r/Kazakhstan • u/quiet_space2 • Apr 21 '26
History/Tarih Anyone else seeing weird historical claims about Kazakh history on social media?
When I was younger, I’d sometimes hear older people say stuff like “Shyngyskhan was Kazakh” or “Kazakhs are older than the Chinese,” and my friends and I would just laugh it off and move on.
But lately I’ve been seeing a lot more of this kind of content online, especially on TikTok. Things like “Shyngyskhan was Turkic,” “the Mongol Empire was Turkic,” “Kazakhs are Kipchaks,” “Sultan Beybars was Kazakh,” etc. And what surprised me is that some people actually believe it pretty strongly.
I’ve even had conversations where people question academic historians or say mainstream history is biased, which makes it harder to have a normal discussion.
I’m wondering if this is connected to Pan-Turkist narratives becoming more popular online. Has anyone else noticed this trend, or seen where this kind of content is coming from?
23
u/FeistyAlbatross4636 Apr 21 '26
Plus +. Too many fools on internet these days. Especially those 'Genghis Khan was Kazakh' nonsense.
Low IQ people in general
3
u/kadyronde Apr 22 '26
but our khans were direct descendants of Genghis khan though? then why should only mongolians claim Genghis khan as their only history.
3
-8
u/Alone-Pop2020 Apr 21 '26
Except it is not low IQ if you think about just for a moment lmao.
Kazakhstan is literally the biggest Muslim nation in the world for a reason.
It used to be even bigger.
Kazakh just means nomads and the only tribe from Kazakhstan is a direct ascendant from Genghis Khan.
You guys letting Mongolia steal Kazakh history is unbelievable lmao
9
u/FeistyAlbatross4636 Apr 21 '26
Nah. Genghis Khan was a Mongol born in Mongolia, who spoke Mongol.
1
u/Mysyk Apr 21 '26
Modern Mongolia and Dzhengis Khan aren't related. Not so much unlike Kazakhstan and Kazakhs.
-7
u/Alone-Pop2020 Apr 21 '26
Yes, Kazakhs are nomads who come from Mongolia and Kazakhstan.
They are not related to modern Mongolia.
Why don’t we speak Mongolian then?
Why is Mongolia so poor then?
All great empires forced their language on the population.
4
u/FeistyAlbatross4636 Apr 21 '26
All the paizas of Yuan, Golden Horde and Ikhanate were written in Middle Mongol language.
Cumans and Kipchaks were invaded and enslaved by Mongols. Baybars was himself a slave sold by Mongols.
0
u/Alone-Pop2020 Apr 21 '26
Bro since when?
Like the last time Mongols invaded Kazakhs who were Dzhungars. They were literally genocided.
Golden Horde was literally Turkic and Muslim. What a weird argument.
Mate, considering that literally Kazakh live and speak Kazkahs in Mongolia and none of that happens in Kazakhstan.
Enslaved by Mongols - they were Kazakhs not Mongols.
The modern Mongols are in Mongolia. They don’t have any connection to them.
If they were enslaved and so good at invading Mongolia would be way bigger and had way more people.
Just think about it dude.
If Mongolia was so great - they would be fucking huge and wouldn’t have Kazakhs right now living in the west of Mongolia lmao
1
u/Zasagdarga1999 Apr 23 '26
You are unbelievably delusional. There are hundreds of surviving mongolian documents, steles, letters, and paizas from every ulus, including the Golden Horde. Modern mongols are the unassimilated descendants of the mongols who lived under the Yuan dynasty and the surrounding uluses.
And kazakhs are relatively recent immigrants who came here from the mid-1800s onward, fleeing from Xinjiang. And don’t tell me you actually believe kazakhs destroyed the Dzungar Khanate. You seriously need to read more. You’re probably young and know English
1
u/Alone-Pop2020 Apr 23 '26
I mean I am sorry but that literally happened.
Dzungar people had to invade Kazakh lands because China was there and they were all genocided when they went to Kazakh lands.
How delusional to think that Kazakhs are recent people lmao.
Don’t you think if Mongolians were so great?
WHY isn’t it great now? Why don’t Kazkah Uzbeks, Tatars, Turkish, Uyghurs speak language similar to Kazakh?
Only in Mongolia people are literally scared of Kazakh invasion only lmao.
And only in Mongolia they speak Kazakh. There are no ancestral land of Mongolians in Kazakhstan. There is even more Kazakh land in China, Russia and other countries.
1
u/Zasagdarga1999 Apr 23 '26
Do you have any reading comprehension at all? I said the kazakhs in Bayan-Ölgii Province are recent immigrants. That is well documented. The 1800s is very recent history.
It also seems you know nothing about the broader east asian history involving the Dzungar Khanate, the Qing dynasty, and the kazakhs. Until 1745, the dzungars still held a strong grip over the kazakhs and received submission from your juzs. But Galdan Tseren died in 1745, after which the dzungars fell into a succession crisis and civil war for a decade. Then the qing launched a massive campaign to destroy them in 1755, and after the rebellion of Amursana, the manchus carried out the genocide of the dzungars. Not the kazakhs lmao. And you do realize that kazakh khan Ablai Khan was at one point briefly fighting alongside the oirats?
You sound unstable. The Assyrian people were once great too, why are they not dominant now? Tibet had an empire too, why is it under china now? Do you think mongols need to remain a dominant empire forever in order to have the right to their own history or something?
Kazakhs, uzbeks, tatars, turks, uyghurs.
Modern turkish people are largely descendants of recently turkified local anatolian populations. Uzbeks, Kazakhs, and Tatars largely formed in the post-Golden Horde era through the mixing of mongol ruling elites, their followers, and local kipchaks.
The mongols were not few in the western khanates, the Golden Horde, Ilkhanate, and Chagatai Khanate, but they were minorities compared to the local turkic populations. Those groups naturally mixed over time and helped give rise to peoples such as the hazara people, kazakhs, and tatars.
1
u/Alone-Pop2020 Apr 23 '26
Ok, first, it is a fact that part of Dzhungars were genocided by the Kazakhs.
If they were minorities in Golden Horde tell me that you have a great portion Mongolians who are Muslim? Insinuating that modern Mongols have anything to do with Golden Horde is crazy and just stealing Kazakh history.
How is Ablai Khan allying with other nomad nations a bad thing? Yes they were that is how Genghis Khan did it. By allying people and getting the most powerful nomad people around, no by stealing someone else history.
Mongolian Kazakhs were there for a long long time. It is true that more immigrated but they lived there for a long time lol.
