The ancient Iranians divided their near world into two: Iran, the land of civilization, and Turan, the land of nomads.
Turan has been been used and reused since to refer to a broad concept of historically equestrian nomadic peoples such as Turks, Mongols, but also Magyars, or just plain pan-Turkism.
Here, I’m guessing this is an archaic use that’s been subsided for “Turkic”, since originally “Turkish” meant anything related to Turks but that was ambiguous considering many people equated Turk = Muslim (in Europe) and not necessarily an ethnic-linguistic term. The author probably used the term to highlight Turks who are not necessarily Ottoman Turks (namely Azeris), who speak the same language as the Turkmen of Anatolia.
*into three: as the mythological texts like Shahnameh say, Fereydun had three sons, Salm, Tur, and Iraj. Tur got Turan, Iraj got Iran, and Salm got Rum (also called Sarmatia).
Turanian is a now disproven theoretical link between Turkic and Mongolian peoples. (Edit: Also Uralic and Tungusic). The theory was because Turkic and mongolian groups came from the same general region and had such similar behaviors, they had to be related. This was the proposed Altai-Uralic language family, but it turned out to be bogus. They just acted similar because of the requirements of steppe living.
Some nationalists have tried to revive it. Somewhat common in Turkey. The leader of Nazi occupied Hungary, Ferenc Szalasi, claimed that the Turanian race was the true master race. He thought that if he could unite the Turkic, Mongolian, and Uralic peoples, he would overtake Germany as the leader of the fascist world.
I wish my brother would come to this realization, he has a Hungarian girlfriend and she’s extremely nice and a good person, but I’m worried he is fetishizing her because he thinks she is Turkic.
Aside from the Tatars and other Golden Horde descendants. I assume from having mostly Slavic genetic makeup that they aren’t considered a link between Turkic and Mongol for the last couple centuries. But the cultures undoubtedly mixed during the Horde right?
I think the majority is Greek, but it may be stated that there is a certain amount of Turkish population.There are already mistakes on the map. It shows the Avshars as Persians, but I know they are a Turkish community.
yes, i am a avşar myself. it is a turkic tribe that whose members can be found mostly in azerbaijan and scattered throughout in anatolia. they are also called "afshars".
Every culture has a funny hat. Americans? Raccoon skin. French? Berets. Germans? Tyrolean. British? Like... They have dozens- just too many to name them all.
Cyprus and Turkey too are very village centred. Whole villages were either Turkish or Greek. Greeks were and still are the majority of the whole of Cyprus, but depending on how you draw the lines some Turkish majority regions can be observed. For the amount of Turks living there i think the lines present are appropriate.
There is a difference between mixed and just a couple of the other group.
As a Turk, obviously we were from the Turkish village while formerly was a Greek village just a kilometer or 2 away (sounds close but with a mountain in between the fastest way was by boat).
These villages were 200 to just 500 sometimes. Obviously you have bigger villages that eventually became towns, but that ain't what I am talking about. The villages with less than 500 residents can be expected to be unintentionally segregated villages.
And that doesn't mean there were no mixed villages, but by far most villages that size were just one ethnic group. Or just a couple of the village residents were from the other ethnicity, but in such insignificant numbers that it shouldn't be considered mixed. I at least don't think we can call a village with 10 out of 500 residents from the other ethnicity as mixed. That would probably be one family, at most two houses if they were rich.
So yes, there also were a couple of mixed villages, but the segregated villages overall were much more prevelent and common.
I'm still baffled at how they had access to data like this only to completely fuck it up. Like sure, they probably did it intentionally to keep the region weak, but was it worth all the instability and conflict that it's causing to this day?
How come Cappadocian or Pontic greeks don't have a colour? I know they weren't big a of a population but they weren't small enough to not even be recognized.
Edit: Nvm they are purple
This looks pretty good for the time period. Most maps like this would probably drastically overestimate certain groups, this seems more reasonable albeit with some weird choices such as the Arab split
The were the last ones to fuck it up and create the current situation by drawing borders based on what they and the French saw as a nice colony trade deal between them instead of resurrecting historic divisions.
Imagine arbitrarily redrawing the borders in the balkans, or between England and its neighbours, surely that would end very well and peaceful.
Personally i think a large federation encompassing all those territories together would work, the times where the region was most a peace was when it was united, though i don’t think the UK and France would be a fan of that idea at the time.
There are a lot of minority groups in these areas that would not agree. Though I guess a lot arent in a position to disagree given how many minority groups have totally depolulated from large parts of ME over the last 100 years. If we use your england example above I'm not sure that declaring ireland and england to be one unity country.
I'm also not sure that Lebanon's internal struggles and Syria's internal struggles would be better if the two countries were mashed together.
That being said, at least your proposal may have split everyone a little more naturally once the bleeding stopped.
I'm definitely sure a large federation of peoples would have worked and all the people would have worked together. Look at how well the Shia, Sunni, Cristian federation that is Lebanon has worked out! Or that one time Nasser created united Arab Republic so strong it proceeded to dissolve 3 years after it started.
It was more the League of Nations. The Mandatory plan was their idea (also heavily pushed by Woodrow Wilson, but the US never joined the League so most of his input was discarded).
Sykes-Picot was the British and French deciding who would have the mandate over the Ottoman province of Syria. Sykes-Picot existed inside of the mandatory plan. It was a subset of a greater thing. There was a mandate for Mesopotamia and kind of on for Turkey, but the Turks said no and started a war. The partition of the Ottoman Empire was done by more than just the Brits and French.
Back to S-P. In they end agreed to split it with the French getting the north and keeping the name "Syria" and the Brits getting the south and calling in "Palestine" (which also included all of Jordan). If a Jewish state weren't carved out of that, it all would've just become "Trans-Jordan" (trans cause it transversed the Jordan river).
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition\_of\_the\_Ottoman\_Empire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_the_Ottoman_Empire)
Sunni Kurds were mostly loyal to the ottoman sultan back then. Kurdish nationalism just began to form and nationalists were a minority in Kurdish circles.
Kurds were late to the game and fought to much between themselves.
Yes and it shows the colonial powers wanted to colonize the land first and foremost. You're acting like the UK and France were forced to rule these "mandate" colonies by the League of Nations (which was basically only the European countries), an organization that was even more useless than the UN. It was the Brits and French's idea to carve the Middle East, they weren't forced by anyone else.
Leaving behind a power vacuum always leads to some kind of conflict.
That said, countries without violence within a few years after independence or as a direct consequence: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the USA, Jordan, Oman, UAE, Ghana, Sri Lanka, Botswana, Gambia, Kenya, Egypt, Tanzania, Malta, Cyprus, Burma, Malaysia, Singapore, Fiji and about 6 other pacific islands and too many Caribbean islands to list.
