Can you please educate me about the people that ruled most of Eastern and Southeastern Anatolia for almost 500 years before the emergence of the Seljuks and the dwindling power of the Abbasid Caliphate?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab–Byzantine_wars
Are you going to tell me that you have no relationship to those people that lived in what is today Turkey back then?
How come Turkish Arabs, that live in those parts of Turkey to this very day, predate the few and limited Turkic migrations to Anatolia?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabs_in_Turkey
Or are you going to claim that there was no Turkic presence in Central Asia when Arabs had an similarly long presence there?
Or will you deny the fact that Turks (real ones) in the Arab world pre-Ottoman, were mostly used as mercnserias and often as actual slave soldiers and eunuchs?
Or are you going to deny modern-day DNA that has proved 100 times and does it time and time again, that only a tiny percentage of actual modern-day Turks, have any genetic affinity to Central Asian Turks?
So when all this has been estabslihred how can you claim something (Central Asian Turkic history - the few parts that are relevant as not much is) that you have no relationship with? How is that different from me claiming Viking heritage for instance?
The only exception is that I don't claim the heritage and ancestry of my former conquerors and slave owners.
As I already wrote, most of the Ottoman bureaucracy and ruling class, were actually non-Turkic people of mostly Balkan, Slavic, Caucasian, Arab, Armenian, Kurdish etc. origin. Starting with your actual rulers who were intermarrying with non-Turks for 600 years.
Even within the Ottoman Empire, the term "Turk" was sometimes used to denote the
Yörük backwoodsmen, bumpkins, or illiterate peasants in
Anatolia. "Etrak-i bi-idrak", an Ottoman play on words, meant "the ignorant Turk".
[27]
Özay Mehmet wrote in his book
Islamic Identity and Development: Studies of the Islamic Periphery:
[28]
“ The ordinary Turks [Turkmen, or Yörüks] did not have a sense of belonging to a ruling ethnic group. In particular, they had a confused sense of self-image. Who were they: Turks, Muslims or Ottomans? Their literature was sometimes Persian, sometimes Arabic, but always courtly and elitist. There was always a huge social and cultural distance between the Imperial centre and the Anatolian periphery. As Bernard Lewis expressed it: "In the Imperial society of the Ottomans the ethnic term Turk was little used, and then chiefly in a rather derogatory sense, to designate the Turcoman nomads or, later, the ignorant and uncouth Turkish-speaking peasants of the Anatolian villages." (Lewis 1968: 1)
In the words of a British observer of the Ottoman values and institutions at the start of the twentieth century: "The surest way to insult an Ottoman gentleman is to call him a 'Turk'. His face will straightway wear the expression a Londoner's assumes, when he hears himself frankly styled a Cockney. He is no Turk, no savage, he will assure you, but an Ottoman subject of the Sultan, by no means to be confounded with certain barbarians styled Turcomans, and from whom indeed, on the male side, he may possibly be descended." (Davey 1907: 209)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Turkism
Fake too.
Anyway try to take a DNA test yourself and you will find out about who has the real inferiority complex here.
Yet the Arabs created vastly greater and bigger empires and conquered much more land.
