|
Post by turkishcypriot on Jun 27, 2010 1:18:13 GMT 3
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2010 4:21:12 GMT 3
Seems like just another Turk-hating forum. I read through only two topics and saw mostly hatred towards Turks.
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Jun 27, 2010 9:22:57 GMT 3
Wow, they called Uyghurs n-ggers! Thats a first xD
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2010 5:18:30 GMT 3
They say Uyghurs are either kebab cookers or thieves. These people are either Chinese or have never been to East Turkistan and just hate Turks and Muslims. I even read one of them say that China should help Greece retake Istanbul from Turkey.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2010 5:19:09 GMT 3
I'ts a shame because the topic of the forum looks interesting and I'd like to join but it looks like All Empires all over again.
|
|
ren
Är
Posts: 20
|
Post by ren on Jul 13, 2010 14:04:46 GMT 3
You'll have to excuse me. That was my terrible sense of humor, which I apply to Chinese and Uighur alike. My point was that Uighurs in many ways are socially equivalent to African Americans in the U.S., a class of people thought by many others in those societies in terms of derogatory names, although there is no derogatory name for Uighur people. But, yes, the Uighurs who live outside of Xinjiang are usually thought of as criminals by locals outside of Xinjiang. Personally, I think the only way to solve the ethnic problem in Xinjiang is to create a Uighuria (note I didn't use the term Uighurstan as that sounds too much like a theocratic state to my ears). I support the right for Uighurs to referendum for a nation-state of their own. Everyone is welcome at our forum, including Turkic peoples. In fact, I especially welcome Turkic peoples.s6.zetaboards.com/man/index/
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jul 13, 2010 23:30:40 GMT 3
You'll have to excuse me. That was my terrible sense of humor, which I apply to Chinese and Uighur alike. My point was that Uighurs in many ways are socially equivalent to African Americans in the U.S., a class of people thought by many others in those societies in terms of derogatory names, although there is no derogatory name for Uighur people. What an idiotic comparison. Personally, I think the only way to solve the ethnic problem in Xinjiang is to create a Uighuria (note I didn't use the term Uighurstan as that sounds too much like a theocratic state to my ears). I support the right for Uighurs to referendum for a nation-state of their own. "Stan" simply means "realm" in Turkic and there is no need to ascribe to this ancient word "theocratic" or other strange meanings that never were there.
|
|
ren
Är
Posts: 20
|
Post by ren on Jul 15, 2010 15:24:58 GMT 3
What an idiotic comparison. It's an American slang used in certain situations to satirize someone or a group. The sense of humor in it one can only get if one grew up in a certain American milieu. With post-Modern humor, you either hate it or laugh. But that's your business. As for the comparison, Uighurs in China socially are in many ways equivalent to Blacks in the U.S. You may dislike the comparison but again, that's your business. At the forum we are not racist but brutally honest. That's something I can't apologize for. "Stan" simply means "realm" in Turkic and there is no need to ascribe to this ancient word "theocratic" or other strange meanings that never were there. It's actually a Persian word. As for its equivalence to Islamic states, this has happened over time in non-Muslim countries. For example, some commenter on CNN would say, "We don't want the country to turn into one of the "stans", meaning "We don't want the country to turn into an Islamic state." This equivalence started probably with American media and the English-speaking world, but it has spread. What does really matter? Maybe not much. What is more of substance is that "stan" is only used by countries, perhaps subconsciously, to signify their Muslim status. All the states that have "stan" to finish the names of their countries are Muslim. When the Punjab broke off from India, it was named "Pakistan". Turkic countries that deploy "stan" are those groups that have been relatively simultaneously Islamicized and Persianized. Non-Islamicized Turkic peoples, such as the Chuvash and the Yakut, do not use the name. In terms of the name "Uighurstan" itself, it would certainly alienate the Uighurs of Gansu (Yugurs), who were not Persianized or Islamicized. altaic-wiki.wikispaces.com/Yugur+People
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Jul 15, 2010 20:50:55 GMT 3
You know, I'm American, consider myself rather anti-Pan-ideology, and I read the thread and even I was offended. To be brutally honest, it seemed like a lot of the comments are written out of ignorance and are just someone's uninformed opinion. Member Ceonni has written excellent posts here regarding the social and political situation of the Uighurs within China.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jul 15, 2010 22:59:49 GMT 3
