What's new

Current Tensions in Xinjiang-China

@cloycy

I think you've made a mistake here. XinJiang is NOT their land, but more Han Chinese' land form historical point of view.

The ethnics in XinJiang started off by some nomad tribes such as Qiang, Xiongnu (hun), Kozaks, etc. Han Chinese was alongst the first ethncis to settle there in history, with constant migration happened proir to 220 BC. But mass migration of Han Chinese didn't occur until West Han Dynasty about 190 AD, when Han emporers defeated the nomads and started to promote this kind of Han settlements in the region. However, due to XinJiang's hash climate, it has never been a part of Han Chinese heartlands.

Uigurs originated in today's Tukey, thousands of miles away from XinJiang. How comes XinJing is their homeland, but not Han Chinese'??? Turkic Uigurs didn't mass-migrate into today's XinJing until around Tang Dynasty - about 600-800 AD according to history!!!

Therefore it is a misnomer to say that XinJiang is Uigurs' native land. Han Chinese , alongside with Kosaks, Qiang, Hun and even Moguls are much more entitled to the land objectively speaking.


Hey...I never could contemplate that there is so much of hypocrisy around...

This is particularly for the Pakistanis (who support China for Strategic reasons and Muslims the world over for well known reasons)..

I do not understand that from the historical view point of all Pakistanis who give upon themselves the great right of protecting fellowmen and women of the Ummah suddenly comes to appreciate and brush aside these riots/incidents as internal matter to the Chinese...

I am amazed and apalled by this double sided ideology...Where are the Muslim emancipators, who treat any thing and everything related to Islam as common to them no matter which country they belong to .....

I understand that may be the forum projects something, but I do nt think and for that matter no rational person thinks that

"Overall the Paksitanis do not morally support the Uighur Movement"

And let me tell you , if they want autonomy or independence it means there is something grossly wrong in the scheme of things there..

It is and has always been economic hardships that leads to movements like this...

And as an Indian I do not have any qualms in accepting that J&K, and the 7 NE Sisters in India have been subjected to Economic opression over the last decades. they do not have anything to call their own...

And so is the similar case of the Uighurs, of course apart from the fact that they are Muslims and are well versed with the ideology of the Ummat E Muslima and they are striving to reach tat goal.

Whatever the Chinese media says needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. I shall not be surprised if the Hans are upto do an ethenic cleansing in the Uighur.

Like the way they did over the last decades to integrate the Hans in the TAR....everybody knows this and there is no need to bull $hit abt western or Anti China media reports...


And aha....here is a person who says that they are immigrants, accepted ....

So do I dare say that the Muslims are an import into the Indian Subcontinent ...so this should be fair and square now....that they also do not belong to the Subcontinent??

What say ?? Bin Sam and Ikhtiyar uddin Muhhamad Khalji in Bengal ..what say friends ....So Muslims belongng to the Indian Sub continent is a Misnomer ???
 
You don't know a thing about Turkic history, the Turks in Anatolia derive from Central Asia. The Turkic nation does not have to look exactly like the Turks in Anatolia. The Uyghurs look exactly like Central Asian Turks. Look at Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan all Muslim-Turkic states and the Uyghurs look just like their Turkic brethren. Are you seriously going to suggest that because Uyghurs don't look like Anatolian Turks that they are more Chinese than Turks...Very very foolish and very unscientific.

Absolutely, Turkic people are from central asia and NOT modern Turkey as SIF is suggesting.
 
Absolutely, Turkic people are from central asia and NOT modern Turkey as SIF is suggesting.
So where are the Turkish people from ?
Sino Indus friendship please tell us where are the Turkish people from ?
@ A1Kaid

You seems to be a very frank and rational person.

I really apprecciate you.
I second that.!
 
"The Uighurs look more Chinese than Turkish/European, more than Afghan/white, more than Pak/Indian. In fact they would be classified as MONGOLOID by most citizens in Pakistan and India."

:tsk: You don't know a thing about Turkic history, the Turks in Anatolia derive from Central Asia. The Turkic nation does not have to look exactly like the Turks in Anatolia. The Uyghurs look exactly like Central Asian Turks. Look at Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan all Muslim-Turkic states and the Uyghurs look just like their Turkic brethren. Are you seriously going to suggest that because Uyghurs don't look like Anatolian Turks that they are more Chinese than Turks...Very very foolish and very unscientific.

Their blood line is Turkic, their culture is Turkic, their language is Turkic, their names are Turkic, their religion is Islam, they are in their Central Asian homeland of Turan.