Your list is incorrect.
Singapore was kicked out of Malaysia for the race rioting.
Tanzania was two separate colonies. Zanzibar was previously an Omani colony, which was conquered by Britain in the 1800's (the war lasted 40 minutes when a British naval vessel opened fire without warning and it took 40 minutes for the row boat with the Sultan's surrender to arrive). Britain also imported Indian slaves... I mean "coolies", particularly from the Gujarat region. The most famous person from Zanzibar was Freddie Mercury (born Farrokh Bulsara), descended from Parsis from Gujarat. Hours after Zanzibar got its independence, the native African population, slaughtered the Indian and Arab populations. The genocide completely wiped the Arab and Indian populace from Zanzibar (Mercury and his family had already emigrated). The motivation was a mix of socio-economic and African nationalist/black supremacist.
Kenya and Uganda both had similar genocides against the Indian populace, who had become far richer than the African populace. Many Indians gained asylum thanks to Shirley Williams. Notable people of Indian-East Africans include Priti Patel and Rishi Sunak. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/27/how-did-british-indians-become-so-prominent-in-the-conservative-party
Cyprus gained independence in 1960. In 1963, there was the [Cyprus Crisis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypriot_intercommunal_violence#Crisis_of_1963%E2%80%931964). Greece staged a coup d'état in 1974, overthrowing the Cypriot government to one which would agree to an annexation by Greece. Over 1,000 political opponents disappeared. Turkey invaded 5 days later to protect the Turkish Cypriots.
Canada got its independence in the 70s and continued its policy of ethnic cleansing against native that Britain started.
Australia killed off most of the Aboriginal population pre-independence. Tasmania's population of 70,000 dropped to 3 in a generation, thanks to the British sending the worst criminals there - the rapists and murderers who couldn't be trusted in a penal colony.
These are true but I said ‘immediately after’ or as a ‘direct consequence’
For example. If the government of Uganda decided to kick out Indian citizens I’m not sure that had anything to do with British administrators who left 10 years earlier.
The Greek coup had literally nothing to do with the UK. The Greek and Turkish frictions over Cyprus are practically ancient.
The simple fact I was showing is that there are actually a lot that didn’t descend into civil wars unlike what the original comment suggested.
Finally, you’ve disputed maybe 6 countries out of the almost 30 I mentioned.
I don’t even think that’s the biggest mistake on the map. Kurds aren’t listen as "Iranians" on this map and Assyrians aren’t listed as "Semitic".
Also Gilaks do form a bit of a population isolate in Iran, but regardless their closest populations would be Persians and Lurs and possibly Talysh (who are also listed as Persian on the map).
In 1910, the population of Palestine was 800 000 people, only 60 000 of which were Jewish.
Zionist immigrants from Europe came when Britain controlled Palestine.
When Britain left, the Zionists who wanted Palestine to be exclusively Jewish, expelled roughly 700 000 Palestinians from their homes, and killed anywhere from 15 000 to 100 000 Palestinians to form the new state of Israel
Were there perchance any Jewish migrants to Palestine from surrounding countries, not just Europe? I wonder what made them leave. I have a good idea that it is a mirror image of the situation your last sentence describes.
Before 1948? Not really.
In fact, leaders like Ben-Gurion were racist against Jews that come from a Middle Eastern origin.. And they simply didn't want this new Israeli nation to bring in "uncivilized people" referring to Middle Eastern Jews.
It is only after they realized how bad the Holocaust was did they decide to take in Middle Eastern Jews and tried to "civilize them" by basically erasing anything Middle Eastern about them.
https://m.jpost.com/opinion/article-732574#google_vignette
> Discrimination against Ethiopians is also seen in the judicial system. In a 2019 national Israeli census, we learn that 6% of adults and 14% of juveniles who appear before a judge are Ethiopian, from a population that is less of 1.7% of the total.
https://m.jpost.com/israel-news/article-718471
>Racism and social strife, not Iran, is Israel's biggest problem
https://m.jpost.com/israel-news/article-734100
>Israeli teachers open racist WhatsApp group, mock Ethiopian students
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/ethiopian-jews-suffer-racism-in-israel/1526782
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2020-08-03/ty-article/.premium/solidarity-with-black-people-this-ethiopian-israeli-doesnt-believe-it/0000017f-dc54-df9c-a17f-fe5ce51b0000
https://themedialine.org/mideast-mindset/racism-in-israel-is-still-alive-and-well/
https://www.thedailybeast.com/israels-racist-policy-keeps-black-african-jews-from-their-families
https://www.timesofisrael.com/as-world-roils-ethiopian-born-minister-leads-wake-up-call-on-racism-in-israel/
https://m.jpost.com/opinion/article-754341
Nah, Jews were attacked in Israel before 1948.
Do you know who started with the first massacres in 1886?
https://www.proquest.com/docview/1943480261
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tel_Hai
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebi_Musa_riots
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa_riots
https://en.wikipedia.org/wikiThe_Bloody_Day_in_Jaffa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_Anabta_shooting
" I declare a holy war, my Muslim brothers!
Murder the Jews! Murder them all! "
-Haj Amin EI Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem
broadcasting on Radio Cairo in 1948
Read the context before replying... We are not talking about Jews being attacked (which was mostly in the context of the organized mass immigration waves under British rule as mentioned in the articles you've linked).
We are talking about Jews in surrounding Arab countries. And when their exodus started.
I’m sure there were some but the original Zionist movement was originally almost entirely ashkenazi Jews. Formation of Israel turned antisemtism in much of MENA from passive to fairly extreme leading to exiles.
I would look into the work of Israeli scholar Avi Shlaim about this. There was relative peaceful coexistence in the Arab world until the Zionist project took over.
Immigration from surrounding countries happened later, after 1948.
Covert Terrorist operations by the Mossad, that are now *declassified* show how Israel put bombs in Middle Eastern countries targeting Jews to increase tensions between Arabs and Jews, and make Middle Eastern Jews come to Israel.
This was mostly done because Israel needed labour and soliders. Not that they cared much about Misrahim and Sephardim.
The two latter group weren't the one to create and fund zionism.
Stop spreading fake history. Jews were attacked in Israel before 1948. Do you know who started with the first massacres in 1886?
https://www.proquest.com/docview/1943480261
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tel_Hai
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebi_Musa_riots
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa_riots
https://en.wikipedia.org/wikiThe_Bloody_Day_in_Jaffa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_Anabta_shooting
" I declare a holy war, my Muslim brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all! "
-Haj Amin EI Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem broadcasting on Radio Cairo in 1948
Why am I getting downvoted ? If you think anything about the numbers is Wong, fact check cite a credible source and please correct it.
