tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post4719770808052616403..comments2024-01-04T04:11:55.717+02:00Comments on Dienekes’ Anthropology Blog: Slavopaionian propaganda video + Stephen Miller's excellent letter to Archaeology magazineDienekeshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-36862225577419531612010-02-11T18:09:59.989+02:002010-02-11T18:09:59.989+02:00I'd gladly discuss religion, atheism, and how ...I'd gladly discuss religion, atheism, and how tolerant were the societies of Eastern Europe in most cases, in contrast on how intolerant was Christianity when it was in power. And I'd gladly discuss how religion has been used in the Balcans to divide natural nations such as the Serbocroat in the benefit of foreign powers and local mafias... <br /><br />But I would not like to get off topic.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-21534009392382936102010-02-11T14:09:15.398+02:002010-02-11T14:09:15.398+02:00Maju,
Religions don't make me sick. I see the...Maju,<br /><br />Religions don't make me sick. I see the benefits to mankind and the individual in religion. I also see the evil and misuse...in religion as well as athieism..when they are used to opress or harm others. <br /><br />Eastern Europe and those countries that were under communism...opressed all religion, and forced secular athiesm on them...with as much injustice and opression as did religious institutions and groups. And in addition used one group..played one group, ethnic, religions, racial, political, against the other, using differences and hatred to keep them all in line. A century later, the hatreds, which were fostered and grew under Communism and its secular athiesm, <br />while kept in control/under raps by the mighty might of military and secret police....are what is spilling/pouring out all over.. <br /><br />Would these folks hate each other as much today had they been allowed the freedom to be themselves, and not had their hatreds exploited and used to control them for a century? I doubt it. <br /><br />Secular Athiesm is just as agressivly negative and prejudiced against those of a different bent/belief as the religious zelots. <br /><br />MarcyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-76557354013488306772010-02-09T02:26:13.461+02:002010-02-09T02:26:13.461+02:00Actually it was Columbus that arrived.... and the ...Actually it was Columbus that arrived.... and the 'continents' should have been called Columbus,<br />after him..but the mapmaker favored the name Americus and so the mistake was made and stuck. <br /><br />However, Columbus in honored on the level of city in Columbus, Ohio, District in the capital of the USA..District of Columbus, and the country in South America..Columbia. <br /><br />The whole Western Hemisphere grouping of continents are known as "The Americas"... There, are, though, more than one continent...and so to distinguish there is North America and South America... the Name America is used on a national level and continental..and also used to designate ethnic and linguistic origins.. I had forgotten about the "Native American" identification. There are " Native Americans" in South, Central, North America as well as many of the islands. Of course most of them today are mixed..with more non Native American ancestry than Native. Here in the North East...North Eastern North America..most "Native Americans" in both Canada and the USA are a mix of French and "Indian". And they express culture and history from both...<br /><br />MarcyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-19623069288289055212010-02-09T02:16:09.478+02:002010-02-09T02:16:09.478+02:00I am not a scientist but do enjoy these topics and...I am not a scientist but do enjoy these topics and have enjoyed reading this blog. This is my first comment and I couldn't resist on the topic of American... The difference between US citizen identifying as American and other countries within North, Central and South America is this.. To say " I am an American" means you are speaking of the USA..a country.. If you want to identify as being a part of the continent...you would then say " I am North American, or Central American or South American, or Latin American, or Anglo American...."... <br /><br />North American means Canada and the USA...and sometimes Mexico.. Mexico is counted as Central America and also at times Northern. Anglo America means Canadian and USA...<br /><br />Central America is all the countries, not islands, between but not including North and South America.. South America is just that... Latin America covers all the countries of latin heritage central, south, as well as the Islands. <br /><br />So, to say simply with no direction before it "American" means only of the USA. Its a national identity, not continental or ethnic or linguistic... Linguistic identifications,a gain, are Anglo, Latin, Hispanic American. Locational, continental ones are North, Central, and South American.<br /><br />I am surprised you folks who are experts in so many relate areas to this don't know these differences in Western hemisphere identifications between state/nation, linguistic, and continental identifications. The fact is the word/name 'America' is used in various ways..and no one level or manner owns the word alone.. Its all in how its used. <br />There is no continent called America. There are the "Americas" but, then to describe each one has to use North, Central and South.