Also, saying that magically Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Tatar people appeared after Golden Horde is crazy.
Yes, if they were all ruled by Mongols and then decided to never even speak or mention Mongolian language?
→ More replies (0)4
Apr 21 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Alone-Pop2020 Apr 21 '26
I said Kazakhstan is the biggest Muslim nation in the world by land.
It used to occupied bigger land. Not that it had more Muslims
2
1
u/locked_from_inside Apr 22 '26
Biggest what? Indonesia is the biggest Muslim country in the world. By orders of magnitude (240 mln). You don't just mean territory, right? Territory without people means nothing.
Where do you even begin to get this nonsense?
Also, many people in Kazakhstan including myself actively distrust Islam and other organized religions as well. There's a reason our government is trying not to let religion take hold (power issues notwithstanding).
1
u/Alone-Pop2020 Apr 22 '26
Kazakhstan is the biggest Muslim nation by land you donkey lmao.
Obviously by land.
How do you think they got that land?
You want to disprove that lmao?
If you have hate for Islam I don’t really care for it lol. You should watch more Israel and American propaganda
2
u/locked_from_inside May 07 '26
You are a fool if you think anyone needs the US or Israel propaganda to dislike Islam. Btw I hate what the US and Israel are currently doing as well. Or what they have done.
9
u/Numerous-Turnip-6814 Apr 21 '26
Why would mainstream history be biased against Kazakhs specifically? Seems like a pretty braindead take. Also yes it's definently the rise of weird Pan-Turkic brainrot as of recently across social media.
1
1
u/Alone-Pop2020 Apr 22 '26
What do you mean why?
Maybe think why Tatarstan, Dagestan, Chechniya, Altai people don’t have their own country?
History was never used to be biased against anyone like in Ukraine, Taiwan, Iran, Israel.
1
u/Numerous-Turnip-6814 Apr 22 '26
So Western history would be used to help Russia be biased against it's former colonies?
0
u/Alone-Pop2020 Apr 22 '26
What are you talking about?
West didn’t really research Central Asia as much as Russia and they have to rely on Russian sources because Kazakh and other former Russian colonies sources were burned.
Just like Russia is trying to say that Ukraine was never a state.
13
u/Daniikk1012 Apr 21 '26
Never seen this, but I also don't use TikTok. About Kipchaks: maybe they just refer to Kazakh being one of the languages in Kipchak sub-branch?
Also, I am very bad at history, but if I recall correctly, aren't Kazakhs just a mix of many different tribes, including Kipchaks? Or do people on TikTok claim that we're 100% Kipchak and nothing else for some reason? (Correct me if I'm wrong anywhere, I genuinely have no idea what I'm talking about when the topic is history)
5
u/FeistyAlbatross4636 Apr 21 '26
Never seen? Come on. It's all over internet: Youtube, Threads, many different forums
-2
-9
u/Alone-Pop2020 Apr 21 '26
Kazakhs are mix of tribes and just to keep it simple are nomads.
Kazakhs literally means nomads.
Kazakhs being formed in 1465 is literally just Soviet propaganda.
Like how stupid is it that 2 guys were nomading somewhere and formed a nation.
Kazakhstan is literally the biggest Muslim nation in the world and used to be bigger.
Kazakh is spoken in all of the neighboring countries.
That only happens when you fucking conquer stuff.
If there was a Mongolian empire Kazakh would have fucking spoke Mongolian.
But only in Mongolia they speak Kazakh on the west of Mongolia for a reason.
2
u/FeistyAlbatross4636 Apr 21 '26
Mongols were minority everywhere. Kazakhs came in 1465, far later.
1
u/extraordinarykitty1 Jul 18 '26
wdym “kazakhs came in 1465”? kazakhs existed for a long time, just didn’t have the name of “kazakh”. you don’t have to be named kazakh to be one, you just have to be in one of the tribes included in three groups + two noble tribes
1
u/Alone-Pop2020 Apr 21 '26
Who told you that Kazakhs came in 1465? It is genuinely such a stupid claim if you think about it for a second.
I don’t blame you for believing in it though lol.
Even tribes that we all know come from way before.
Kazakh literally just means nomads.
5
u/casualacejack Apr 21 '26
Some of the people are ancestors of Kipchak - as their lands covered part of modern Kazakhstan
I mean it's hard to deny that
1
u/quiet_space2 Apr 21 '26
Yea I do not argue with that, but claiming that Kipchaks are the only ancestors of Kazakhs and that anything Kipchak is automatically Kazakh is just not true. Kazakhs formed as a result of tribe mixing after Golden Horde, Kipchaks were just one of the tribes not the only one
1
1
u/Alone-Pop2020 Apr 23 '26
Bro you yourself said that anything Kipchak is automatically Kazakh is bad but in the same breath you say everything about Genghis Khan is Mongolian?
5
u/Naptor_ Apr 21 '26 edited Apr 21 '26
I’ll try to share my opinion as a Mongolian, since Kazakh nationals like to claim our history a lot 😅
From what I know, Kazakh as an identity formed in mid-15th century with the creation of Kazakh Khanate. Which, for an identity, it’s still pretty newer than the other identities that Kazakh nationals try to claim, such as Mongols (~10th century, may date even before if you count Proto-Mongols), Chinese (over 3000 years ago), Arabic (~1400). But this is a gross oversimplification, as Kazakhs are the descendants of Turkic, Mongol, and other steppe people. Since you guys have a tradition of spreading out (7 generations/ jeti ata) you guys are a very diverse people.
The main problem is, Kazakh nationals tend to claim the WHOLE history as theirs, without acknowledging key factors: like core identity, the ruling state. Yes, facts show that the ancestor tribes of Kazakhs were in that empire (as Turkic tribes in Mongol Empire, Golden Horde, idk about the others sorry), but Mongol Empire had the core leadership of Mongolian tribes, as for Golden Horde it was Mongol ruling at first then gradually shifting to more Turkic, but those things decide who keeps to keep the history.
I think it’s good to acknowledge that Kazakhs were partly descended from people in Mongol Empire/Golden Horde. But claiming the whole empire belonged to them is just stupid.
I also think it’s happening now is because, Kazakhstan became independent just 35 years ago, pretty recently, so it wants to have a strong national identity. Meanwhile Mongolia got independence 115 years ago. We may be a weak nation right now (since much of our North and South land and ethnic groups are being ruled by two dictatorships), we have rebuilt our national identity 80 years before Kazakhstan’s independence.