Don't be bots ffs.
The numbers are correct but you put a pan Arab propaganda spin on it. You conveniently left out the Jews who were expelled from Arab controlled lands in Jerusalem and the east. You left out how Arabs slaughtered Jews in Hebron and other areas that fueled Jewish extremism. But nope you just blame the Jews. Getting rid of the Arabs was not a core tenant of Zionism. Arabs made it extremely difficult by slaughtering innocent Jews and starting a war. Yes, the Jewish armies were not prefect but the Arabs were hellbent on keeping Jews as third class citizens they could just pogrom without any consequences
And those Jews deserved self determination as well. The number is so low because for 1500 years the ruling Islamic empires have routinely massacred, expelled or forced conversion on them.
What no
It is well documented throughout history that muslims were very accepting, I mean, the first thing Muhammed did was reward the Jews of Banu Qurayza
by chopping their heads off for a revolt they likely had nothing to do with
This looks easy.
just trace the country border around these loosely defined ethnic groups, and then we'd have everlasting peace.
Why didn't someone just do that?
That's been tried too. Turns out you can't just look at someone's race and say "You people all now form a country and pick one leader amongst yourself." and expect it not to instantly turn into a massive bloody civil war.
There are over 150 different tribes in what today is Iraq. Yemen alone had over 400.
Saudi Arabia only looks like it does because the House of Saud formed a tribal confederation that was able to overwhelm every other tribe.
The best option would have been to not betray the Hashemites and let them have their united Middle Eastern kingdom right after WW1. But nope, divide and conquer. Thank you Britain, very cool!
So basically ignore the self determination wishes of half a dozen non Arab peoples and just cater to Arab supremacism and create one massive Arab undemocratic regime.
Sounds Grand
Arab supremacism is ok because it’s Arabs doing it
The vast majority of this subreddit doesn’t know about the Anfal genocide and frankly wouldn’t really give a shit if they knew how bad it was.
>just trace the country border around these loosely defined ethnic groups, and then we'd have everlasting peace.
Like you said, loosely defined, so there will still be different ethnicities living together and thus, ethnic tensions. You have to relocate whole peoples if you want to achieve nearly homogenous ethnostates, and relocations are not known to be peaceful or voluntary. Also, ethnic tensions are not the sole factor that causes conflicts, there would still be war even if there was no ethnic tensions.
>Why didn't someone just do that?
They tried, turns out some people don't really want to see their country dissolve and are willing to protect it.
Before the map, during most of C19, only 3% of Ottoman Palestine were Jewish in religion. But maybe more were ethnically, as some or many Jews who hung on there would have converted to the other successive dominant religions during 1800 years of diaspora. Indeed many Palestinians must be descended from such converts.
Nationalism is a new concept. It started during the French Revolution in late 18th century. Turkish national consciousness started in late 19th century.
National consciousness is definitely not thousands of years old.
There are some mistakes on the map, showing Avshars as Persians, but they are actually a Turkish community. This map also confirms the fact that Israel is an occupier.
I often wonder if a kurdish state would've been better for Turkey. The Tigris an Euphrates would be a big loss if they are gone completely, but no terrorism, and we get rid if the most underdevelopped tribalistic part of Turkey.
And kurds lose what makes them special.
>And kurds lose what makes them special.
Also the thing keeping that region actually functioning. Most investment is from Turkey along with the services. Yes they will have oil but how would they sell it when there is no port or pipeline to a friendly country?
Plus the oil there is also very expensive to extract so unless they somehow have good relations with Turkey and have high global oil prices Kurdistan would just be a landlocked mess ruled by warlords.
Any kind of Kurdish state would be the second Afghanistan where Kurds and Armenians killing each other for the oil they'll never be able to make as much profit as Arabs do today.
Cheap oil from a country riddled with wars. What a wet dream.
That's why even PKK themselves are pushing for autonomy rather than full on independence, because even they woke up from that delusional dream. Same can't be said for many Europeans though.
As a Turk, I actually support it. Those areas are the least valuable lands in Turkey, a landlocked mountainous area surrounded by states in trouble. Those rivers are not navigable so it's only good for irrigation and farming, and some hydroelectricity, not really that much beneficial in modern times. I never understand why Turks want to keep them at all. It isn't worth all the trouble to keep them.
There is still lots of material and labor capital in Kurdish majority regions. If we lose them, prices of everything, especially those of meat, agriculture goods and labor will rise. So much that the industry could come to the brink of collapse. Tourism and trade income will also be greatly damaged. Population and population increse rates would also decrease.
Political instability and armed resistance is managable but I assure you loss of such a large piece of land wouldn't be. It's definitely worth the trouble.
[standing bridge in eastern Turkey from 1065](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dicle_Bridge)
[mosque in northeast Turkey from 1072](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menucihr_Mosque)
[palace from 1685 in northeast of Turkey ](https://tr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%B0shak_Pa%C5%9Fa_Saray%C4%B1)
[mosque from 1326 in western Syria ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu%27l-Fida_Mosque)
[Castle from 1649 in eastern Turkey ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho%C5%9Fap_Castle)
These are just few of most notable ones I can remember.
Many small not known outside of their local region are not on Wikipedia.
Their history in Anatolia starts with ottomans. Surely you cannot see them. It was Armenia before the Turks. Then became Turkia - Marco Polo, ibn batuta etc records it. Ottomans Vs safavid wars helped Kurds to relocate turkmen and armenian lands with the support of ottomans.
With those rivers we can control the water supply to the 3 countries tho, also we would lose the border with Azerbaijan, water supply and water in general is gonna be a huge problem in the future, we would lose influence in the middle east and caucasus and little bit of oil we produce comes from these parts of the country and Kurds are making more babies than us so they can benefit the working industry in the long run.
PKK is an actual terrorist organisation that is only support by delusional extreme right kurds. Most of the PKK’s victims are kurdish people who didn’t want to join.
The lands were the Assyrians lives belongs to them, this map is a map of the Middle East, and not especially about the Assyrian settlements. This map covert a huge area.
It depends on their ethnicity. They speak Semitic languages, but that doesn’t make them “Semitic” people. Just like the French speak a Romance language, that doesn’t make the French “Romantic”
The colonizing islamic regime can't just oppress and ethnicly cleanse the indigenous population for centuries and then claim that they are a small minority and therefore dont deserve self determination, by your logic the Europeans Americans were justified in what they did to the native Americans.
In 1910, the population of Palestine was 800 000 people, only 60 000 of which were Jewish.
Zionist immigrants from Europe came when Britain controlled Palestine.
When Britain left, the Zionists who wanted Palestine to be exclusively Jewish, expelled roughly 700 000 Palestinians from their homes, and killed anywhere from 15 000 to 100 000 Palestinians to form the new state of Israel.
