The Race and Culture of Modern Day Turks

I believe the 12% Asiatic figure for Anatolian Turks is correct. The Turks are mostly native Anatolians, closely related to Kurds, Armenians and the original Ashkenazim from Northern Iraq.
I work pretty closely with some Turkic academics, mostly in Turkey but also in Russia and Uzbekistan. I have also seen photos of one of these Turkish professors with his class. Suffice to say that the Turks are very much White people. I was actually shocked at how White they looked because we have this idea that Turks are somehow non-Whites. I would say that they look a lot like Ashkenazi Jews or Italians, that is, rather Mediterranean or even Near Eastern looking but not as dark or as Near Eastern as a lot of Arabs.
These is an odd Asiatic element that is there is small doses. You can’t see it much except sometimes in the eyes a bit. I have seen many photos of Turkish women in particular who just look like regular European White women. Some are blond or even red-haired. I met a Turkish woman who had blond hair and blue eyes. She told me her ancestors were Georgian Christians. I have heard that the Turkish genome now is 35% Slavic, apparently from White slaves captured during the Ottoman Era.
If Italians, Jews, Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks are White, then so are Anatolian Turks. I would say that Kurds and Iranians look more Middle Eastern, but Assyrians look very much like Turks, and it would be hard to tell a Turk from a Greek.
Turkish culture is conservative, and Turkish men strike me as very masculine, even tough or hard.
Turkish women seem very traditionally feminine, and they are also more conservative than the men. I would imagine that a Turkish woman might be quite devoted to you, and I doubt if she would cheat.
The Turkish women I have met were quite educated and often very intelligent. In fact I was shocked at how intellectual they were. Maybe that is an areal thing, but if you ever meet an Arab woman, you might be surprised at how educated, intelligent and even intellectual she is. In that part of the world – Europe, the Near East and the Middle East, intellectualism is not despised as it is in the US.
They have some traditional attitudes about men. I met a few on the Net, and some of them liked me. But a couple found out that I was not employed, and they were appalled. Their attitude was that I was not much of a man. “A man is supposed to work,” they told me.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet 20

6 thoughts on “The Race and Culture of Modern Day Turks”

  1. Dear Robert
    I have walked in Madrid, Lisbon and Istanbul. I would say that the Portuguese are on average a few shades darker than the Spaniards, and the Turks on average a few shades darker than the Portuguese. In my book, all Southern Europeans and nearly all North Africans and West Asians are whites. Anybody who says that Recep Erdoğan and Bashar al-Assad aren’t white should have his eyes examined. Of course, their whiteness won’t endear them to me.
    Regards. James

    1. JAMES True, there is a great degree of Arabic blood in Portuguese and who knows how it got there.
      You see a few blondes in Portugal but not as many as Spain, which has a Celtic factor in the North of the country.
      Turks are the other side of Europe and clearly not European at all. Greeks are really barely European.