This will most likely be my last reply to you on this topic as I see your knowledge on history is very uninformed and sketchy and they way to assembly your historical events is very bad.

V ;)

Look at the first photo with the old Uyghir gentleman with the animal fur hat, does he look more turkish or chinese? Look at the photo carefully. In fact if I didn't tell you he was Uyghir you'd wouldn't have guessed right.

Look at the photo of the president of the Uyghur congress in the USA, besides the nose shaped differently the eyes, mouth, head is more "mongoloid". I'm sorry but you don't know your history. You are right that many of the central states look like Uyghirs. Did you see their presidents at the SCO meeting??? All look mongloid and mongoloid-mix except for Russia and one other nation. What does that tell you?

And if the photo you have beside your name, he looks more European White than Indian Dravidian.
 
Some of the members have made a fine mess of this thread. Too many low quality posts and I would've deleted the thread if at least some civilized discourse had not taken place. It is possible that bans will be handed out.

Firstly, I would urge you all to stick to the issue. Arguments about insurrections in India or Pakistan's attitude is not really part of this debate. We should all refrain from these primitive knee-jerk reactions and talk about the issue at hand. Some members have done this and discussed the reasons and dynamics behind this unrest. I would suggest they carry on, but everyone needs to keep a cool head and address the issue in an impersonal way. Sweeping remarks either way are not welcome and atleast some level of substantiation should be provided for contentions like 'the US is behind this'.
 
Look at the first photo with the old Uyghir gentleman with the animal fur hat, does he look more turkish or chinese? Look at the photo carefully. In fact if I didn't tell you he was Uyghir you'd wouldn't have guessed right.

Look at the photo of the president of the Uyghur congress in the USA, besides the nose shaped differently the eyes, mouth, head is more "mongoloid". I'm sorry but you don't know your history. You are right that many of the central states look like Uyghirs. Did you see their presidents at the SCO meeting??? All look mongloid and mongoloid-mix except for Russia and one other nation. What does that tell you?

And if the photo you have beside your name, he looks more European White than Indian Dravidian.



I really didn't want to reply to such ignorance, but one last time I will to clear the waters and make the record straight.


You know a lot of people also think Chinese and Japanese people look exactly the same. Your argument is so pathetic, your saying because Uyghurs "look more Chinese" than they do "Anatolian/European Turks" that the Uyghurs belong to China.

You are making the same foolish judgment, for example just because Chinese and Japanese look alike does not mean they are the same people, you cannot equate similar appearance with nationality nor historical linkage.

Also I already told you, "You don't know a thing about Turkic history, the Turks in Anatolia derive from Central Asia. The Turkic nation does not have to look exactly like the Turks in Anatolia. The Uyghurs look exactly like Central Asian Turks. Look at Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan all Muslim-Turkic states and the Uyghurs look just like their Turkic brethren. Are you seriously going to suggest that because Uyghurs don't look like Anatolian Turks that they are more Chinese than Turks...Very very foolish and very unscientific."


Central Asian Turkic people do resemble the Mongoloid people to an extent because they are supposedly "cousin" races and ethnic groups though Turks and Mongols are respectfully their own people. This is scientific information and scientifically proven not solely my opinion.



V
 
@cloycy

I think you've made a mistake here. XinJiang is NOT their land, but more Han Chinese' land form historical point of view.

The ethnics in XinJiang started off by some nomad tribes such as Qiang, Xiongnu (hun), Kozaks, etc. Han Chinese was alongst the first ethncis to settle there in history, with constant migration happened proir to 220 BC. But mass migration of Han Chinese didn't occur until West Han Dynasty about 190 AD, when Han emporers defeated the nomads and started to promote this kind of Han settlements in the region. However, due to XinJiang's hash climate, it has never been a part of Han Chinese heartlands.

Uigurs originated in today's Tukey, thousands of miles away from XinJiang. How comes XinJing is their homeland, but not Han Chinese'??? Turkic Uigurs didn't mass-migrate into today's XinJing until around Tang Dynasty - about 600-800 AD according to history!!!

Therefore it is a misnomer to say that XinJiang is Uigurs' native land. Han Chinese , alongside with Kosaks, Qiang, Hun and even Moguls are much more entitled to the land objectively speaking.

Dear Sir,

Unfortunately, he is correct and your picture of the region's ethnicity is not.

The Turkish tribes were originally from the region now occupied by the CIS states, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. However their first appearance in these regions was long after 220 BC.