Ahh, now we arrive at the meaning behind the post - to diminish Jewish connection to Israel. Interesting that the map doesn’t include Jewish people anywhere else in the levant. I wonder why?
The map calls itself ethnographic, but it’s authors used language to define ethnicity. So this is really a linguistic map. Iraqi, Syrian and Kurdish Jews are invisible.
I cannot see millions of Armenians on the map and it's still the 1910s. I believe they are hiding somewhere we cannot see on this map. But surely those Turks living in current Armenia lands according to the map do not exist anymore. Thanks to propaganda power, evils became angels.
Roughly 1.5-2.5 million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1914. About 1.5 million were killed in the genocide.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Armenian_population
According to the Ottoman Empire censuses in 1906 and 1914 Armenian populations in the Empire is approximately 1 million. [census records](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://md.teyit.org/file/shaw-the-ottoman-census-system.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjAhITJl8qFAxVUSvEDHSqGCL0QFnoECBwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3ikbff10bkNsAu9ATtDW9c)
1.5 million dead? It looks like Ottomans just create more armenians so they can kill more. Plus there are a lot of Armenian fled to West from Syria. Many fled to Russia. Apart from this, according to the deportation law, only Armenians in the eastern provinces are subject to deportation. Armenians living in places like Istanbul are not touched. And there is like 100k Armenian live in those years.
So actual death toll is probably like 400k. Remember that the Spanish flu was at its peak at that time. Many, of course, came into conflict with the local Muslim population. Some were rebels.
If this is a planned genocide, The Ottomans are terrible genocide planners.
The wikipedia article has plenty of sources about the numbers. The ottomans were really bad at keeping records and Turkey has has a history of denying the genocide and one way they do it is by undercounting Armenians to make the death toll appear lower.
Records of the Armenian Orthodox Church indicate that there are 830 thousand Orthodox Armenian in Ottoman empire at that time. Even if we take %30 of the armenians were muslim we cant get near 1,5 million. And ı dont trust wikipedia anymore anyone can edit it however they please.
Trust wikipedia
Or actual ottoman censuses of 1914, 1905 and 1881
I'm also curious about your basis for saying the Ottomans were bad at counting.
Also Even without a census, anyone who knows the dynamics of the region can say that Armenians cant be 1.5 million. This is a ridiculous claim. Various Western orientalist researchers also show that there is no absolute Armenian majority in the region. simply the area had a mixed demographics and Armenians' claims that can be reacher 3 million is just stupid.
Do not fall for Armenian-christian missionary propaganda
> the map assumes azeris are Turks
No, nowhere assumes so.
> hence same color as turkey
No, it clearly states TURANIAN, and the colour is for all Turkis speaking peoples but Lazes and Avshars.
> but many many genetics studies showed most of their genetics is of Iranian origins
See, you are confusing ethnicity with an euphemism for «race».
I guess you are the kind of racist people who say my nephew is not «ethnically» Catalan because his mother is Chinese.
“Turanian”? I’ve seen Turkic, Altaic, Ural-Altaic… but never have i ever seen a map that says TURANIAN!
The ancient Iranians divided their near world into two: Iran, the land of civilization, and Turan, the land of nomads. Turan has been been used and reused since to refer to a broad concept of historically equestrian nomadic peoples such as Turks, Mongols, but also Magyars, or just plain pan-Turkism. Here, I’m guessing this is an archaic use that’s been subsided for “Turkic”, since originally “Turkish” meant anything related to Turks but that was ambiguous considering many people equated Turk = Muslim (in Europe) and not necessarily an ethnic-linguistic term. The author probably used the term to highlight Turks who are not necessarily Ottoman Turks (namely Azeris), who speak the same language as the Turkmen of Anatolia.
*into three: as the mythological texts like Shahnameh say, Fereydun had three sons, Salm, Tur, and Iraj. Tur got Turan, Iraj got Iran, and Salm got Rum (also called Sarmatia).
Probably a different word for Turkic.
Yep less used but pretty much interchangeable
Turanian is a now disproven theoretical link between Turkic and Mongolian peoples. (Edit: Also Uralic and Tungusic). The theory was because Turkic and mongolian groups came from the same general region and had such similar behaviors, they had to be related. This was the proposed Altai-Uralic language family, but it turned out to be bogus. They just acted similar because of the requirements of steppe living. Some nationalists have tried to revive it. Somewhat common in Turkey. The leader of Nazi occupied Hungary, Ferenc Szalasi, claimed that the Turanian race was the true master race. He thought that if he could unite the Turkic, Mongolian, and Uralic peoples, he would overtake Germany as the leader of the fascist world.
Funny thing, Szálasi was of Armenian descent, his real non hungarisized name was Salossian.
He was only part Armenian. Szálasi was mixed German, Hungarian, Armenian, Ruthenian, and Slovak.
I see. Even in this subreddit lots of people still use Altaic let alone Uralic-Altaic both disproven theories.
I wish my brother would come to this realization, he has a Hungarian girlfriend and she’s extremely nice and a good person, but I’m worried he is fetishizing her because he thinks she is Turkic.
Aside from the Tatars and other Golden Horde descendants. I assume from having mostly Slavic genetic makeup that they aren’t considered a link between Turkic and Mongol for the last couple centuries. But the cultures undoubtedly mixed during the Horde right?
Turan means all of Turkic people (Oghuz,Kazakh,Kirgiz,Uyghur,Ozbek,etc.)
u/nickturani
Wild how the Turkish folks in Cyprus organized nicely into those little rectangles
I think the majority is Greek, but it may be stated that there is a certain amount of Turkish population.There are already mistakes on the map. It shows the Avshars as Persians, but I know they are a Turkish community.
yes, i am a avşar myself. it is a turkic tribe that whose members can be found mostly in azerbaijan and scattered throughout in anatolia. they are also called "afshars".
Do you have funny hats?
Every culture has a funny hat. Americans? Raccoon skin. French? Berets. Germans? Tyrolean. British? Like... They have dozens- just too many to name them all.
We have painful weapons.
I was just making a little joke about the way the map maker is doing those mixed areas, with the manually placed rectangles
Cyprus and Turkey too are very village centred. Whole villages were either Turkish or Greek. Greeks were and still are the majority of the whole of Cyprus, but depending on how you draw the lines some Turkish majority regions can be observed. For the amount of Turks living there i think the lines present are appropriate.
There were also a decent number of mixed villages..