  2. Dear Robert
    I came across your page when i was searching for something else .First of all I thank you for prasing words you told for Turkish women , I am one of them .
    A few notes i want to add as a local person. In Turkey many other ethnicities live apart from the ones from Turkic background Bosniaks Albanian origin Georgian origin ,regionally an Arab minority in South eastern border . and Kırmanc Kurds .
    Most of ethnic Turks were peasants or nomads during Ottoman empire .its very unlikely for us to get mixed with Ottoman Harem women . The ones who live in cities were sedantery Muslim or non Muslim Ottoman citizens .We have light or medium skin, because we are simply Turkmens who spent 1000 year in Mediterrannean region , our autozomal dna results confirm that we are half Turkmen mixed with local Anatolian populations ..therefore we brought these region few more new components Gedrosia SSA was not existed in Anatolia ,which is high in Turkmens came with us , we also have east asia and northeast asia non of surrounding ethnicities have ( apart from Adige ) , and hunter gatherer was absent in Anatolia you can see in table below …We have some minor Avusturoloid and % Ancestral Altaic all exotic for this region .If you compare Autozomal results you can notice that .
    A few years ago when hg researchs were new , only C , Q ,N haplogrup percentages counted as Turkic , without comparing percentages of these hg in other Turkic groups .All other haplogroups were considered Middleastern or European despite Uygurs Özbeks Turkmens even Altaians have them in sizeable amounth.
    Hg C do not make up a big percentage in Turkic groups except Kazak , N is more common in Siberian natives , Q is also not too common except Turkmen .Our autozomal results completely were out of discussion .
    According to autozomal dna ,we have % 10 -25 east /northeast asian average ,(depends on individual or region, can be low as %2 in some or can be high as %20 but usually around % 8 -15)
    Average percent DNA shared between relatives
    Grandparent / Grandchild
    Aunt / Uncle
    Niece / Nephew Half Sibling 25% Varies by specific relationship
    1st Cousin 12.5% 7.31% – 13.8%
    1st Cousin once removed 6.25% 3.3% – 8.51%
    2nd Cousin 3.13% 2.85% – 5.04%
    That makes us first or second cousin of an East Asian ,
    Central asians are not fully Mongoloid ,it means we are closer them then East asians ofcourse -for example we split from Turkmenistan who are dominantly caucosoid themselves.
    The ones who have Turkic background are mainly Turkmens , second big group is Crimean Tatars and Nogays and we have a group of Pamir Kırgız .We are %10 -25 Eurasians
    This is a research made in Sarybel Rıse Antic DNA matches with modern populations .

    1. Haplogroups have nothing to do either with races (physical look) or language (Turkic is a purely linguistic term). And do not confuse the Turks of Turkey and Turkic (not Turkish!)-speaking nations across Eurasia. The Turks have always failed to make this important distinction. It is as if Germans call the English or Swedes Deutsche, because English and Swedish are Germanic languages.

      1. There is no such distinction made by our ancestors and disctincttions made by people like İlminsky are quite new if you compare all the history we had same name Turco Tatars ..Our tribe names are not seperate nations and our dialects are not unintelligible except for a few very distinct tongues .

  3. Much depends on the definition of the very anti-scientific racial term “White”. Americans seem to have instilled much chaos in the racial categorization in spite of having had an established school of physical anthropologists back before the 1960s. Instead of getting the things straight Americans confuse everything when it concerns races. What type of “White” are we speaking about?
    If we speak of races from the point of view of the human skull (the older 19th century school of anthropology), then the skull of the Turks resembles much the skull of the people from the vast region covering Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, South Asia and some parts of Central Asia. Usually it has been called Europid (European term)/Caucasoid (British/American term), so yes, the Turks have a Europid/Caucasoid skull. Does it mean “White”?
    However, a skilled anthropologist always could make a difference between a skull of a Turk and of, for example, an Italian or a Swede. And he will also note that the Turkish skull has many small peculiarities in its dimensions, notable only statistically (there exist special tables of skull dimensions by different groups). So Turks are not the same as Italians, they belong to their own sub-group, that may be called Anatolian or Armenoid (I know Turks would not like that term).
    If we speak of races from the point of view of more refined physical anthropology of the 20th century, where not only the skull is important, but many other characteristics such as the entire skeleton, the skin, the hair, the facial features, etc., then again the Turks would belong to a very large macro-group of people from Iceland to Bangladesh which has the same name Europid/Caucasoid, and again it is an established scientific fact that the Turks belong there. And once again an attentive and trained eye could pick up small peculiarities which are typical only to the Turks and which make them distant from the others.
    And if we speak of races as defined by the US government, then “Whites” are a very vague group to which the Turks belong without doubt.
    So what’s the point in numerous “who is white” posts? It is unscientific. The racial classification was well-established by the mid 20th century, however, since the 1960s is a taboo science in the West, but the godless USSR did not care about race taboos, hence there existed a very good school of anthropologists who have devised very sophisticated classifications. You do not need to play verbal acrobatics, just open the books and see who is who.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)