What follows are taken from Chinese sources, which are the most accurate for these regions; they tie up beautifully with Indian literary references, and with Iranian references, especially in the much-later Shah Nama, but Chinese sources are always to be preferred, because they were given to recording annals long before anybody else in the region.

In 220 BC, the occupants of what is today called Xinjiang, and was historically called East Turkestan, were Caucasian/Indo-European people called the Tocharians. These Tocharians were blonde and red-haired, and wore tartans rather like those found in those times in Europe. Their mummies are to be seen to this day in their former settlements in Xinjiang, and are preserved by the government.

They were ruled by five clans, of which one was the Moon Clan; in Chinese, they were called the Yueh-Chi. The Yueh-Chi were hit hard in successive waves some hundred or hundred and fifty years apart by a barbarian Mongolian or proto-Mongolian tribe called the Hiung-nu, who first inflcted heavy casualties on the nascent Chinese states, and were then sent back in headlong defeat. The Hiung-nu in their retreat fell upon their western neighbours, the Yueh-Chi ruled Tochar, and the Tochar were defeated in battle. There are records that the Hiung-nu chief made a drinking cup of the defeated Yueh-chi king's skull. As you will gather, the Hiung-nu were uncomfortable neighbours to have. One branch of the Tochar stayed on in the region, as refugees, the main branch went on westward seeking shelter from the unceasing attacks of the Hiung-nu. There in the CIS states region, which cover the famous horse-breeding valley of Ferghana, present day Balkh, Samarkand, Bokhara and legendary cities such as these (not existent in that day and age), they encountered the Persian-speaking Scythian tribes, horse-riders in the steppes, and drove them west and south. The Scythians penetrated the lands now known as Afghanistan, wore down the last Indo-Bactrian/Indo-Greek kingdoms which were successors of Seleucus' empire, and ruled there for two or three generations. They are frequently mentioned in the company of the Pahlavas, a Parthian tribe.

Without taking you through the minute details, please learn that at the time that you are speaking of, the Xinjiang region was populated by the remnants of the Tocharians, and the incoming Hiung-nu.

Some considerable period later, Turkish tribes started appearing in the region. Nobody is absolutely certain where they came from, but the most informed opinion is that they were probably migrants southwards from Siberia. A branch of these fierce and war-like nomads were converted to Islam - I am skipping forward by around five centuries, and even later, as the Seljuk Turks, they swept into the area of the Khilafat and overthrew the Khilafat of the day.

You are correct in stating that the present Uighur residents probably entered Xinjiang, while most of their kinsfolk went west and south, roughly in the 600 to 800 AD time period. Chinese records indicate that the early encounters with the Turks were during the 4th and 5th centuries, during the 16 kingdoms period, after the Hiung-nu had captured and executed the last two Jin emperors. However, there were absolutely no Han Chinese in Eastern Turkestan at that time, although there had been military expeditions, some successful, some not. You will be interested to note that it is during the reign of Emperor Yong Le, of the Ming Dynasty, that records indicate that the Emperor gained influence over Eastern Turkestan. That should give you a hint regarding the relative precedence of Uighur and Han; there are a few years, as I am sure you know, between the Tang and the Ming (about 750 years, if we go by the annals). And this was not inhabitation; only an acquisition of influence.

As it is 01:00 HRS and it has been a long day, I beg that you will temporarily excuse me from putting in precise dates and details. Since you appear to be in Britain, a cursory examination of an encyclopaedia in your local library will give you further details if you need them, otherwise if you wish, it will be possible to post details both of the dates as commonly recorded, and of the Chinese sources, as well as other Arabic and Iranian sources, not to mention Byzantine sources; the Seljuk Turks found themselves in conflict with the eastern Roman empire.

It was at this point of time that the Seljuks, following in the footsteps of their predecessor Arabs, entered the region known historically as Anatolia, and with their settling down there in large numbers, caused the land to be known as Turkey. This was the first incursion of Turks into the land; the second, more permanent one was the Ottoman Turkish incursion.

I hope that this will settle your doubts. At the times that you speak of, 220 BC, China had just been unified by Emperor Qin Shih Huang Ti; even earlier, however, a northern Chinese predecessor kingdom had sent an expedition to find out the lie of the land in these regions, and our most accurate information is from the records of this expedition and its leader's report to his monarch.

The same Chinese records make it clear that Han Chinese started living here in numbers only from very recent centuries onwards - I hesitate to say precisely when since I have noticed that this seems to be a sensitive matter - not earlier.