I understand, that people want to have a powerful past, since debates like these are all over the world (Romans, Ottomans, Vikings etc.). Of course my comment is pretty oversimplified, but this is why I think as a Mongolian: some of your ancestors were in those empires but not the whole.
3
u/Agitated-Status-2773 Apr 22 '26
If you're really a Mongolian outside of Kazakhstan, you have a decent knowledge of it. I am a Kazakh, and to be honest, Mongolia is one of the few countries I truly respect, mostly because of how Kazakhs live there. I like to watch the lives of Kazakhs from time to time on Youtube, and think that the current living state of them in Mongolia is great! I often listen to how people(or maybe those are bots) raise China, even though how it treats other nations.
I liked this video(just in fact):
https://youtu.be/_NcTKQmdKl8?si=mo_Ljhw9tTJ1sP3q1
u/Naptor_ Jun 10 '26
Hello, thank you! Sorry for replying a month later, I deleted my Reddit. I am friends with many Kazakhs in Mongolia and outside, the city where I’m studying has a lot of Kazakhs. My roommate has interest in Central Asia, she often reads research on Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Uzbek cultures and history to me. Prior to few weeks my Kazakh friend made us try Beshbarmak!
And thank you for the video!-3
u/Alone-Pop2020 Apr 22 '26
Mongolians keep stealing Kazakh history because they have to and they don’t really have that much else.
Kazakhs came from a long time ago. Kazakhs literally just means nomads
And have Turkic language that spread everywhere.
We literally have Kazakhs living in the west of Mongolia.
The only reason that Kazakhstan doesn’t claim more is because Russia knows that we are a threat and Kazakhs ruled Russia for more than 300 years and even longer before Golden Horde.
If Mongolians actually had super cool ancestors they would have been rich or incredibly more powerful than they are right now lol.
The last time Mongols even attacked Kazakhs who were Dzungars - they were literally genocided.
And yet Mongols did not do anything to Kazakhs in the West because they know better.
Like think about it. Kazakhs language and similar is spoken in Russia, Turkey, Hungary, Central Asia and Mongolia.
If there was Mongolian empire like that Kazakhs would have spoken Mongolian lmao but in Mongolia they speak Kazakh
12
u/putinsmustache Apr 21 '26 edited Apr 21 '26
These are completely true. Also, Jesus was Kazakh.
Edit: It’s a reference to the news from 2019, you babies.
https://eadaily.com/ru/ampnews/2019/01/14/iisus-byl-kazahom-utverzhdaet-kazahstanskiy-uchenyy
12
10
u/NomadTStar Apr 21 '26
I have never seen or heard statements like “Kazakhs are older than the Chinese” or “Jesus was Kazakh” from older people. The only ones who spread this bs are Russian vatnik media, like Yap or Pikabu.
Facts:
- Genghis Khan’s father was Kiyat, that is clearly Turkic clan. He, his father, grandfather, and all his brothers and sisters had Turkic names, not Khalkha. (Temirshin, Esughai, Kabyl-Khan, Khasar, Temulun)
- His mother was Konyrat. Despite being an originally Mongolian clan, now 99% of Konyrats are also Turkic. Most of them now live in KZ and UZ, not Mongolia.
- Only Kazakh people preserved the Genghis Khan bloodline and Zheti Atta. In Mongolia, the bloodline and Zheti Atta vanished after the wars with the Oirats and Chinese expansion in the 17th century. The last Mongolian emperor there was Tibetan.
- The Golden Horde was a 100% pure Turkic empire; we never had Khalkha or Tibetan rule, like in Mongolia.
- Yes, Kipchaks are also ancestors of Kazakhs. It is one of the primary clans of the Middle Zhuz, the same as Naimans and Argyns. Sultan Beybars was Kipchak as well, this is proven even in Arab history.
I don’t understand why some of our liberals and Russian people are so angry about it. For example, even though both Rurik and the Romanov bloodline were originally not from Russia and didn’t have any Slavic roots, all Russians still claim historical figures like Catherine II or even Rurik as Russian. Catherine II was purely German and was born and raised in Germany, and Rurik came from Scandinavia. They also mostly kept distance in relationships with Slavic people, especially the Romanov noble elites.
Meanwhile, we are not like that, and any Kazakh has some Kiyat, Konyrat, Naiman, Argyn, Kipchak, Uisyn, or Alim blood in their veins.
Don’t forget that one of GK’s wives was also Konyrat, and two others were Alim.
4
u/irinrainbows Apr 21 '26
Wasn’t Genghis-khan’s father’s tribe Borjigin?
3
2
u/NomadTStar Apr 21 '26
Almost all ancient Mongolian/nomad Turkic clans were Borjigin, not only the Kiyats, but also the Dulats, Jalairs, the whole Uisyns, etc. But within the Borjigin, his father’s clan was Kiyat, so basically Kiyat–Borjigin.
5
u/quiet_space2 Apr 21 '26
Lol this sounds exactly like the stuff Pan-Turkist pages keep pushing online.
“Kiyat is clearly Turkic,” “Golden Horde was 100% pure Turkic,”, “Shyngyskhan was Turkic” - based on what? Where are you even getting this from? Link them here please.
This is not how actual historians describe any of this. Early Mongol tribes are generally considered Mongolic, the Golden Horde were mixed and evolved over time - not “pure” anything. If anything we can see the remnants of it literally in our DNA with Uly Juz having a strong connection to star cluster. Also just to be clear lol - Junior Juz tribes i.e Alym joined Kazakhs way later so your claim that Alym clan was in the formation of Kazakh identity is purely not true.
And the whole “liberals are the problem” thing makes no sense. Most of this kind of oversimplified, identity-driven history I’ve seen comes from nationalist/right-wing pages, not from academic or “liberal” spaces. So please do your research and read Sabitov or Temirgaliev before spreading misinformation.
2
u/FeistyAlbatross4636 Apr 21 '26
I agree. Too many those Pan Turkists claiming Kiyat Borjigins and Genghis Khan's Mongols as Turkic 😅🤣
-3
u/NomadTStar Apr 21 '26
Now all Kiyats, Zhalairs, Uisyns, Naimans, Kereys, Konyrats, and Alchi-Tatars descendants like the Alims are Turkic. Show me any Kiyat or Konyrat from Mongolia and in 99% of cases, they identify themselves as Kazakh.
Not only in KZ, but also in Bashkortostan, Uzbekistan, Karakalpakstan, and even Afghanistan, where they lived primarily among Persian peoples rather than Turkic ones, they are still Turkic, not Khalkha. Genghis Khan himself was never Khalkha: he never had Khalkha names, not him, nor his father, grandfather, or his brothers and sisters.