<br /><br />Someone from Germany once told me that in Germany they consider there to be only one mega "America" continent.... In Europe there is some difficulty in distinguishing where Europe ends and Asia begins... and for sure in the USA we have, even with North America and South America, Central America a bit iffy there... with some folks counting it as part of North America and others giving it, if not truly a geographic entity as a continent, at least a culturally assumed geographic one. Still...from two to three...one continent called <br />"America"? No. To identify continents in the West you must use the directions before...again, North, South... and sometimes Central. Alone...its just the good old USA. <br /><br />Hello to the Brazilian... You are a Brazalian, Latin American but not<br />Hispanic American, and South American...but, you are not 'American'. Thats not a continent, but the Anglo country up above you in North America.<br /><br />MarcyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-29018448444277069692009-06-11T19:13:19.718+03:002009-06-11T19:13:19.718+03:00I am Irish. My name, John is clearly Hebrew. By yo...<i>I am Irish. My name, John is clearly Hebrew. By your logic this means I am part of an underlying Jewish population that became Irish due to its elite status in Ireland? No</i>. <br /><br />It means a clear Judaization of Ireland of which you and your name are a byproduct. This you can't deny, can you?Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-64119011922472213732009-06-11T18:57:44.984+03:002009-06-11T18:57:44.984+03:00Urselius,
Seriously don't use wikipedia for yo...Urselius,<br />Seriously don't use wikipedia for your source. There are literally hundreds of instances where Macedonians referred to themselves as Greek and no instances were they did not. That you can find a demagogue in Athens saying they are not isn't very meaningful when the same accusations were made against other Greek groups, depending on who was at war or conflict.<br /><br />The analogy between the anceint Macedonians and the rest of the Greeks is not analogous to Picts and Britons, but rather more like Spartans to Athenians.<br /><br />The statement son Hellinized elites based on suing names like Clitus is downright silly. Most of the names are Greek, picking one that may have a different root is meaningless.<br /><br />I am Irish. My name, John is clearly Hebrew. By your logic this means I am part of an underlying Jewish population that became Irish due to its elite status in Ireland? No.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10064974858744314873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-37981723878790327212009-04-04T14:42:00.000+03:002009-04-04T14:42:00.000+03:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Cydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02334032603842676523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-49607950851028168102009-04-04T14:07:00.000+03:002009-04-04T14:07:00.000+03:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Cydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02334032603842676523noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-39066305960240348062009-04-01T18:40:00.000+03:002009-04-01T18:40:00.000+03:00The Lynkestians (inhabitants of western Macedonia)...The Lynkestians (inhabitants of western Macedonia) were Illyrian, as were the Epirote tribes (eg the Molossians) they just had hellenised elites. If I remember rightly the Paeonian leaders at the time of Philip II and Alexander had Greek names like Clitus. Where is the difference? Just that Epirotes are now fully Greek and FYROM Macedonians are now not Greek.<BR/><BR/>In many ways the ancient Macedonians held a similar relationship to the Greeks that the Picts did to the Britons. They spoke similar languages, but were sufficiently different for their southern neighbours to think that they were "not us."Urseliushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15333874143134076409noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-42530692511650670702009-03-30T05:03:00.000+03:002009-03-30T05:03:00.000+03:00Italo-Celtic is a theory. There are many conflicti...Italo-Celtic is a theory. There are many conflicting versions on how IE languages should be classified and the sprachbund effect doesn't seem to help understanding. <BR/><BR/>Personally I am inclined to favor Italo-Celtic, as both language families would seem to spring from southern Central Europe, while Germanic instead colesced in Northern Europe in a a seemingly separate developement. But the situation is not totally clear, with mass-lexical comparisons instead making Italic and Germanic appear closer in most cases (a sprachbund effect?)Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-34711559559625367652009-03-30T00:44:00.000+03:002009-03-30T00:44:00.000+03:00"I studied and speak some from both groups and can..."I studied and speak some from both groups and can testify as to the overlaps, and the variations within each "division".<BR/>"<BR/><BR/>Well, but are they not also connected to other groups? Is Celtic not more connected to the Italic languages?<BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italo-Celtic<BR/>What is special between Celtic and Germanic?Keplerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11125538872924743270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-81349642975927224442009-03-29T22:18:00.000+03:002009-03-29T22:18:00.000+03:00Sure thing Maju; and Celtic and Germanic are not g...Sure thing Maju; and Celtic and Germanic are not genetic but language divisions. I studied and speak some from both groups and can testify as to the overlaps, and the variations within each "division".dderinosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00241585109111424054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-85987540822443959442009-03-29T20:03:00.000+03:002009-03-29T20:03:00.000+03:00Manu,It's Maju, the name of the ancient male half ...<I>Manu,</I><BR/><BR/>It's <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugaar" REL="nofollow">Maju</A>, the name of the ancient male half of the Basque Divinty. I have been using it as nickname in the Net for many years now.<BR/><BR/><I>I think not all people in Belgica were actually Celtic. </I><BR/><BR/>It seems Roman historians had some hard time telling apart Germanic and Celtic peoples sometimes. But conceded that the doubt is there for some of the tribes. <BR/><BR/>From the Wikipedia entry:<BR/><BR/><I>The later historian Tacitus records that the Nervii and Treveri were also eager to claim Germanic rather than Gaulish origin.[4] On the other hand, most of the Belgic tribal and personal names recorded are identifiably Gaulish...</I><BR/><BR/>So maybe it was another case of confused (and confusing) self-identification. Take in account anyhow that Celts are themselves original from Germany rather than France or Belgium, a land that they started invading only with the Urnfields migrations, so they may well have confused their probable legends about a Central European urheimat with "Germanic ancestry", maybe in a political move in a time when Germanics were expanding and Celts declining.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-65402266656847103602009-03-29T19:55:00.000+03:002009-03-29T19:55:00.000+03:00I actually sympathize with them. They are Bulgaria...<I>I actually sympathize with them. They are Bulgarians who by some accident of fate found themselves in Yugoslavia. Of course, they couldn't say that they were Serbs, because they weren't. They couldn't say that they were Bulgarians, because that would make them suspect. Everyone around them had pretensions (real or otherwise) of an illustrious history, except them.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Yah, that's pretty much the real thing.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-67430046239107696612009-03-29T19:38:00.000+03:002009-03-29T19:38:00.000+03:00Manu,I think not all people in Belgica were actual...Manu,<BR/>I think not all people in Belgica were actually Celtic. <BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgae<BR/><BR/>Tacitus reports about the Nervii's sense of being of Germanic stock. If the groups of them in what is now France were probably Celticized Germanic or Germanic, further North they were rather Germanic.<BR/>They were considered by Julius Caesar as the most courageous of the "Gauls" (whereby Belgica back then included a lot of what now is France)<BR/>The border between Celtic and later Roman-Celtic population and Germanic groups moved a lot, not just when Franks overrun the Roman towns, but before and later.<BR/>Anyway, most Flemish consider themselves first and foremost Flemish.<BR/>I find it funny: the Nervii back then considered they were Germanic and worked more than the Gauls. Things haven't changed that much, although now the Flemings do drink a lot.Keplerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11125538872924743270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-30838221980691261922009-03-29T17:05:00.000+03:002009-03-29T17:05:00.000+03:00Well, I saw right now part of the video and indeed...Well, I saw right now part of the video and indeed it is quite lunatic.<BR/><BR/>Spanish has probably much more Greek in itself than that language and Spanish speakers are definitely not claiming to be Greek.<BR/><BR/>The video is very racist and stupid, nothing to do with history. <BR/>They do show there to be descendants of Alexander and stuff.<BR/><BR/>Now, I wonder how many people believe in that rubbish. I doubt many, even in the Republic of Skopie.<BR/><BR/>I still have this question: what do you mean by Aegean pretensions?Keplerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11125538872924743270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-411848740410849712009-03-29T07:38:00.000+03:002009-03-29T07:38:00.000+03:00Nonsense, the Paionians were allied with the Illyr...<I>Nonsense, the Paionians were allied with the Illyrians and fought against Philip II. Being defeated foes of the Macedonians does not render them "Macedonians".</I><BR/><BR/>That's like saying that Zaragozans are not Aragonese because the Kingdom of Zaragoza was conquered to the Moors. <BR/><BR/>Since that moment Paeonia became a part of Macedonia, as we have discussed, until the 20th century (with some quite arbitrary Byzantine exceptions). <BR/><BR/>Whataver the cae is arguing in circles: you can reach no agreement from that "essentialist" viewpoint that rejects to wear the shoes of the other even for a minute. Put yourself in their position: only that way you can really understand what's going on.<BR/><BR/><I>I don't see any Spaniard calling themselves Romans. Acknowledging their cultural debt to Rome is one thing, pretending to be "Romans" is another.