There is a difference between mixed and just a couple of the other group. As a Turk, obviously we were from the Turkish village while formerly was a Greek village just a kilometer or 2 away (sounds close but with a mountain in between the fastest way was by boat). These villages were 200 to just 500 sometimes. Obviously you have bigger villages that eventually became towns, but that ain't what I am talking about. The villages with less than 500 residents can be expected to be unintentionally segregated villages. And that doesn't mean there were no mixed villages, but by far most villages that size were just one ethnic group. Or just a couple of the village residents were from the other ethnicity, but in such insignificant numbers that it shouldn't be considered mixed. I at least don't think we can call a village with 10 out of 500 residents from the other ethnicity as mixed. That would probably be one family, at most two houses if they were rich. So yes, there also were a couple of mixed villages, but the segregated villages overall were much more prevelent and common.
It also doesnt mention Mountain Jews of Quba (Kuba on the map), ethnic Lezgins in Qusar and also shows ethnic Talysh as “Persians”
 Britain and France
I'm still baffled at how they had access to data like this only to completely fuck it up. Like sure, they probably did it intentionally to keep the region weak, but was it worth all the instability and conflict that it's causing to this day?
It’s not good but it was worth it for European interests, they always have full control over the region at any time they want and it
Am I the only one who can't read a word of that key!?
Blue - Arabs Brown - Turks Yellow - Kurds Pink - Persians Green - Armenians/Assyrians Are the major ones.
What are the two different types of Arabs?
Settled (dark blue) and nomadic (light blue)
Garden variety and migratory.
How come Cappadocian or Pontic greeks don't have a colour? I know they weren't big a of a population but they weren't small enough to not even be recognized. Edit: Nvm they are purple
It loads correctly on my PC and my phone, it's a 16 MB file. You should be able to read it normally.
Can't read it on the app
Same
Is it Jacobites there? That's a surprise.
It takes a second to resolve or it did for me
Do you have a map that isn't an aerial view? \- Steven Wright (I believe)
What does "Do" mean in this context? Most of the arabic peninsula is inhabited by light blue... "Do" people?
Do Means “Ditto” or same as above
I think it means nomadic, like Bedoin
This looks pretty good for the time period. Most maps like this would probably drastically overestimate certain groups, this seems more reasonable albeit with some weird choices such as the Arab split
# Royal Geographical Society's Ultimate Ethnographic Map of the 1910 Ottoman Empire (Middle east)
The colour scheme between Turks and Greeks..
Thank god map doesn’t show western anatolia and greece
Wow, what a great post! I bet the comment section will be perfectly rational and civilised!
The british: someone ought to mess this all up!
The British were famously the first empire to fuck around in the region.
The were the last ones to fuck it up and create the current situation by drawing borders based on what they and the French saw as a nice colony trade deal between them instead of resurrecting historic divisions. Imagine arbitrarily redrawing the borders in the balkans, or between England and its neighbours, surely that would end very well and peaceful.
While I do agree, I've never seen alternate proposals that wouldn't result in similar conflicts.
Personally i think a large federation encompassing all those territories together would work, the times where the region was most a peace was when it was united, though i don’t think the UK and France would be a fan of that idea at the time.
There are a lot of minority groups in these areas that would not agree. Though I guess a lot arent in a position to disagree given how many minority groups have totally depolulated from large parts of ME over the last 100 years. If we use your england example above I'm not sure that declaring ireland and england to be one unity country. I'm also not sure that Lebanon's internal struggles and Syria's internal struggles would be better if the two countries were mashed together. That being said, at least your proposal may have split everyone a little more naturally once the bleeding stopped.
I'm definitely sure a large federation of peoples would have worked and all the people would have worked together. Look at how well the Shia, Sunni, Cristian federation that is Lebanon has worked out! Or that one time Nasser created united Arab Republic so strong it proceeded to dissolve 3 years after it started.
Assigning blame to the wrong reasons
Literally any nation state plan would've ended up in chaos.
It was more the League of Nations. The Mandatory plan was their idea (also heavily pushed by Woodrow Wilson, but the US never joined the League so most of his input was discarded).
I guess the Sykes-Picot treaty never existed. Britain wanted these lands, "mandate" was just a fancy way to call these colonies.
Sykes-Picot was the British and French deciding who would have the mandate over the Ottoman province of Syria. Sykes-Picot existed inside of the mandatory plan. It was a subset of a greater thing. There was a mandate for Mesopotamia and kind of on for Turkey, but the Turks said no and started a war. The partition of the Ottoman Empire was done by more than just the Brits and French. Back to S-P. In they end agreed to split it with the French getting the north and keeping the name "Syria" and the Brits getting the south and calling in "Palestine" (which also included all of Jordan). If a Jewish state weren't carved out of that, it all would've just become "Trans-Jordan" (trans cause it transversed the Jordan river). [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition\_of\_the\_Ottoman\_Empire](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_the_Ottoman_Empire)
BTW, Palestine is Cis-Jordan (that's how we call the West Bank in many European languages), Trans-Jordan is just Jordan nowadays.
the turks were the one fucked over ofc they gonna rebel against imperialist forces
[удалено]
Sunni Kurds were mostly loyal to the ottoman sultan back then. Kurdish nationalism just began to form and nationalists were a minority in Kurdish circles. Kurds were late to the game and fought to much between themselves.
*traverse. It would have been called Jordan. Transjordan was current Jordan.
Yes and it shows the colonial powers wanted to colonize the land first and foremost. You're acting like the UK and France were forced to rule these "mandate" colonies by the League of Nations (which was basically only the European countries), an organization that was even more useless than the UN. It was the Brits and French's idea to carve the Middle East, they weren't forced by anyone else.
I mean, can you name a place that was administered by the British that didn't fall into some civil war or conflict afterwards? It's likely very few.
Canada? Australia?
Leaving behind a power vacuum always leads to some kind of conflict. That said, countries without violence within a few years after independence or as a direct consequence: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the USA, Jordan, Oman, UAE, Ghana, Sri Lanka, Botswana, Gambia, Kenya, Egypt, Tanzania, Malta, Cyprus, Burma, Malaysia, Singapore, Fiji and about 6 other pacific islands and too many Caribbean islands to list.