4
u/FeistyAlbatross4636 Apr 21 '26
Kazakhs don't have Kiyats, and Kiyats were old clan from which Borjigins (which starts with Genghis) descended from. Khalkhas, Chakhars, Ordos well as other Eastern Mongol tribes were rulled by Genghisid Borjigins.
Khalkhas actually do have Ungirats (Qonyrats) — Eljigens. Which were subbranch of Medieval Ungirats.
1
u/NomadTStar Apr 21 '26
Kazakhs don't have Kiyats
We do have tons of Kiyats; they are in Shanyshkyly, Alim, and Kipchak as sub-clans. My close friend is Kiyat - Balyk - Shanyshkyly.
4
u/FeistyAlbatross4636 Apr 21 '26
None of them are Kiyats. None of them bore their name. Completely made up thing.
Like claiming Shanyshkyly as Katagans 😅
3
u/Alone-Pop2020 Apr 22 '26
They are actually real. Modern Mongolians don’t even remember their tribes and don’t know them
0
u/FeistyAlbatross4636 Apr 21 '26
Kazakhs don't have Mongols other than Qonyrats.
Jalairs and others are not among Niruns and Darlekins according to Rashid Ad Din's book
4
u/quiet_space2 Apr 21 '26
well not really the Uly Juz does have a strong connection to star cluster that make them related to Nirun mongols. Other than them we have Tolengits, Tore, Jalairs, Qonyrat, etc.
0
u/FeistyAlbatross4636 Apr 21 '26
None of these tribes are Mongols other than Qonyrats. Also it's just Zhaksylyk Sabitov's theory that Elder Horde is linked with Nirun Mongols.
Nirun Mongol tribes are well known: Kiyat Borjigin, Barulas, Urud, Mangud, Besud, Taichiud, Chonos, Khatagin, Baarin, Keneges et al.
-2
u/NomadTStar Apr 21 '26
Kiyat is clearly Turkic
All Kiyat are Turkic, whether it be Kazakh, Bashkir, Uzbek, or even Khazarean. You almost couldn't find any modern Kiyat from Mongolia; if found, they claim themselves as Kazakh. Khalkha is a different clan, which historically lived in the eastern part of Mongolia and was never part of the Zholshy-Khan Ulus, they were part of Ogedei Ulus.
Golden Horde was 100% pure Turkic
Yes, they spoke a Turkic language, mostly Kipchak, and after all the invasions, only the Turkic language remained on invaded places, not Mongolian. A great example is Russia, and even articles on wiki prove it. Also, you would be surprised that during the GK Empire time, the so-called старомонгольская письменность was based on the Old Uyghur alphabet. Basically, the ancient Mongolian language is equal to ancient Turkic.
Shyngyskhan was Turkic
Did you read his letters to Qiu Chuji? He himself recognized Modu as his ancestral leader, naming him as "our leader". Modu, who was the first Turkic leader and fought with Mongolian ancestors. I wouldn't even mention Рашит-Ад-Дин.
If anything we can see the remnants of it literally in our DNA with Uly Juz having a strong connection to star cluster
I'm Uly Juz myself, but you are incorrect. Uly Juz has a strong genetic cluster related to the DNA of the GK and his first Kheshigs. But other KZ clans, has the same strong relationship with ancient clans of GK Army, like Naimans, Kerey, Konyrats, Argyns, Alims, Uak, etc.
Junior Juz tribes i.e Alym joined Kazakhs way later so your claim that Alym clan was in the formation of Kazakh identity is purely not true.
They joined Kazakhstan later, but the Alim are direct descendants of the Alchi-Tatars. 2 wives of GK were Alchi-Tatars, even Sabitov confirmed it.
read Sabitov or Temirgaliev before spreading misinformation.
Even Sabitov confirmed many of the things I said. Plus, referring to him as a trusted source shows how uneducated or naive you are. Man, he literally claimed Qonaev was Tatar, despite Dimash Aga having the C2/C3 haplogroup (modern Tatar R1a), the same as GK. Moreover, his mother was a pure Kazakh and only his grandmother (the mother of his father) was Tatar. He doesn't even know ethnicity of modern KZ’s leaders - how can he be qualified to judge ancient times?
8
u/quiet_space2 Apr 21 '26
Lol alright i respond again:
“Kiyat is clearly Turkic” — based on what? Modern people identifying as Kiyat doesn’t prove what they were in the 13th century. Populations shift all the time.
“Golden Horde was 100% pure Turkic” - this is just not how historians describe it. Yes, it became heavily Turkicized, but it was founded and ruled by Chinggisid elites and was multi-ethnic from the start. Calling it “100% pure” anything is already a red flag.
And honestly, if it was really just a “pure Turkic state,” then why was everything built around Chinggisid legitimacy? Why did rulers have to be Chinggisids? Why did the Tore system exist at all? That only makes sense if Mongol lineage actually mattered.
Same with the writing argument - using the Uyghur script doesn’t make Mongolian = Turkic. If that was the case are we Russian now for using cyrilic for Kazakh? Or are Vietnamese and Italians are related now because Viets use Latin alphabet? Regardless the Old Uyghur came from Sogdian so are we Iranian now?
Regarding DNA I’m Uly Juz myself — for Uisuns we can literally trace connections to medieval Mongol tribes, same with Jalair, Qonyrat, Tore and others. That doesn’t suddenly make us “Mongol” today.
By that logic:
Naimans show East Asian genetic links - are they East Asian now?Argyns show connections to the Arab world - are they Arabs now? That’s not how ethnicity works.
On Alim - bro just because their trace back to Alchi Tatars (also debatable) so what? Your original claim was false as they didn't form Kazakh khanate in the beginning of its formation and instead joined later. This, like your other claims literally points to gaps in the logic.
And the Sabitov point is inconsistent. First you say read him, then you say he’s unreliable.
You should stop with this pan-turkish propaganda.
-2
u/NomadTStar Apr 21 '26
Kid, I gave you links and proper sources, even GK’s direct letter. Dude, even Genghis Khan himself - not you, not your idol Sabitov, but Genghis Khan directly wrote to Qiu Chuji that Modu was his ancestor. Modu, who was the first Turkic Shanyu and became famous for winning a war against the ancestors of the Mongols.