What an idiotic comparison. It's an American slang used in certain situations to satirize someone or a group. The sense of humor in it one can only get if one grew up in a certain American milieu. With post-Modern humor, you either hate it or laugh. But that's your business. As for the comparison, Uighurs in China socially are in many ways equivalent to Blacks in the U.S. You may dislike the comparison but again, that's your business. At the forum we are not racist but brutally honest. That's something I can't apologize for. If you want to be "brutally honest." I live in American milieu and I don't see anything comparable between Uighurs and African Americans. You can, of course, "satirize" on whaterver subject you want, but it makes you rather a banch of self-appointed comedians rather than a "serious anthropological forum." "Stan" simply means "realm" in Turkic and there is no need to ascribe to this ancient word "theocratic" or other strange meanings that never were there. It's actually a Persian word. As for its equivalence to Islamic states, this has happened over time in non-Muslim countries. For example, some commenter on CNN would say, "We don't want the country to turn into one of the "stans", meaning "We don't want the country to turn into an Islamic state." This equivalence started probably with American media and the English-speaking world, but it has spread. What does really matter? Maybe not much. What is more of substance is that "stan" is only used by countries, perhaps subconsciously, to signify their Muslim status. All the states that have "stan" to finish the names of their countries are Muslim. When the Punjab broke off from India, it was named "Pakistan". Turkic countries that deploy "stan" are those groups that have been relatively simultaneously Islamicized and Persianized. Non-Islamicized Turkic peoples, such as the Chuvash and the Yakut, do not use the name. In terms of the name "Uighurstan" itself, it would certainly alienate the Uighurs of Gansu (Yugurs), who were not Persianized or Islamicized. altaic-wiki.wikispaces.com/Yugur+People[/quote] This term is very ancient and though it may have been of Iranic not Persian origin, it had been used by Turkic nomades a very long time before Islamization and had a meaning of "camp." It also spread through Turkic languages to other languages like Russian, Ukrainian, etc. and it does not have any affinity with Iran or Islam. Moreover, most of those "stans" were and are in the former Russian/Soviet Central Asia long time before the formation of "Pakistan" and again were used simply because of linguistic and historical reasons. If CNN guys don't know about that, it's their problem. Illiterate CNN reports which often confuse basic things about Central Asia is the last resort in trying to produce "scholarly based" arguments about Central Asian history and anthropology.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2010 2:43:55 GMT 3
Whether it was a joke or a comparison it was a very stupid one. I have a feeling you have no idea what you're talking about anyway and I've read quite a few other dumbass posts by you.
|
|
ren
Är
Posts: 20
|
Post by ren on Jul 16, 2010 18:28:14 GMT 3
You know, I'm American, consider myself rather anti-Pan-ideology, and I read the thread and even I was offended. To be brutally honest, it seemed like a lot of the comments are written out of ignorance and are just someone's uninformed opinion. Member Ceonni has written excellent posts here regarding the social and political situation of the Uighurs within China. Can you elaborate on what offended you and what was typed out of ignorance and uninformed opinion? If you want to be "brutally honest." I live in American milieu and I don't see anything comparable between Uighurs and African Americans. That's your biased opinion. Most of our topics are very in-depth and serious. Your opinion will not will not change that. I think "stan" is actually Indo-European to be exact. You failed to address my point. The conversion of Central Asian Turks to Islam was part of the same process in which Turks absorbed Persian culture/Persians were Turkicized. So how would using a name like "Uighurstan" not alienate those Uighurs who were not part of this process? Whether it was a joke or a comparison it was a very stupid one. I have a feeling you have no idea what you're talking about anyway and I've read quite a few other dumbass posts by you. Then stop reading my posts and stop replying to me with insults.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jul 16, 2010 18:50:16 GMT 3
That's your biased opinion. Most of our topics are very in-depth and serious. Your opinion will not will not change that. Only a person with a very "advanced" imagination came make such wild comparisons. There are no even a single basis to make comparisons like this. To call Uighurs n****s just because some Chinese don't like them for whatever biased reasons is nonsense. I don't know about the other topics. But people who really care about the content and "scholarity" of their discussions would simply ram those n****s posts down the throats of the "experts" who produce them. The fact, that you still are trying to justify them, says a lot about the quality of your forum... I think "stan" is actually Indo-European to be exact. You failed to address my point. The conversion of Central Asian Turks to Islam was part of the same process in which Turks absorbed Persian culture/Persians were Turkicized. So how would using a name like "Uighurstan" not alienate those Uighurs who were not part of this process? You don't understand that this term is not an "inalienable" part of Perian culture or Islam or whatever. It was adobted by Turks from Scytho-Sarmatian nomades, a long time before their conversion to Islam. Farsi also has it, but there is a little value in trying to interpret it as a proof of Persian/Muslim influence on Turks or whatever you want to do based on the illiterate CNN quote. Its use among Turkic people: 1) isn't related to Islam, 2) isn't related to Persia period