</I><BR/><BR/>Certainly they call themselves and are called by others Latin. "Romans" are the Greeks, you know. ;-)<BR/><BR/>[Explanation: There was a long standing medieval controversy on who were the real "Romans": the Germans or the Greeks. Historians still argue on that sometimes. The terms Byazantium and Byzantine are a modern Western creation: the Eastern Roman Empire claimed all the time the only legitimacy of Roman legacy, what Westerners, specially Romance-speakers, normally looked upon with some disdain and often also with strong disagreement. Greeks called themselves Romans (Romanoi) till the 19th century. Westerners in turn used the term Latin sometimes to mark the difference (like the crusader Latin Empire of Constantinple).]<BR/><BR/><I>That's quite a long way from pretending to be ethnic Macedonians themselves.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, that's what they call themselves now. And have been doing for many many decades. You want to call them "slavopaionians"? Fine with me but I don't think it's catchy: it will never go beyond being an erudite, somewhat pedantic, term.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-28090843433438001792009-03-29T00:46:00.000+02:002009-03-29T00:46:00.000+02:00Ancient Paeonians became Macedonians with Philip I...<I>Ancient Paeonians became Macedonians with Philip II. Not much is known of Paenoians before that. </I><BR/><BR/>Nonsense, the Paionians were allied with the Illyrians and fought against Philip II. Being defeated foes of the Macedonians does not render them "Macedonians". Using that "logic", the Slavopaionians should be called "Ottomans" since they were defeated foes of the Turks and part of the Ottoman empire.<BR/><BR/><I>Anyhow nobody denies Spain to claim Roman legacy or Modena to claim Etruscan one, even if these are not the original ultimate homelands. Legacy is complex.</I><BR/><BR/>I don't see any Spaniard calling themselves Romans. Acknowledging their cultural debt to Rome is one thing, pretending to be "Romans" is another. <BR/><BR/>And, in the case of Spnaniards, they at least speak the descendant of the Latin language, unlike the Slavopaionians who speak a language which originated in the Ukraine or Poland.<BR/><BR/>Nothing wrong with the FYROM Slavs acknowledging the Macedonian chapter of their history. That's quite a long way from pretending to be ethnic Macedonians themselves.Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-51742153930721030622009-03-29T00:27:00.000+02:002009-03-29T00:27:00.000+02:00Why aren't the Slavopaionians attached to their Pa...<I>Why aren't the Slavopaionians attached to their Paionian ancestors? After all, given their geographical location, they're much more likely to have Paionian ancestry than they do ancient Macedonian.<BR/><BR/>But of course, the ancient Paionians aren't as cool or politically expedient... </I><BR/><BR/>Ancient Paeonians became Macedonians with Philip II. Not much is known of Paenoians before that. <BR/><BR/>Though I concede the point: much as British of French traditionally have prefered to identify with Celts and not with the nameless peoples that existed before them (and many other similar examples surely).<BR/><BR/>Anyhow nobody denies Spain to claim Roman legacy or Modena to claim Etruscan one, even if these are not the original ultimate homelands. Legacy is complex.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-38496934548507462582009-03-28T20:37:00.001+02:002009-03-28T20:37:00.001+02:00This comment has been removed by the author.Onur Dincerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05041378853428912894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-15726611515521046322009-03-28T20:37:00.000+02:002009-03-28T20:37:00.000+02:00The French or the English are not anymore Celtic b...<I>The French or the English are not anymore Celtic but they feel attched to those historical ancestors. So why would not Macedonians to their own? Please!</I><BR/><BR/>Why aren't the Slavopaionians attached to their Paionian ancestors? After all, given their geographical location, they're much more likely to have Paionian ancestry than they do ancient Macedonian.<BR/><BR/>But of course, the ancient Paionians aren't as cool or politically expedient...Dienekeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02082684850093948970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-32140661734804048312009-03-28T19:26:00.000+02:002009-03-28T19:26:00.000+02:00What I am ignorant about (and don't feel like rese...<I>What I am ignorant about (and don't feel like researching right now) is whether the country of Macedonia has designs on Macedonian Greece. I've heard this from Greeks. Is this propaganda, or what? </I><BR/><BR/>That would be in any case an extreme minority position. There are some people (both sides of the border) that somewhat miss or claim to miss the "Macedonian unity" of Ottoman times. At that time the province was very plural ethnically, with Macedonian Slavs (often undistinguishable from Bulgarians) and Greeks being the main ethnicities. But there were others: Turks, Albanians, Sephardic Jews, Roma, Vlach... <BR/><BR/>In the Balcanic wars of 1912-13, most of Macedonia first went to Bulgaria but later Serbia and Greece defeated them and divided it. After WWI and the Turkish revolution, Turkey and Greece "agreed" to exchange ethnic minorities. 