmate ..Umpteenth times + 1

I cant believe your this dense. Thats how the American heritage dictionary defines it but just because that's how they define it does not mean that its not a hotly debated issue in Turkey. I have already proved that it is.

Plus you basically conceded and admitted that they weren't ethnic Turks(I have it in bold for you just in case you fail to read it in your post) which was the argument to begin with.

You admit they were not Turks so you lose as always.

[khushal]

Hey Midnght sun ....does one necessarily have to be Mongoloid to be a "Turk"?

Yes.

It is generally agreed that the first Turkic people lived in a region extending from Central Asia to Siberia with the majority of them living in China historically. Historically they were established after the 6th Century BC.[27] The earliest separate Turkic peoples appeared on the peripheries of the late Xiongnu confederation (contemporaneous with the Chinese Han Dynasty).[28] Turkic people may be related to the Xiongnu, Dingling and Tiele people. According to the Book of Wei, the Tiele people were the remaining of the Chidi (赤狄), the red Di people competing with the Jin in the Spring and Autumn Period.[29] Turkic tribes, such as Khazars and Pechenegs, probably lived as nomads for many years before establishing the Göktürk Empire or Mongolia in the 6th century. These were herdsmen and nobles who were searching for new pastures and wealth. The first mention of Turks was in a Chinese text that mentioned trade of Turk tribes with the Sogdians along the Silk Road.[

[RevolutionThroughReason]

I cant believe your this dense. Thats how the American heritage dictionary defines it but just because that's how they define it does not mean that its not a hotly debated issue in Turkey. I have already proved that it is.

Plus you basically conceded and admitted that they weren't ethnic Turks(I have it in bold for you just in case you fail to read it in your post) which was the argument to begin with.

You admit they were not Turks so you lose as always.

did you take a look at your reference? That's the reference they're citing from. Go Look yourself. what you thought you could fool me by leaving the fact you got it out of Wikipedia? Anyone can fact check sources EASILY. YOUR quote is citing the American Heritage Dictionary. that's why I put the American Heritage Dictionary reference on there.


So I debunked you by your own sources.

I admit they were not Turks? Hmmm You might want to read it again; I know wth your extremely low intelligence you will need me to repeat this to you like 8-9 times more before it sinks it. but from the same post you just quoted.

Turks can be "Turkified" l by definition once you start speaking Turkic languages and adopt the culture; you're a Turk ....Turkified just means that they MAY have been from other ethnic origins PRIOR to that. It does not conflict with being Turk

Hmm sounds like I'm demonstrating the contrary WITH your own sources to back me up on that.

Trying to spin things to make it seem like I'm saying the opposite is pretty pathetic Khushal, especially since the evidence YOU used indicates exactly what I wrote.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Yes.

The Original Turks MAY have been Mongoloid but this doesn't mean ALL Turks are Mongoloid. All Doctors are Humans does not mean All Humans are doctors; Logical Fallacy on your part Khushal.

Also this quote does't indicate that the Turks are exclusively Mongoloid.

[khushal]

The Original Turks MAY have been Mongoloid but this doesn't mean ALL Turks are Mongoloid. All Doctors are Humans does not mean All Humans are doctors; Logical Fallacy on your part Khushal.

Also this quote does't indicate that the Turks are exclusively Mongoloid.

Doctors are not an ethnic group. That's a bad comparison. Ethnic Turks are mongloid or and mixed with caucasian in western Asian.

They've done genetic study as well:

genetics research from 2003[39] confirms the studies indicating that the Turkic people originated from the same area and so are related with the Xiongnu.[40]So the scientific genetic results show clearly that the Turks originated nearby the Centre-west part of modern China.

But I won the debate since you said the Khalaj were turks and you have now admitted they were not by saying they are turkified.

[khushal]

you said this

.Turkified just means that they MAY have been from other ethnic origins PRIOR to that

so your admitting that the khalaj were not ethnic turks. I know your trying to save face by broadening the term. It just shows how desperate you are.

[RevolutionThroughReason]

Doctors are not an ethnic group. That's a bad comparison. Ethnic Turks are mongloid or and mixed with caucasian in western Asian.

They've done genetic study as well:

But I won the debate since you said the Khalaj were turks and you have now admitted they were not by saying they are turkified.

Lol you don't get it; I was demonstrating what type of logical fallacy you were using.

Some Turks being Mongoloid doesn't mean all Turks are Mongoloid. No I actually provided evidence that you can be Turkified and STILL a Turk; that was why I used YOUR source which cites American Heritage. I REPEAT YOUR SOURCE. It describes that a Turk can be merely a Turkic speaker/follower of Turkic culture. Thus it works in tandem with Turkified just fine. Now the degree of which Khalaj were Mongoloid or Caucasian is debateable. But one thing is certain is that they became Turks.


I don't know why you think you can just ignore evidence; but that's desperation and denial right there.