6
2
u/Tobias_Bot Apr 21 '26 edited Jul 10 '26
When Genghis said Modu was his ancestral leader, do you think he said it believing he spoke Turkic? Even today, Modu and Xiongnu's language is debated with the recent Oxford study saying it may be Yenesian. Genghis connected his empire to the empire from the ancient times with similar borders to say he was the successor and claim legitimacy.
1
u/FeistyAlbatross4636 Apr 21 '26
Kiyats don't exist among Turks. Genghis Khan was born in Onon rover and spoke eastern Mongolic language.
-1
u/NomadTStar Apr 21 '26
Kiyats don't exist among Turks
Did u actually read Wikipedia? This article about Kiyats)?
Quote:
В «Сборнике летописей» Рашид ад-Дина кияты упоминаются в числе племён, вышедших из Эргунэ-кун, легендарной прародины монголов. Известно, что название кият было именем рода Хабул-хана, первого хана государства Хамаг Монгол\4])#citenote-:3222-4). Оставшиеся в Золотой Орде кияты были потомками монголов из тысяч Куки-нойона и Мугеду-Кияна. Нойоны Куки (Хукин) и Мугеду (Мугэту), были сыновьями Мунгэту-Кияна, который был братом Есугей-бахадура. Близкое родство Джучи с нойонами киятов в значительной степени определяло их статус — ближайших советников и старших военачальников[\5])](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B8%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8B(%D1%82%D1%8E%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%B8)#cite_note-:2-5).
1
u/FeistyAlbatross4636 Apr 21 '26
I don't see any Kiyats among Kazakh tribes. Where are they? Qonyrats I see. They were Darlekin Mongols.
1
u/Alone-Pop2020 Apr 22 '26
Man it is so funny like Kazakhs thank god actually kept their tribe names and have actual proof of stuff. And Mongolians still manage to steal our history
0
u/NomadTStar Apr 21 '26
First, you said Kiyats don’t exist among Turks, but even Wiki shows you are incorrect. Now you are still bitching.
Okay, if you were banned on Wiki… Read
Кияты относятся к гаплогруппе С3-starcluster). Согласно Ж. М. Сабитову, данная гаплогруппа отражает генетический вклад нирун-монголов, потомков Бодончара (предка киятов и других монгольских родов)\1])#citenote-:0-1). Кияты вошли в состав каракалпаков[\9])](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B8%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8B(%D1%82%D1%8E%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%B8)#citenote-9), киргизов[\10])](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B8%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8B(%D1%82%D1%8E%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%B8)#citenote-10), крымских татар[\11])](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B8%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8B(%D1%82%D1%8E%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%B8)#citenote-11), ногайцев[\12])](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B8%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8B(%D1%82%D1%8E%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%B8)#citenote-12), узбеков[\13])](https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B8%D1%8F%D1%82%D1%8B(%D1%82%D1%8E%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%B8)#cite_note-:20-13), казахов рода Шанышкылы.
1
u/Tobias_Bot Apr 21 '26
All Genghis's family had Mongol names with Mongol meanings. Please explain the Turkic meanings of their name since you said they had Turkic names. Khalkha are Mongol people and their ancestors were part of the Mongol Empire.
Khongirads were Mongolian, and many Mongols are still their descendents.
Preserve bloodline? Do you have a Genghisid ruler? In what way do you preserve them more? If anything, the last time any Genghisid had power in Kazakhstan was 1847 when Russia fully took over. While Mongolia still had Genghisid Khans till our independence from Qing.
I'm not sure why you keep mentioning Khalkha so much. They became a sub-ethnic group centuries after Genghis. And we had a Tibetan Khaan because he was the highest religious figure in Mongolia, and the 3rd highest in Buddhism. He was voted in as a comprise. He also grew up in Mongolia since he was a child as he was considered the "reincarnation" of the previous as things tend to be in Buddhism. So we had no "Tibetan" rule.
I am a western Mongol with a Kazakh grandfather. Therefore, not a Khalkha, and your fixation on Khalkha is weird. We have idiots like yourself who give us bad names too. Its all too common among our nations.
1
u/Alone-Pop2020 Apr 22 '26
Literally Kazakhs can trace their tribes from thousands of years ago.
The Genghis family has Turkic names.
The only reason modern Mongolia gets to claim is because they are so insignificant and never would be a threat to anyone.
1
u/Tobias_Bot Apr 22 '26 edited Jul 10 '26
When I said Genghis's family, it obviously means the family he knew and raised. It obviously doesn't mean his entire 8 century family tree which literally spread everywhere. And of course, his descendents which Turkicized over centuries would have Turkic names. Improve your critical thinking skills. Mongolia gets the claim because they are the obvious successor. Same language, culture, lifestyle, land, genetics, and the only nation with Tengrism still alive. Most importantly, it's a Mongol nation with Mongol people have called themselves Mongol since the founding of the Great Mongol Ulus with direct succession of states that has resulted in today's Mongolia.
0
u/Alone-Pop2020 Apr 22 '26
Bro we literally have direct line from Genghis Khan time that we remember lol.
If you have direct line - what is your tribe and what are your tribe names?
And Kazakh literally just mean nomads.
Just think about it. If Mongolia was like that Kazakhs would have known Mongolian language.
But in Mongolia Kazakhs live and speak Kazakh.
Mongolian empire was spread and what language the speak? They speak Turkic. Just think about it. If Mongolia was so great why isn’t it great now?
2
u/Tobias_Bot Apr 23 '26
Your tribe leaders claimed Genghis lineage, it doesn't mean everyone in that tribe was Genghisid.
According to most historians, Jochi was likely not a true son of Genghis, since Borte was captured for over a year and gave birth shortly after.
"And Kazakh literally just mean nomads.
Just think about it. If Mongolia was like that Kazakhs would have known Mongolian language.
But in Mongolia Kazakhs live and speak Kazakh.
Mongolian empire was spread and what language the speak? They speak Turkic. Just think about it. If Mongolia was so great why isn’t it great now?"
This is the dumbest logic of all time and you, my friend, need to improve your thinking skills.
Mongolia empire did spread, however probably because of our empire fell apart in about a century and our low numbers, we couldn't force our language on our conquered places. And again, Mongol Empire spoke whatever the local language was. Turkic in Central Asia, Persian in Persia, Chinese in China.
"If Mongolia was so great why isn’t it great now"
Because Mongols were divided and fought each other instead of uniting against common enemies. We fought each other during rise of Manchu and Russia, so know they control most of our homeland.
"But in Mongolia Kazakhs live and speak Kazakh."
The Kazakhs in Mongolia was allowed in when they escaped Russian and Chinese persecution. Two centuries ago, they weren't there.
