
TheStonerOne
Iron
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2025
- Posts
- 136
- Reputation
- 98
Classification of Turkish people is controversial. Well, if you use Anglosphere/Nordic concepts of "ethnicity". I.E, pressupossing that ethnic groups have essentialist traits like a "fixed skin colour" or can be classified by such. Quite frankly, this is psychological projection. Northern Europeans are fairly homogenous physically and very homogenous genetically (with a few exceptions). To impose Northern European standards on others is projection.
Can we say English people are "white in their entirety"? Yes, because England is physically homogenous. That sort of labelling doesn't make sense for most Southern Europeans and PARTICULARLY not Turks. Turkey is a far less physically or genetically homogenous country than England or the British Isles. There are people who are fairly brown and people who are very white. The average skin tone of Turks is akin to that of Greece, Southern Italy and parts of North Africa. A sort of "beige" or "light brown". So it is true most Turks (as well as Southern Italians, Cypriots and so forth) cannot be classified as "white" under any circumstances, but that does NOT mean Turks as a whole can be classified by skin colour in general as the variation within Turkey doesn't allow for such absurd binaries.
On a genetic level, we won't get into global studies; Central Asians, Middle Easterners, Europeans form a cluster blah blah blah. Even in regional comparisons, Turks cannot be separated from "Europeans".
Let's look at some evidence.
"Turkish genomic variation, along with several other Western Asian populations, looks most similar to genomic variation of South European populations such as southern Italians."
That's in reference to to "The Multiple Histories of Western Asia: Perspectives from Ancient and Modern Genomes" from 2017.
I often use this study from 2019 for FST data as it is one of the most comprehensive regarding various Western Eurasian populations.
www.nature.com
Which you can check here.
Obviously, Turks are closest to Southern Caucasians like Azeris and Armenians, but we also see low distances between Southern Italians (as expected) as well as non-Southern Italians (except for Sardinians obviously). It should be noted that Turks are closer to Southern Italians (FST: 0.003) vs Levantines (0.0046) but even the more Northern European shifted Northern groups (Tuscans, Northern Italians and Piedmontese) have a similar distance (0.00467). Greek groups have a 0.003 distance (ranging from 0.002 to 0.004).
But even when we move away from Southern European (basically Balkan groups and Italians) who clearly have elevated levels ofbMiddle Eastern ancestry, we see FST values under 0.008. Speaking of 0.008, that's the distance between Turks and Germans who are Northern Europeans. That would still make Germans less distant to Turks than Arabians are. Certainly less distant to Germans than North Africans.
The reason we analyse Turks more than others is due to their ambiguous genetic profile, their ambiguous looks and their religion. In reality, Turks are a European people and cannot (and should not) be separated. If significant levels of "non-European" ancestry is problematic, then this means you'd have to impose your racist standards on ALL Italian subpopulations, all Greek subpopulations, Northern Russians, Finns and Saami. And kick out Estonians and Czech peoples who are predominantly not Christian.
Can we say English people are "white in their entirety"? Yes, because England is physically homogenous. That sort of labelling doesn't make sense for most Southern Europeans and PARTICULARLY not Turks. Turkey is a far less physically or genetically homogenous country than England or the British Isles. There are people who are fairly brown and people who are very white. The average skin tone of Turks is akin to that of Greece, Southern Italy and parts of North Africa. A sort of "beige" or "light brown". So it is true most Turks (as well as Southern Italians, Cypriots and so forth) cannot be classified as "white" under any circumstances, but that does NOT mean Turks as a whole can be classified by skin colour in general as the variation within Turkey doesn't allow for such absurd binaries.
On a genetic level, we won't get into global studies; Central Asians, Middle Easterners, Europeans form a cluster blah blah blah. Even in regional comparisons, Turks cannot be separated from "Europeans".
Let's look at some evidence.
"Turkish genomic variation, along with several other Western Asian populations, looks most similar to genomic variation of South European populations such as southern Italians."
That's in reference to to "The Multiple Histories of Western Asia: Perspectives from Ancient and Modern Genomes" from 2017.
I often use this study from 2019 for FST data as it is one of the most comprehensive regarding various Western Eurasian populations.

Genome-wide analysis of Corsican population reveals a close affinity with Northern and Central Italy - Scientific Reports
Despite being the fourth largest island in the Mediterranean basin, the genetic variation of Corsica has not been explored as exhaustively as Sardinia, which is situated only 11 km South. However, it is likely that the populations of the two islands shared, at least in part, similar demographic...

Which you can check here.
Obviously, Turks are closest to Southern Caucasians like Azeris and Armenians, but we also see low distances between Southern Italians (as expected) as well as non-Southern Italians (except for Sardinians obviously). It should be noted that Turks are closer to Southern Italians (FST: 0.003) vs Levantines (0.0046) but even the more Northern European shifted Northern groups (Tuscans, Northern Italians and Piedmontese) have a similar distance (0.00467). Greek groups have a 0.003 distance (ranging from 0.002 to 0.004).
But even when we move away from Southern European (basically Balkan groups and Italians) who clearly have elevated levels ofbMiddle Eastern ancestry, we see FST values under 0.008. Speaking of 0.008, that's the distance between Turks and Germans who are Northern Europeans. That would still make Germans less distant to Turks than Arabians are. Certainly less distant to Germans than North Africans.
The reason we analyse Turks more than others is due to their ambiguous genetic profile, their ambiguous looks and their religion. In reality, Turks are a European people and cannot (and should not) be separated. If significant levels of "non-European" ancestry is problematic, then this means you'd have to impose your racist standards on ALL Italian subpopulations, all Greek subpopulations, Northern Russians, Finns and Saami. And kick out Estonians and Czech peoples who are predominantly not Christian.