As mentioned before, more details are available if you consult standard references. I beg that you will do so, and complete your homework, before posting in future, as a courtesy to all forum members. This is not intended to hurt your feelings, please be sure; just to remind you that references to historical events are not to be made lightly.

Please be sure to send me a personal message if you need more information, but be aware that I am able to check my mail and log in only infrequently, twice or thrice a week in good weeks, because of my location and the vicissitudes of my job.

Sincerely,

'Joe S.'
 
I really didn't want to reply to such ignorance, but one last time I will to clear the waters and make the record straight.


You know a lot of people also think Chinese and Japanese people look exactly the same. Your argument is so pathetic, your saying because Uyghurs "look more Chinese" than they do "Anatolian/European Turks" that the Uyghurs belong to China.

You are making the same foolish judgment, for example just because Chinese and Japanese look alike does not mean they are the same people, you cannot equate similar appearance with nationality nor historical linkage.

Also I already told you, "You don't know a thing about Turkic history, the Turks in Anatolia derive from Central Asia. The Turkic nation does not have to look exactly like the Turks in Anatolia. The Uyghurs look exactly like Central Asian Turks. Look at Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan all Muslim-Turkic states and the Uyghurs look just like their Turkic brethren. Are you seriously going to suggest that because Uyghurs don't look like Anatolian Turks that they are more Chinese than Turks...Very very foolish and very unscientific."


Central Asian Turkic people do resemble the Mongoloid people to an extent because they are supposedly "cousin" races and ethnic groups though Turks and Mongols are respectfully their own people. This is scientific information and scientifically proven not solely my opinion.



V

It is you who are making the argument of looks the same with same Turkic language and "islam" to claim all of Xinjiang. Also there are minority "Mongoloid" Chinese people in these central "turkic" asian nations that have ancestors who lived there for thousand+ years as well --- do you see China claiming central asia? NO.

Also you are contradicting yourself. One one hand you claim similar appearance as commonality to nationality and historical linkage. But on the other hand you discredit it when it doesn't suit your needs. Sorry you can't have it both ways!

You do know the Japanese are ancestral offspring of Chinese people who migrated there over time, didn't you? I hope you don't believe they just magically happened to always 'be there'. This is both a historical and genetic/scientific fact. Culturally, racially, linguistically they are derived from Chinese.

And the region of central Asian nations is a MIXED REGION. Get over it! No single "pure" group there exists. They are a mix of Sino+Euro+Indian+Persian/Arab.

Just like Pakistan is also a multi-ethnic country, with the majority being similar to Indian in genetics. But in many tribal areas of Bolochistan and SWAT they are the minority. THIS IS NOT A ISLAM ISSUE. THIS IS A PRE-MEDITATED TERROR ATTACK. The Taliban and Bolochistan separatists are also moslem, why does pakistan government want to eradicate them? Because they are a separatist group which uses terrorism as their mode of operation. Please don't speak with forked tongues! :wave:
 
@shravan

Bringing modernity means building modern infrastructure like better transportation, elettricity, water depuration, better healthcare, better education ect..
 
Hey...I never could contemplate that there is so much of hypocrisy around...

This is particularly for the Pakistanis (who support China for Strategic reasons and Muslims the world over for well known reasons)..

I do not understand that from the historical view point of all Pakistanis who give upon themselves the great right of protecting fellowmen and women of the Ummah suddenly comes to appreciate and brush aside these riots/incidents as internal matter to the Chinese...

I am amazed and apalled by this double sided ideology...Where are the Muslim emancipators, who treat any thing and everything related to Islam as common to them no matter which country they belong to .....

I understand that may be the forum projects something, but I do nt think and for that matter no rational person thinks that

"Overall the Paksitanis do not morally support the Uighur Movement"

And let me tell you , if they want autonomy or independence it means there is something grossly wrong in the scheme of things there..

It is and has always been economic hardships that leads to movements like this...

And as an Indian I do not have any qualms in accepting that J&K, and the 7 NE Sisters in India have been subjected to Economic opression over the last decades. they do not have anything to call their own...

And so is the similar case of the Uighurs, of course apart from the fact that they are Muslims and are well versed with the ideology of the Ummat E Muslima and they are striving to reach tat goal.

Whatever the Chinese media says needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. I shall not be surprised if the Hans are upto do an ethenic cleansing in the Uighur.

Like the way they did over the last decades to integrate the Hans in the TAR....everybody knows this and there is no need to bull $hit abt western or Anti China media reports...


And aha....here is a person who says that they are immigrants, accepted ....