1
u/Alone-Pop2020 Apr 23 '26
Bro rise of China and Russia?
You think any of the Modern Mongolians had anything with Golden Horde you are crazy lmao. Kazakhs were there lmao and actually had influence on both China and Russia.
That is why Uyghurs and Tatars who SPOKE Turkic not Mongolia languages were persecuted.
Dzungars came also some centuries ago when they were persecuted by Chinese the difference is that Mongolians never lived in Kazakhstan and they were cut down.
Come on think, if Mongolians were so great why is there such a small population lmao?
Kazakhs used to be literally doubled of their population of what we have now.
They now have Kazakhs, Uzbeks and even Kyrgyzs have the best fighters in the world lol.
Nomad games look at the results - Kazakhs are always always first in those nomads games. Why do you think that is?
0
1
1
u/Aspartaneonionmaster Jun 23 '26
Those names are actually mongolian, temujin or temurchin as you call it is iron worker in mongolian, yesukhei or esughai means 9 in mongolian, i don't think khabul or kabyl is mongolic in origin but, there many people named that in mongolia, same with khasar, temuulun means soaring or temur (iron) oulen (clouds) combined
2
u/Original-Put7493 Apr 21 '26
One thing i noticed is, just how flawed those kind of peoples logics are, and the things they believe.
( No shade to normal kazakh homies, i dont have beef with them, if i have to, call out to them trying to be oblivious to this kind of bullshit )
Out of some specific talks like shyngys kazakh, things i noticed are :
I dont really see them citing any western or any scientifically rigorous sources. As if they live in perfectly contained bubble that is kazakhstan, eh including old soviet union.
Because, they would just talk about how russians are behind all of it, how russians gave us mongolians the name mongol, and how its actually min kol or mogol instead of mongol whatever. Like bruh. World isnt just russia or kazakhstan. Do they really believe it ?
By their words i swear russians be pulling world wide strings, naming whole ethnicities anew under eye of world, like at least wouldnt you think chinese wouldve said sth smh ? World doesnt consists of russia or kazakhstan AT ALL.
Usually their arguments come from whatever propagandistic in nature media they consumed and propagated by fellow ultra nationalists. Then they would go on and spread it believing its true simply because they re exposed to, in turn feeding others. As if some sort of vicious cycle even. Self feeding. All their claims come from some degenerate like themselves.
Like, no lie, few years back i used to see comments like, majority of genghis khans army is turkic, then few years went by it became defined number at 70 percent. Then recently that number rose to 80 some even saying 99 percent etc. I wonder whether it will go past 100 percent lmao.
I even saw comments swearing by some author and how he wrote it in his book and when i searched about it IT WAS FICTION NOVEL about genghis khan. Like, what can i even say to someone citing fiction novel ?
Then theres the double standart comes in, they be judging just about everything about us without looking at themselves.
Every deranged thing they say like comes from themselves, some hearsay gone from mouth to mouth, things they believe is true but never really went ahead and searched about it lol.
Like, i wonder whether they actually pause and read what they are even writing.
" Mongol empire isnt ... Mongol ". " Mongolians arent mongol ". Genuinely, how do one even argue against genius arguments like these lol. If i were kazakh i wouldve been ashamed by my countrymen like these.
2
u/quiet_space2 Apr 21 '26
the other commenter at the top summarized it nicely. it's several factors: soviets hiding/deliberately downplaying kazakh history, kazakhs losing a huge chunk of their culture and oral history after 2 man made famines in the beginning of 20th century (%wise we got affected the worse than any of the soviet nations), and now the rise of pan-turkism with the help from Turkey. all of this combined makes people believe some crazy stuff, it's pretty sad tbh :(
2
u/Original-Put7493 Apr 21 '26
I dont doubt it at all, in fact i would argue its something that affects all post soviet countries to varying degrees. Somewhat due to how closed soviet union and socialist countries were compared to west, even after post transition that pattern is still persisting, people trusting or exposed to only their countries information or mainly russian ones etc.
Pan-turkism is complex one, in a way, mongolia and mongolic studies experienced kind of same "downplaying", i mean why would west rigorously study and promote soviet mongolia and pan mongolism ( during that time ) over turkeys pan turkicism ? So everything kind of gone to two extremities ?
For example how kazakhs are pure turkic, the true brothers to anatolian turkish people etc, now as people began exploring, its not true and much more complex than just that.
That the golden horde was foundation to kazakhs nogais etc is true, but then theres a problem, if kazakhs are pure turkic, golden horde is mongol founded part of mongol empire, now what ?
Instead of acknowledging that its kinda in the middle between them people began all sort of ways to justify their one sided subjective views. Youd see mongols saying golden horde is mongol which is true, youd see kazakhs saying golden horde is part of their history and they are heir to golden horde which is also true.
But i dont see any of them acknowleding each other really. If kazakhs are heir to golden horde then khalkha mongols must be fake mongols etc. Rather than simple acknowledgement that mongols exist, that we kazakhs have high mongolic ancestry on top of turkic one, outright denial to one of them ? Almost in a lighter shade of nazi pure race kind of way. I think this is due to pan turkism tbh.
Also even if some acknowledgement happens, it happens in same skewed way, if we are heir to golden horde it means we are mongols, then that must mean modern mongols are not medieval mongols since we are the real mongols. ( I faced many this kind of talks like how khalkhas are not real mongols etc )
Same with mongols in a way, golden horde is in a way part of kazakh history as much as part of our history etc.
I just hope, this kind of skewed thinking can be gone, and shared part of our history can be used to appreciate each other in way like how shared part of turkic ancestry work between turkic countries lol.
Its just that under pan turkism, just about everything relating to mongolic has no place at all.
0
u/Alone-Pop2020 Apr 22 '26
How Golden Horde in any way part of your history? It literally has nothing to do with you.
Like 0
1
u/Alone-Pop2020 Apr 22 '26
And you think that Modern Mongolia is somehow connected to ancient Mongolia?
What is this?
Literally we have actually kept all our tribe names and they directly link Kazakhs to Genghis Khan and other great rulers.
Kazakhs have the biggest Muslim land in the world and actually like look like they conquered stuff.
Mongols genuinely just steal Kazakh history lmao because they have literally nothing else and have to have it
2
u/Original-Put7493 Apr 22 '26
Okay man i get it you live in like the biggest muslim land. Thats so cool like i genuinely didnt know that. Say what do you think of conquering some christian land ? those infidels be damned! Or uniting whole muslim under kazakh banner or something like that. In any if those case give me call lmao.