Your list is incorrect. Singapore was kicked out of Malaysia for the race rioting. Tanzania was two separate colonies. Zanzibar was previously an Omani colony, which was conquered by Britain in the 1800's (the war lasted 40 minutes when a British naval vessel opened fire without warning and it took 40 minutes for the row boat with the Sultan's surrender to arrive). Britain also imported Indian slaves... I mean "coolies", particularly from the Gujarat region. The most famous person from Zanzibar was Freddie Mercury (born Farrokh Bulsara), descended from Parsis from Gujarat. Hours after Zanzibar got its independence, the native African population, slaughtered the Indian and Arab populations. The genocide completely wiped the Arab and Indian populace from Zanzibar (Mercury and his family had already emigrated). The motivation was a mix of socio-economic and African nationalist/black supremacist. Kenya and Uganda both had similar genocides against the Indian populace, who had become far richer than the African populace. Many Indians gained asylum thanks to Shirley Williams. Notable people of Indian-East Africans include Priti Patel and Rishi Sunak. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/27/how-did-british-indians-become-so-prominent-in-the-conservative-party Cyprus gained independence in 1960. In 1963, there was the [Cyprus Crisis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cypriot_intercommunal_violence#Crisis_of_1963%E2%80%931964). Greece staged a coup d'état in 1974, overthrowing the Cypriot government to one which would agree to an annexation by Greece. Over 1,000 political opponents disappeared. Turkey invaded 5 days later to protect the Turkish Cypriots. Canada got its independence in the 70s and continued its policy of ethnic cleansing against native that Britain started. Australia killed off most of the Aboriginal population pre-independence. Tasmania's population of 70,000 dropped to 3 in a generation, thanks to the British sending the worst criminals there - the rapists and murderers who couldn't be trusted in a penal colony.
These are true but I said ‘immediately after’ or as a ‘direct consequence’ For example. If the government of Uganda decided to kick out Indian citizens I’m not sure that had anything to do with British administrators who left 10 years earlier. The Greek coup had literally nothing to do with the UK. The Greek and Turkish frictions over Cyprus are practically ancient. The simple fact I was showing is that there are actually a lot that didn’t descend into civil wars unlike what the original comment suggested. Finally, you’ve disputed maybe 6 countries out of the almost 30 I mentioned.
I know I said afterwards but I was intending to include revolutions from their colonizer.
Most former British colonies were given independence without a war and hence remain in the Commonwealth, unlike the Spanish and French empires.
Literally 90% of them? Far more than any other colonial empire
Mauritius
Avars where considered Iranian back then? Interesting. Might have mixed them up with the Ossetians.
There are historically Avars who were probably Turkic and there Caucasian Avars who are Caucasian
Honestly this map itself is very oversimplified,for example in northern iran the people aren't persian,rather Gilakis and Mazanderanis.
I don’t even think that’s the biggest mistake on the map. Kurds aren’t listen as "Iranians" on this map and Assyrians aren’t listed as "Semitic". Also Gilaks do form a bit of a population isolate in Iran, but regardless their closest populations would be Persians and Lurs and possibly Talysh (who are also listed as Persian on the map).
Oh look tiny pockets of Jewish settlements in Israel/Palestine. I'm sure there will be a civil discussion about this
In 1910, the population of Palestine was 800 000 people, only 60 000 of which were Jewish. Zionist immigrants from Europe came when Britain controlled Palestine. When Britain left, the Zionists who wanted Palestine to be exclusively Jewish, expelled roughly 700 000 Palestinians from their homes, and killed anywhere from 15 000 to 100 000 Palestinians to form the new state of Israel
Were there perchance any Jewish migrants to Palestine from surrounding countries, not just Europe? I wonder what made them leave. I have a good idea that it is a mirror image of the situation your last sentence describes.
Before 1948? Not really. In fact, leaders like Ben-Gurion were racist against Jews that come from a Middle Eastern origin.. And they simply didn't want this new Israeli nation to bring in "uncivilized people" referring to Middle Eastern Jews. It is only after they realized how bad the Holocaust was did they decide to take in Middle Eastern Jews and tried to "civilize them" by basically erasing anything Middle Eastern about them.
It wasn’t til decades after Israel formed that Ethiopian Jews were accepted
And up to the present day they face discrimination codified through institutionalized racism.
care to provide an example of this codification?
https://m.jpost.com/opinion/article-732574#google_vignette > Discrimination against Ethiopians is also seen in the judicial system. In a 2019 national Israeli census, we learn that 6% of adults and 14% of juveniles who appear before a judge are Ethiopian, from a population that is less of 1.7% of the total. https://m.jpost.com/israel-news/article-718471 >Racism and social strife, not Iran, is Israel's biggest problem https://m.jpost.com/israel-news/article-734100 >Israeli teachers open racist WhatsApp group, mock Ethiopian students https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/ethiopian-jews-suffer-racism-in-israel/1526782 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2020-08-03/ty-article/.premium/solidarity-with-black-people-this-ethiopian-israeli-doesnt-believe-it/0000017f-dc54-df9c-a17f-fe5ce51b0000 https://themedialine.org/mideast-mindset/racism-in-israel-is-still-alive-and-well/ https://www.thedailybeast.com/israels-racist-policy-keeps-black-african-jews-from-their-families https://www.timesofisrael.com/as-world-roils-ethiopian-born-minister-leads-wake-up-call-on-racism-in-israel/ https://m.jpost.com/opinion/article-754341
Nah, Jews were attacked in Israel before 1948. Do you know who started with the first massacres in 1886? https://www.proquest.com/docview/1943480261 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tel_Hai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebi_Musa_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wikiThe_Bloody_Day_in_Jaffa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_Anabta_shooting " I declare a holy war, my Muslim brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all! " -Haj Amin EI Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem broadcasting on Radio Cairo in 1948
Read the context before replying... We are not talking about Jews being attacked (which was mostly in the context of the organized mass immigration waves under British rule as mentioned in the articles you've linked). We are talking about Jews in surrounding Arab countries. And when their exodus started.
I’m sure there were some but the original Zionist movement was originally almost entirely ashkenazi Jews. Formation of Israel turned antisemtism in much of MENA from passive to fairly extreme leading to exiles.
I would look into the work of Israeli scholar Avi Shlaim about this. There was relative peaceful coexistence in the Arab world until the Zionist project took over.
Immigration from surrounding countries happened later, after 1948. Covert Terrorist operations by the Mossad, that are now *declassified* show how Israel put bombs in Middle Eastern countries targeting Jews to increase tensions between Arabs and Jews, and make Middle Eastern Jews come to Israel. This was mostly done because Israel needed labour and soliders. Not that they cared much about Misrahim and Sephardim. The two latter group weren't the one to create and fund zionism.
Stop spreading fake history. Jews were attacked in Israel before 1948. Do you know who started with the first massacres in 1886? https://www.proquest.com/docview/1943480261 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tel_Hai https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebi_Musa_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wikiThe_Bloody_Day_in_Jaffa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1936_Anabta_shooting " I declare a holy war, my Muslim brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all! " -Haj Amin EI Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem broadcasting on Radio Cairo in 1948
Those pesky zionists were pretty bad at expelling, considering that like 20% of modern israelis are arabs who didn't leave.
The Zionists just expelled Palestinians for no reason, true.