So do I dare say that the Muslims are an import into the Indian Subcontinent ...so this should be fair and square now....that they also do not belong to the Subcontinent??

What say ?? Bin Sam and Ikhtiyar uddin Muhhamad Khalji in Bengal ..what say friends ....So Muslims belongng to the Indian Sub continent is a Misnomer ???

Dear Sir,

Of course you are at liberty to say whatever you please.

However, as a loyal and patriotic Indian, permit me to say that I did not appreciate your post. Whatever the requirements of scoring points off the Pakistanis who have offended you, it is unseemly to question the antecedents of our fellow-citizens who happen to be Muslim, or to ask them to keep proving their loyalty. Please do not wash dirty linen in public; the confession which gave us Air Chief Marshal I. H. Latif, Major General Afsar Karim, above all, Abdul Hamid, who proved his valour, his honour and his loyalty with his life, does not owe any explanations to any one, least of all to pontificating windbags who are unlikely to have heard a shot fired in anger in their lives.

I consider therefore that I am at liberty to say that I am deeply upset and offended at your post, and protest against it. It is a matter of some regret to me that the administrators have allowed this statement to be posted.

'Joe S.'
 
Actually the law favours minorities. That's why many Chinese claim minority status to get educational, family-planning, and financial assistance. Secondly, there is a reason why it is called 56-ethnic groups and not 56-racial groups, because the genetic difference is minute and thus the grouping is made on language/religion/customs/etc. There's ethnic and racial groups in ALL nations of the world today. You can't find a single country that consists of a single racial group, much less a ethnic group.

Get with it. This is a multi-ethnic, multi-racial world. Pakistan has 5 different ethnic groups, some look like they belong in Delhi, others like Dalits, others like Iranian, others like Afghan, others like a mixed-Euro-blood. If each of these ethnic groups seek to expand and seek "independence".... actually this is happening. Iran and Pak and India and even Afghan has similar seccessionist movements.

USA has similar movements with Lakota nation, African-Americans, Asians, Latinos and Mexicanos who wan't seccession. Europe is even worse off. Now imagine the 10-15% of the ethnic minorities claim part of Europe as their own nation?

So the US by harboring and supporting the maddam who is inciting and co-orchestrating these terrorist attacks, they hold partial blame. Do you know the racial disparity is more severe in US and Europe than in China? That is the nasty nature of karma, by fanning hatred around the world (recently in Iran and now China) --- how long do you think similar uprisings will occur in US, Europe, Australia? :crazy:

I know what you mean.

But here in Italy, for the example, are the immigrants who get the most humble/hard jobs while italians get the most confortable jobs.
It's not the contrary!
I know that chinese law contains many facilitations for minorities; for example, they can get access to universities more easily. But the problems comes when some of them don't want to go to han-chinese made schools and still demanding better life condition.

I know that this sounds like they're wrong & we're right, but just remember that their land belongs to China because we won the war, and in order to gain consensus from local people, you should be tollerant, you just cannot go there and act like the new lord; specialy when they feel you as different from them.

Anyway, from a strategic point of view, XinJiang has oil, and recently they've also found the biggest iron minefield in Asia, so we cannot permit ourself to lose these territories. This is why USA & Associates may have tried to destabilize this region.
 
Protesters go online, breach ‘great firewall’

SHANGHAI: Independent information about deadly riots in China’s remote northwest filtered out on Twitter, YouTube and other internet forums on
Monday, frustrating government efforts to control the news.

The communist authorities who built the so-called Great Firewall of China, raced to stamp out video, images and words posted by internet users about the unrest on Sunday which, officials said, left at least 156 dead.

But similar to the phenomenon seen last month during Iran’s political turmoil, pictures, videos and updates from Urumqi poured onto social networking and image sharing websites such as Twitter, YouTube and Flickr.

In many cases, items were reposted by other internet users on sites outside China to preserve the content, while Twitter helped link people around the globe to images Chinese authorities did not want seen.

A US academic in Urumqi appeared to break news about the unrest via Twitter, saying hours before the mainstream news organisations on Sunday night that security forces were blocking off streets in the city.

Footage posted on YouTube showed what appeared to be, at least initially, a peaceful protest, with men and women marching, chatting on mobile phones, sipping bottled water and raising their arms as they cheered.

Another video on the site apparently taken by low-grade video technology in Urumqi showed police in black helmets leading away handcuffed protesters. Meanwhile some Chinese internet users were able to express frustration at having their postings on the violence deleted.
 
Back
Top Bottom