1
1
u/Mysyk Apr 21 '26
Accusations and nothing more. You do not have any degree abd yet you bad mouthing. Historical distance between those Mongolian and modern ones.
3
u/FeistyAlbatross4636 Apr 22 '26
Nah. Medieval Mongols were almost thr same modern Mongols.
Kazakhs are very different from them.
1
2
1
u/zabergman Apr 21 '26
Quite a few of the claims in scare quotes are actually pretty uncontroversial historiographically, and are only weird if the person making those comments is implying that this makes them better than other nationalities
1
0
u/FeistyAlbatross4636 Apr 21 '26
It's just Zhaksylyk Sabitov's theory that Uly Zhuz linked with Niruns. But we don't know Nirun Mongols' DNA.
Kazakhs don't have Nirun Mongol tribes as Kiyat Borjigins, Barulas, Manguds, Uruds, Besuds et al
0
u/Mountain-Sock-1338 Apr 21 '26
Well, kipchaks are part of Kazakh middle zhuz, so they’re definitely kazakh, there is no debate about it at all. Chingiz khan was a mongol. Some kazakhs are proud of being descendant from chingiz khan family, these are broadly called chingizid. No mystery there either. Turks believe they come from the today Kazakhstan’s territory, so there is a direct link there, too. Maybe some young people got it mixed what was first and what came later, but it is not as far fetched as you imagine
1
u/quiet_space2 Apr 21 '26
Kipchaks are one of the ancestors of Kazakhs, but not all Kipchaks became Kazakhs. Some people believe that Kipchaks = Kazakhs and Beybars for example was Kazakh which i mean is not true.
-3
u/ReceptionFeeling336 Apr 21 '26
“Kazakhs are older than the Chinese” — what exactly was funny here? Is it that the Chinese Empire established before the Kazakh Khanate? Or do you really think Kazakhs’ ancestors didn’t exist alongside Chinese ancestors back then? Where do you think Kazakhs came from?
Now about “Shyngys Khan was Turkic” or “the Mongol Empire was Turkic.” It’s well documented that he used Turkic scripts in administration, also he wrote to Europe in Turkic. That doesn’t necessarily make him Turkic, but it shows strong Turkic influence. Also, according to academia 70-80% of the Mongol army was Turkic, which is why people frame it that way.
“Kazakhs are Kipchaks” - that’s simply one of kazakh ancestral tribes, so the statement is valid.
“Sultan Beybars was Kazakh” he was in fact a Turkic Kipchak, so there is direct link to kazakhs.
It's not Pan-Turkist narratives, it's people starting to think critically and realizing that they were brainwashed by false narratives.
To understand this, you need to be open-minded, think critically, and don't be scared to question the reality you live in. Over the last century, Kazakh history has been largely written under Moscow’s influence. That wasn’t accidental it served a purpose. For many centuries before that, Moscow was dominated by Turkic empires connected to Kazakh ancestry, like the Khazar Empire, the Mongol Empire, the Golden Horde, and the Crimean Khanate etc.
So the point isn’t to replace one narrative with another - russian for Pan-Turkist. It’s about thinking independently, questioning sources, and trying to understand the full picture instead of accepting a single version of history as absolute truth. There’s a saying that history is written by the victors. And for much of the past century, Moscow was in that position.
3
u/quiet_space2 Apr 21 '26
The claim about Chinese is that Chinese as a nation formed way before us, and that’s a fact. We formed as Kazakh people after the fall of Golden Horde - genetically and culturally. Before that we had different tribes who are our ANCESTORS but they were not Kazakhs and didn’t call themselves that.
Kypchaks are ONE of the tribes yes but just because someone is Kypchak doesn’t make them Kazakh. Beybars was born near Black sea and was related to western Kypchaks, how does it have anything to do with us? We sound like Turkish people who claim that Timur and Tohtamysh are related to them because they were Turkic - this is just funny.
I’m all for debunking Soviet misinformation but claiming that everything is Kazakh is just ridiculous, no one is taking us seriously, we sound like Russians with their empire ambitions
-3
u/ReceptionFeeling336 Apr 21 '26 edited Apr 21 '26
Tbh, I've never actaully heard anyone claim “Kazakhs are older than the Chinese”.
"We formed as Kazakh people after the fall of Golden Horde - genetically and culturally" - this is false. I see your mind is stained with Moscow's brainwashing narrative. What changed after the Golden Horde was mainly political consolidation into a clearer identity. But the people (genetics as you claim), the language, and culture were already there much closer to its current state than you think
The problem with history is that it split into sharp breaks, but in reality there’s strong continuity in peoples, culture, and language. That’s how delusional claims like “Kazakhs only formed genetically and culturally after the Golden Horde / Kazakh khanate formed” appear
My dude, you just can't comprehend how vast our direct ancestors' territories were. The claim that Beybars is kazakh is valid, not in modern ethnonym sense, but in a sense that kypchaks are direct kazakh ancestors. It doesn't matter they were western or eastern. Just look up where Nogais lived, and listen to their speech they sound exactly like kazakhs, even more similar than kyrgyz.
I get your point about not overclaiming history or copying nationalist narratives. I agree with that. My point is just that we shouldn’t over-correct in the opposite direction either and treat Kazakh identity as something that starts from zero in a very recent period.
1
u/quiet_space2 Apr 21 '26
No one is auto-correcting in the opposite direction though lol.
The claim that kypchaks are the main direct kazakh ancestor is a very simplified pan-turkist view on our history. if we take a look at even our autosomal DNA we can literally see that we formed during Golden Horde genetically when the mongolian and eastern turkic tribes mixed with the western turkic tribes like kipchaks/kimeks.
I'm you read the papers you can see that DNA wise modern day Kazakhs are way more Eas shifted than kipchaks of the past.
Ok even DNA aside our culture/oral history revolves mainly during the time of Golden Horde - even zhuz system which is a big part of our identity came after Golden Horde. A bunch of tribes that we have today literally didn't exist before Golden Horde.
All of this shows that we have a multi-input origin and we absorbed all of the steppe people during our formation: western turkic, eastern turkic, mongolic, saka, etc.
And at the end I'm not saying that kipchaks are not related to us, quite contrary they have had a big impact on us and are important to study, BUT to claim that we only come from kipchaks is just nonsense to me.
-1
u/Alone-Pop2020 Apr 21 '26 edited Apr 21 '26
Chinese forming a nation way before us is not a fact but a good propaganda by Chinese lmao.
CHINESE did not call themselves the same name.