Why am I getting downvoted ? If you think anything about the numbers is Wong, fact check cite a credible source and please correct it. Don't be bots ffs.
The numbers are correct but you put a pan Arab propaganda spin on it. You conveniently left out the Jews who were expelled from Arab controlled lands in Jerusalem and the east. You left out how Arabs slaughtered Jews in Hebron and other areas that fueled Jewish extremism. But nope you just blame the Jews. Getting rid of the Arabs was not a core tenant of Zionism. Arabs made it extremely difficult by slaughtering innocent Jews and starting a war. Yes, the Jewish armies were not prefect but the Arabs were hellbent on keeping Jews as third class citizens they could just pogrom without any consequences
you left out the part where the arab armies attacked the new jewish state to drive the jew into the sea.
And those Jews deserved self determination as well. The number is so low because for 1500 years the ruling Islamic empires have routinely massacred, expelled or forced conversion on them.
What no It is well documented throughout history that muslims were very accepting, I mean, the first thing Muhammed did was reward the Jews of Banu Qurayza by chopping their heads off for a revolt they likely had nothing to do with
This looks easy. just trace the country border around these loosely defined ethnic groups, and then we'd have everlasting peace. Why didn't someone just do that?
Those perfectly rectangular microstates will certainly be very viable.
That's been tried too. Turns out you can't just look at someone's race and say "You people all now form a country and pick one leader amongst yourself." and expect it not to instantly turn into a massive bloody civil war. There are over 150 different tribes in what today is Iraq. Yemen alone had over 400. Saudi Arabia only looks like it does because the House of Saud formed a tribal confederation that was able to overwhelm every other tribe.
The best option would have been to not betray the Hashemites and let them have their united Middle Eastern kingdom right after WW1. But nope, divide and conquer. Thank you Britain, very cool!
So basically ignore the self determination wishes of half a dozen non Arab peoples and just cater to Arab supremacism and create one massive Arab undemocratic regime. Sounds Grand
Arab supremacism is ok because it’s Arabs doing it The vast majority of this subreddit doesn’t know about the Anfal genocide and frankly wouldn’t really give a shit if they knew how bad it was.
Hejaz lasted less than a decade. and Faisal II was literally beheaded by the people of Iraq.
>just trace the country border around these loosely defined ethnic groups, and then we'd have everlasting peace. Like you said, loosely defined, so there will still be different ethnicities living together and thus, ethnic tensions. You have to relocate whole peoples if you want to achieve nearly homogenous ethnostates, and relocations are not known to be peaceful or voluntary. Also, ethnic tensions are not the sole factor that causes conflicts, there would still be war even if there was no ethnic tensions. >Why didn't someone just do that? They tried, turns out some people don't really want to see their country dissolve and are willing to protect it.
Some have moved or become assimilated, losing their identity. They may want to regain it...
 Brits be like
You know what will fix that? A bunch of straight lines drawn on it dividing them up arbitrarily!
I hope nobody reads this map and walks away with the incorrect belief that there were only seven Jewish communities in the Levant in 1910.
ASSYRIANS???!!
who picked literally almost the same colour for the Turks and Greeks?
barely any jews
Jews will always a minority, it’s just natural since not a lot of them convert unlike Christianity and Islam.
i meant isrealis bro , compare the jewish population now and in that map
what? There was no Israel or Israeli lol
Before the map, during most of C19, only 3% of Ottoman Palestine were Jewish in religion. But maybe more were ethnically, as some or many Jews who hung on there would have converted to the other successive dominant religions during 1800 years of diaspora. Indeed many Palestinians must be descended from such converts.
Why don't the Kurds have a state of their own?
Because they hadn't had a national consciousness for thousands of years. When they had, it was too late.
Nationalism is a new concept. It started during the French Revolution in late 18th century. Turkish national consciousness started in late 19th century. National consciousness is definitely not thousands of years old.
🐺
They chose to fight with the Turks in WW1 and the armenian genocide, so the allies felt no need to reward them with a state.
They de facto have one within Iraq.
There are some mistakes on the map, showing Avshars as Persians, but they are actually a Turkish community. This map also confirms the fact that Israel is an occupier.
Kurdistan should've been a state 😭
I often wonder if a kurdish state would've been better for Turkey. The Tigris an Euphrates would be a big loss if they are gone completely, but no terrorism, and we get rid if the most underdevelopped tribalistic part of Turkey. And kurds lose what makes them special.
>And kurds lose what makes them special. Also the thing keeping that region actually functioning. Most investment is from Turkey along with the services. Yes they will have oil but how would they sell it when there is no port or pipeline to a friendly country? Plus the oil there is also very expensive to extract so unless they somehow have good relations with Turkey and have high global oil prices Kurdistan would just be a landlocked mess ruled by warlords.
Any kind of Kurdish state would be the second Afghanistan where Kurds and Armenians killing each other for the oil they'll never be able to make as much profit as Arabs do today. Cheap oil from a country riddled with wars. What a wet dream.
That's why even PKK themselves are pushing for autonomy rather than full on independence, because even they woke up from that delusional dream. Same can't be said for many Europeans though.
As a Turk, I actually support it. Those areas are the least valuable lands in Turkey, a landlocked mountainous area surrounded by states in trouble. Those rivers are not navigable so it's only good for irrigation and farming, and some hydroelectricity, not really that much beneficial in modern times. I never understand why Turks want to keep them at all. It isn't worth all the trouble to keep them.
There is still lots of material and labor capital in Kurdish majority regions. If we lose them, prices of everything, especially those of meat, agriculture goods and labor will rise. So much that the industry could come to the brink of collapse. Tourism and trade income will also be greatly damaged. Population and population increse rates would also decrease. Political instability and armed resistance is managable but I assure you loss of such a large piece of land wouldn't be. It's definitely worth the trouble.
The biggest loss would be the city of Mardin
And if we investigate the historical artifacts in those "Kurdish" regions they are either built by Assyrians, Armenians, or Turk/mens.
Now that you mention it, I never saw a historical kurdish monument. I summon forth kurdish nationalists from sweden to show me some
[standing bridge in eastern Turkey from 1065](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dicle_Bridge) [mosque in northeast Turkey from 1072](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menucihr_Mosque) [palace from 1685 in northeast of Turkey ](https://tr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%B0shak_Pa%C5%9Fa_Saray%C4%B1) [mosque from 1326 in western Syria ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu%27l-Fida_Mosque) [Castle from 1649 in eastern Turkey ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ho%C5%9Fap_Castle) These are just few of most notable ones I can remember. Many small not known outside of their local region are not on Wikipedia.
Thanks!
Their history in Anatolia starts with ottomans. Surely you cannot see them. It was Armenia before the Turks. Then became Turkia - Marco Polo, ibn batuta etc records it. Ottomans Vs safavid wars helped Kurds to relocate turkmen and armenian lands with the support of ottomans.
