For a brief period, I lived with three other men, all students at George Mason. One was an Azeri Turk from Baku, the other a Turkish national from Adana and the other a Turkish national from Istanbul. All three were very proud of their Turkish heritage, often condemning what they saw as the fictional account of the Armenian genocide while insulting the Turks' historical enemies such as the Greeks and Kurds. The individual from Istanbul had a close friend who lived in Belgium and worked for a growing DNA testing company called GenePlaza. This friend in Belgium said that the company was offering K29 mixing results for free in order to gain popularity among the general public. Out of pure curiosity, we all agreed to have our DNA tested. Our results were interesting to say the least: the individual from Azerbaijan was of 100% Armenian ancestry, the individual from Istanbul was largely of Greek, Sephardic Jewish, and Bulgarian ancestry, and the individual from Adana was 50% Georgian, 30% Armenian and 20% Assyrian mixture. I came back with 22% Bashkir Turkish mix, ironically making me the only Turk in the house we lived in. The test results immediately caused confusion and panic among my roommates who immediately inquired with their families about their lineage. To their surprise, they discovered that they could not trace their family trees beyond the 15th century AD. In the case of my Azeri roommate, he could not trace his paternal lineage beyond that of the 17th century. To find the answers to this strange genetic question, we studied the historical context in which these populations became known as Turks following conflict. What we discovered is that the process of creating what is today Turkish identity was and is, to some extent, a series of conflicts steeped in denial of basic human needs and structural violence against these “Turkified” communities. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayOur first discovery we made on this journey through history was that Asia Minor, today Turkey, is not the ancestral homeland of the Turks but rather the Atlai Mountains of southeastern Russia. The indigenous peoples of Asia Minor are the peoples whose ancestry my roommates shared with Greeks, Georgians, Assyrians, and Armenians who are all primarily of Orthodox Christian faith, unlike modern Turks like my roommates (Yunusbayev et al., 2015). The Turks did not enter Asia Minor until the 10th century AD, when a Muslim Turkic tribe known as the Seljuks invaded what was then the Byzantine Empire (Canby et al., 2016). The ethnic Turks, although having dominance over the native populations, were a minority and, to have both political and demographic hegemony over Asia Minor, they resorted to interrelated social, economic and political systems negatively with associations linked to what is considered non-Turkish and positively correlated with associations linked to what is considered Turkish. Positive correlates for Turkish identity in this regard were practicing Islam, speaking Turkish, and engaging in Turkish cultural practices (Speros, 1971). If an individual were to abandon their inherited identity and become Turkish, they would then be socially rewarded with more rights and privileges, such as not being requiredto pay the disbeliever tax or jizyah (Abdel-Haleem, 2010). These systems developed further when the Osmanli, or as they are known in Europe, the Ottoman clan, took power in Asia Minor through the institutionalization of the Millet system. The Millet system separated each of the different ethnic groups within the Ottoman Empire by “millahs” or nations where each nation was granted certain rights, privileges and obligations based on its cultural, ethnic and religious composition (Maîtres, 2009) . The Millet system provides the best example of how structural violence played a role in the Turkification of indigenous populations in Asia Minor. Structural violence can be best defined as “an unnecessary obstacle that prevents a person from reaching their potential” (Galtung, 1969). The most famous example of the Millet system is the practice of Devshirme, where Christian families who would not convert to Islam had to send their eldest son to a "Devlet". This Devlet would educate the son about Turkish culture and Islam if he did. If he does not decide to reject his inherited identity and become a Turk, then he will be forced to serve as a janissary in the Ottoman army. Janissaries were almost always placed in situations where they found themselves in the most brutal combat and were subject to restrictions that Turkish soldiers did not have. For example, they could not own property, pursue another profession, or marry until they retired, which was usually the case when they arrived. 45 years (Perry, 1979). At first glance, Devshirme only appears to restrict Christian men from reaching their potential, but this niche within the Millet system, however, the system has also restricted the potential of Muslim Turkish women. By forcing Christian men to spend the majority of their lives in the army, their access to Muslim Turkish women and vice versa within the Ottoman Empire was greatly reduced. Ottoman law prohibited any martial union between non-Muslim men and Turkish Muslim women, and women who engaged in these prohibited actions were not only punished by law, but lost their Turkish identity in the eyes of the community. Interestingly, I contain more Turkish alleles than my roommates, as these alleles appear to be of maternal origin, my great-great-grandmother, etc., and I myself would be non-Turkish (Altınbaş, 2014). This aspect of the Millet system may seem passé due to its medieval origins, but the region of Northern Cyprus controlled by the Turkish armed forces only removed this aspect of the Northern Cypriot Constitution in 2009 (Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus, 2009). The Millet system maintains Turkish identity through structural violence even to this day. Burton defines an individual's basic human needs as “identity, recognition, role advocacy, and personal development” (Burton, 1990). To create Turks from the indigenous populations of Asia Minor, the Millet system had to deny all these needs, to varying degrees compared to non-Turkified populations. After World War I, the Ottoman Empire was in a state of decadence and indigenous Christian populations such as Greeks, Assyrians and Armenians took the initiative to push for their own sovereignty. In order to prevent the breakup of Asia Minor into distinct ethno-states, the Turkish military forcibly expelled individuals of these identities to countries like Syria and Iran in what became known as of Armenian, Greek and Assyrian genocides. Keep in mind: This is just a sample. Get a personalized article from our expert writers now. Get a personalized essay.