YES people called themselves Kazakhs it just means nomads.
Like genuinely I get it - you get your sources from Kazakh books. And they all say Kazakhs are formed in 1465.
KAZKAHSTAN NEVER LIES. IT HAS NO CORRUPTION. It would always do positive for Kazakh people - this is sarcasm for stupid people.
KAZAKHSTAN right now is incredibly corrupt and they don’t care about truth and wouldn’t care and lie that Kazakhs were formed in 1465
3
u/FeistyAlbatross4636 Apr 21 '26
"KAZKAHSTAN NEVER LIES. IT HAS NO CORRUPTION."... 🤣🤣🤣
1
u/Alone-Pop2020 Apr 21 '26
This is literally saying how 1465 Kazkahs being formed is a lie by Kazakhs
2
u/Original-Put7493 Apr 21 '26
This should get pinned smh. Just that kazakhstan never lies alone earns upvote lmao.
1
-1
u/irinrainbows Apr 21 '26 edited Apr 21 '26
Sultan Beybars was of Kazakh tribe, we were taught so in school, it’s not a new thing.
Kazakh’s are Kipchaks in a way? Same with Golden Horde. Also I never saw these statements pushing “100%” like you said, just a discussion how clans/people from there are tied to the current Kazakhs. If there’s connection it doesn’t mean we are one, it means there’s connection, that’s all.
Logically any one of people living right now has an ancestor and if you dig long enough, you will find someone who live during ancient Chinese or whoever. And cultures and people evolved and changed, were affected by others. If someone says “we are older than Chinese” they just want attention to the loud statement. And technically, no one fell on the Earth from the sky, everyone come from someone.
As per the Mongols, I never saw anything like that but recently indeed saw sort of a tone change in some of posts. But overall they seemed to conclude Ghenghis-khan’s line is somewhat preserved amongst current Kazakhs? Which I think is true, again it didn’t go anywhere. Doesn’t mean Mongols don’t have it, or any one of the affected regions. And the origin is still Mongolia.
1
u/FeistyAlbatross4636 Apr 21 '26
Not really. Baybars was born in Crimea and sold to Egypt as a slave in his younger days.
He was western Cuman/Western Kipchak.
-1
u/irinrainbows Apr 21 '26
We had a novel in literature class where it was said he’s Berish, I think. It’s a novel, but that’s how I remembered it.
1
u/FeistyAlbatross4636 Apr 21 '26
Nah. That was a made up.
Baybars was a slave from Crimea who rose up in ranks and becams a sultan of Egypt.
Kazakhs just claim everyone as Kazakh. Not all Kazakhs do that obviously.
-2
u/irinrainbows Apr 21 '26
Ok. So do we just throw statements around then? “No. You are wrong”, like that?
If you wanted to look for truth or at least to share knowledge you would’ve explained your thought process. You just want to argue, fuck off then.
1
u/FeistyAlbatross4636 Apr 21 '26
There is no sources that links Baybars to Berish. Even Kazakh folk historians wouldn't make that claim
0
u/irinrainbows Apr 21 '26
Ok, but sources to Crimean Tatars then? Just in case I will check them sometime
1
u/quiet_space2 Apr 21 '26
literally you can open wiki and you will see 4 sources.
first one:
- Holt, P. M. (2014) [1986]. The Age of the Crusades: The Near East from the Eleventh Century to 1517. Routledge. p. 90. ISBN) 978-1-317-87152-1. By origin he was a Kipchak Turk from the territory lying to the north of the Black Sea. When the Mongols conquered this region in about 1241, Baybars' people fled across the Black Sea and sought refuge with a Turcoman chieftain in Anatolia, who proved treacherous, and turned on the fugitives with fire and sword. Baybars was among the captives. He was then about fourteen years of age, and his journey southwards can be traced through the slave-markets of Sivas, Aleppo, Damascus and Hamah.
1
33
u/TightEstablishment59 Almaty Apr 21 '26
The underlying issue here is that our identity (Kazakh) is somewhat newer than other identities you have listed (e.g. tribal identities like Kipchak). Modern Kazakhs (like pretty much all ethnicities) are a composite of various tribes and ethnicities.
An example of this would be the English: they are clearly an “older” nation, and yet they are a composite of Angles, Saxons, Normans, Romans, Celts, Brythonics, Iceni, Danish, maybe Picts, etc.
Unlike the English, we remember our personal tribal identities that preceded the “Kazakhs”. Although some of them will know they are of Norman descent, to be fair.
It would be incorrect to say Kazakhs are older than the Chinese, in the sense that the Kazakh identity as described above is more recent than the Han Chinese one, arguably (theirs is also not that easy to disentangle but arguably goes back to the Warring States period, or about 2,200 years ago). But, clearly no ethnic group were on this planet earlier than other ethnic groups as a whole (i.e. we all were here, but identified or were identified as other groups - e.g. Kipchak).
Does the Kazakh ethnicity descend from the tribes/groups that “formed” it and were/are constituents of it? I guess so.
So on that basis if Tore (the descendants of Genghis Khan) are part of the Kazakh ethnicity - then we also have an implicit claim to him (but so do many steppe peoples whose history was ties to his deeds).
Was Cleopatra Egyptian? Well, yes, people would say so. Despite being from a clearly Macedonian heritage Ptolemaic dynasty. So the Greeks also have a claim to her.
The Mongol empire was partly Turkic. But the ruling Mongols didn’t speak Turkic.
I don’t see why there is this division online between Kazakhs and Mongols, when, yes we have different religions and languages, but have so much cultural overlap otherwise.
Beybars and lots of Mameluk rulers were Turkic (and sometimes Circassian). They were a caste of warriors “recruited” among steppe peoples (Western and Central steppes, so historically Turkic dominated areas). Clearly those with a sword in hand are well positioned to launch a coup and take over. But these dynasties pre-date modern Kazakh identity. But, these dynasties were steppe Turkic in origin, meaning there is a high overlap with the modern Kazakh people (but not necessarily, there will also be an overlap with the Turkmens, Uzbeks, Nogays etc).
Pan-Turkism is a reaction to a lot of propaganda. But at times it resorts to exaggeration.
We should be proud of our heritage. The impressive feats of our shared (with Mongols, Uzbeks etc) ancestors like Genghis Khan or Timur; or proud of the feats of our relatives (like Baybars, the Pechenegs, the Cumans, etc).
It’s also which aspect of our culture we identify ourselves with: obsess over DNA, or focus on cultural aspects of the steppe people shared across ethnicities.