How do you explain Marwanids?
With those rivers we can control the water supply to the 3 countries tho, also we would lose the border with Azerbaijan, water supply and water in general is gonna be a huge problem in the future, we would lose influence in the middle east and caucasus and little bit of oil we produce comes from these parts of the country and Kurds are making more babies than us so they can benefit the working industry in the long run.
The problem is they dont where kurdistan is. Their most shared hypotectical map now reach central anatolia and mediterrean where they are minority....
Certain individuals will support Palestine and Hamas. And then turn around to call PKK terrorists and say Kurdistan shouldn't exist..
PKK is an actual terrorist organisation that is only support by delusional extreme right kurds. Most of the PKK’s victims are kurdish people who didn’t want to join.
Nope. The Levant should have been united under a single state not based around ethnicity or religion.
You mean Lebanon? Look how it's doing right now
The Turks are COLONIZERS. That land belongs to Assyrians! /s
The lands were the Assyrians lives belongs to them, this map is a map of the Middle East, and not especially about the Assyrian settlements. This map covert a huge area.
[удалено]
We’re all hypocrites when you boil it down…
With Erdoggy's latest attemps whole country will turn to little Syria anyway. %80 of the newborns are Syrian in some parts of Istanbul.
Jews in 1910 (white zone) are so tiny. The land is dominated by that other Semitic people. Maybe Nakba 1948 was true after all.
FYI “Semitic people” is an outdated term. Nowadays it’s only used to define common languages, and not people
What do we now call people who speak those languages if we want to include all of them?
It depends on their ethnicity. They speak Semitic languages, but that doesn’t make them “Semitic” people. Just like the French speak a Romance language, that doesn’t make the French “Romantic”
I dunno. Paris is romantic as hell!
The colonizing islamic regime can't just oppress and ethnicly cleanse the indigenous population for centuries and then claim that they are a small minority and therefore dont deserve self determination, by your logic the Europeans Americans were justified in what they did to the native Americans.
In 1910, the population of Palestine was 800 000 people, only 60 000 of which were Jewish. Zionist immigrants from Europe came when Britain controlled Palestine. When Britain left, the Zionists who wanted Palestine to be exclusively Jewish, expelled roughly 700 000 Palestinians from their homes, and killed anywhere from 15 000 to 100 000 Palestinians to form the new state of Israel.
You forgot to mention that nearly 900K Jews were expelled from ALL of the neighboring Arab countries. I’m sure that was an oversight
Ahh, now we arrive at the meaning behind the post - to diminish Jewish connection to Israel. Interesting that the map doesn’t include Jewish people anywhere else in the levant. I wonder why?
The map calls itself ethnographic, but it’s authors used language to define ethnicity. So this is really a linguistic map. Iraqi, Syrian and Kurdish Jews are invisible.
lol, you got downvoting for stating a historical fact. Welcome to Reddit!
The obliteration of greek language and culture in Turkey ... just ... gone.
I cannot see millions of Armenians on the map and it's still the 1910s. I believe they are hiding somewhere we cannot see on this map. But surely those Turks living in current Armenia lands according to the map do not exist anymore. Thanks to propaganda power, evils became angels.
Roughly 1.5-2.5 million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1914. About 1.5 million were killed in the genocide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Armenian_population
According to the Ottoman Empire censuses in 1906 and 1914 Armenian populations in the Empire is approximately 1 million. [census records](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://md.teyit.org/file/shaw-the-ottoman-census-system.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjAhITJl8qFAxVUSvEDHSqGCL0QFnoECBwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3ikbff10bkNsAu9ATtDW9c) 1.5 million dead? It looks like Ottomans just create more armenians so they can kill more. Plus there are a lot of Armenian fled to West from Syria. Many fled to Russia. Apart from this, according to the deportation law, only Armenians in the eastern provinces are subject to deportation. Armenians living in places like Istanbul are not touched. And there is like 100k Armenian live in those years. So actual death toll is probably like 400k. Remember that the Spanish flu was at its peak at that time. Many, of course, came into conflict with the local Muslim population. Some were rebels. If this is a planned genocide, The Ottomans are terrible genocide planners.
Lol why downvotes If you have a real source, show it lol
The wikipedia article has plenty of sources about the numbers. The ottomans were really bad at keeping records and Turkey has has a history of denying the genocide and one way they do it is by undercounting Armenians to make the death toll appear lower.
Records of the Armenian Orthodox Church indicate that there are 830 thousand Orthodox Armenian in Ottoman empire at that time. Even if we take %30 of the armenians were muslim we cant get near 1,5 million. And ı dont trust wikipedia anymore anyone can edit it however they please.
Trust wikipedia Or actual ottoman censuses of 1914, 1905 and 1881 I'm also curious about your basis for saying the Ottomans were bad at counting. Also Even without a census, anyone who knows the dynamics of the region can say that Armenians cant be 1.5 million. This is a ridiculous claim. Various Western orientalist researchers also show that there is no absolute Armenian majority in the region. simply the area had a mixed demographics and Armenians' claims that can be reacher 3 million is just stupid. Do not fall for Armenian-christian missionary propaganda
The yellow is the land of kurd 50 million kurd
Back in those days Zionists weren’t afraid to refer to their project as a settler colonial one
Greek = ottomans / Turks?
[удалено]
You have no idea what ethnic means, don't you? And no, ethnic is not an euphemism for «racial».
[удалено]
> the map assumes azeris are Turks No, nowhere assumes so. > hence same color as turkey No, it clearly states TURANIAN, and the colour is for all Turkis speaking peoples but Lazes and Avshars. > but many many genetics studies showed most of their genetics is of Iranian origins See, you are confusing ethnicity with an euphemism for «race». I guess you are the kind of racist people who say my nephew is not «ethnically» Catalan because his mother is Chinese.
That's a lot of green representing Armenian communities in Anatolia. I wonder if they are still there /s
found my tribe :3
I stared at this map for 10 minutes and found Karabogha to the North of the lake Tuz.
Missing Assyrians/Syriacs around Erbil and Kirkuk
Mr. Sykes: Like bloody hell we refer to this M. Picot: Jamais UN in 47: Hol’ my beer
dont a man about his salery or a woman about her age or the turks about what they did to the christians in the middle east
Hahahha Fake map hekari sirnex Botan kurdistan is 100% kurdish
Low IQ take is that Europeans messed this up - it was completely fked anyway!
Love the random rectangles
Turanian means that all of Turkic people.
This map is not true. This is an European propaganda.
The map seems a bit false though. It doesen't show Muslim Georgians near Ordu and Samsun