1.5 million of ethnic Greeks from Anatolia were relocated to Greece and 500,000 Turks from Greece (mostly Macedonia) to Turkey. In and after WWII the Sephardic community was also virtually destroyed, and also Greece practiced a policy of assimilation of southern Slavs, which brought some conflict for a time (not sure of the details right now). <BR/><BR/>So there's some historical issues. Some Macedonian nationalists once published a map with the old borders of Ottoman Macedonia (and modern borders too) that caused some upheaval in Greece. Most argued that it had no irredentist intentions but, you see, some Greeks take such petty things very passionately. There were also complaints north of the border on how Slavomacedonians in the south had been treated by Greece. But for the most part they just seem(ed) to want a good neighbourhood relation and have free access to the natural port of Thessaloniki (Salonique), as well as getting into EU. <BR/><BR/>The official Greek position is, as you probably know, that the republic must have a distinctive name an must not use any Alexandrine symbols like the Vergina Sun. North Macedonians have agreed to the latter and changed the flag but they still don't agree on the issue of the name. EU as a whole is nowadays too messed up into its own internal problems and will probably wait till the situation in Bosnia and Kosovo settles (maybe another decade) before accepting all those countries into, so they have a good pretext in the Greek caveats just not to get all those Western Balcanic countries, which could be troublesome (and are anyhow poor and needy) in the confederation as of yet. Same with Turkey and the Cyprus issue (though the reluctances towards Turkey are bigger, mostly because it's a large, poor and Muslim nation, that exports many workers who assimilate badly, and also because it would extend the borders of EU deep into the quite problematic West Asia region).<BR/><BR/>Anyhow, the irredentist claims are mostly a ghost. Though it's not totally unlikely that some nationalist Macedonian sectors secretly hold such ambitions anyhow. Though they are most unlikely to be realized in any case, as the Republic of Macedonia is a tiny country of some 2 million people (in comparison Greece is a "giant" and has a huge army) and southern Macedonia is nowadays overwhelmingly Greek ethically. <BR/><BR/>It's like whatever claims some Mexicans could hold on US territory: most unlikely to be ever realized at all. Using such extremist positions as pretext to bycott an otherwise friendly neighbour is clearly a political decision: throwing oil to a tiny ember trying to create a huge fire.Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-41296654608644901652009-03-28T17:55:00.000+02:002009-03-28T17:55:00.000+02:00I don't know anything about the culture of Slavic ...I don't know anything about the culture of Slavic Macedonians. I don't know what these Macedonians do that is related to their pre-Slavic past. <BR/><BR/>How did these Macedonians relate to their older past 150, 350, 800 years ago? If these people did not relate to their past throughout history, it seems contrived that all of a sudden they want to be identified with ancient Macedonians.<BR/><BR/>Again, I believe a country can call itself whatever it wants. What I am ignorant about (and don't feel like researching right now) is whether the country of Macedonia has designs on Macedonian Greece. I've heard this from Greeks. Is this propaganda, or what?Deanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10753416265954000609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-38083898884688026962009-03-28T16:42:00.000+02:002009-03-28T16:42:00.000+02:00But the Turks, for example, who are admixed with o...<I>But the Turks, for example, who are admixed with older Anatolian peoples, are mostly happy being Turks. They don't want to cop revered symbols of their older Anatolian ancestors. </I><BR/><BR/>And that they do bad: feeling so extremely Turkish and nothing else, they disdain their legacy. Turks are by ancestry as much (or probably more) Trojan or Hittite or even Greek than genuinely Turkic. They should respect more and feel more pride for the hisory of their ancestors. <BR/><BR/>Italians don't speak Etruscan or Latin anymore but they feel pride about those ancient peoples. The French or the English are not anymore Celtic but they feel attched to those historical ancestors. So why would not Macedonians to their own? Please!Majuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12369840391933337204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7785493.post-30166329970765836772009-03-28T06:58:00.000+02:002009-03-28T06:58:00.000+02:00I recently talked with some older Greeks about thi...I recently talked with some older Greeks about this issue, and they were spitting-mad: eyes bulging out, screaming, the whole bit.<BR/><BR/>I don't understand why the Slavic Macedonians are so interested in identifying with the ancient Macedonians yet they do not adopt any language of the ancient past. If I felt such a connection, I probably would try to regain my ancient linguistic roots, especially if I have a physical connection to the ancient peoples. <BR/><BR/>If a native American tribe who was admixed with whites (historical newcomers) was able to and wanted to have a sovereign country in the US, and they named their country after their ancient language, it makes no sense to me as to why they would not incorporate their ancient language. <BR/><BR/>A sovereign country can call itself anything it wants, I understand that. But the Turks, for example, who are admixed with older Anatolian peoples, are mostly happy being Turks. They don't want to cop revered symbols of their older Anatolian ancestors.Deanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10753416265954000609noreply@blogger.com