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Jul 16, 2010 22:16:14 GMT 3
Hey ren, just being brutally honest with you. For starters, Uighurs are Turkic, not Mongolian. Who are you to say that someone who self-identifies as a Uighur is artificial or not authentic? Then you wrote that you saw theft by Uighurs and use that to pass judgment on a whole group of people as if only Uighurs are able to commit such crimes! If you want to be serious, here's an example of serious writing: steppes.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1088&page=2#20924And another: steppes.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1088&page=3#20984"From the appearance that there are a large number of educated Uyghur liberals on the forums of Uyghurbiz, Minkaohan, etc, it is very likely that these people who are marginally critical of the Government, or marginally sympathetic to the exiles, will be first targeted by the government. Because this is another component of this pattern of "painting the Uyghurs black": the Urumqi riot is an excellent opportunity for the Government to force Uyghur online liberals out of the country, or radicalize them into separatists. By doing this the Government will rid Xinjiang of the vital element that will build a civil society, by making these Uyghur liberals "intolerable" by political correctness standards. As exiles are largely painted black and made entirely unworthy of sympathy by the citizenry of Neidi and Xinjiang alike, educated Uyghur liberals will also be pushed into the ranks of those painted black and isolated from effective influence on the society."
|
|
ren
Är
Posts: 20
|
Post by ren on Jul 16, 2010 23:06:41 GMT 3
Only a person with a very "advanced" imagination came make such wild comparisons. There are no even a single basis to make comparisons like this. Just what exactly is so offensive about Black people that would make you deny any comparison and call it wild imagination? Please stop twisting the content and context. When the Irish first got to America, they were called "White n*ggers". In this article, Eastern Europeans are called "White n*ggers": www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2052/The word "n*gger" is a very powerful word loaded with connotations and I deemed it worthy of being usied to describe the situation, because one immediately gets a sense of the volatile situation. My purpose in using it, in a sarcastic tone in the title, was meant to show the relationship of the colonizers and the colonized in "Uighurstan". On the one hand you have Han who are totally oblivious to the cultural sensitivities and ethnic rights of Uighurs, while on the other hand, you had a rage in the hearts of the locals that turned to the boiling point. If I wanted to insult Uighurs, calling them "n*ggers" wouldn't really satisfy my taste. If this is what you think, there's no point in arguing about it over and over again. You can think what you like. I'm not trying to justify anything. I'd have no problem in titling a topic about Chinese in Japan as "Chinese, the 'n*ggers' of Japan" because Chinese have a bad reputation there. It's not about hating on Black people or Chinese people. It's one of those things where you either get it or not. You don't understand that this term is not an "inalienable" part of Perian culture or Islam or whatever. It was adobted by Turks from Scytho-Sarmatian nomades, a long time before their conversion to Islam. Farsi also has it, but there is a little value in trying to interpret it as a proof of Persian/Muslim influence on Turks or whatever you want to do based on the illiterate CNN quote. Its use among Turkic people: 1) isn't related to Islam, 2) isn't related to Persia period Do you have some sources to verify this? I wish you'd stop twisting my point out of anger. The point is, "Uighurstan" would totally alienate those Uighurs who weren't Islamicized/Persianized. The situation is analogous to a situation where "Allah" simply becomes a generic word for God without any specific equivalence to Islam. But if a Hui Chinese insists that I keep using the word "Allah" whenever we talk about a divine being, then obviously there's a problem. "Uighurstan" maybe fine for most Central Asian Turks, just like Dzungarstan is fine for Chinese Muslims, but can you imagine the reaction of the Yugurs or the Han in China to such names? Hey ren, just being brutally honest with you. For starters, Uighurs are Turkic, not Mongolian. Who are you to say that someone who self-identifies as a Uighur is artificial or not authentic? Then you wrote that you saw theft by Uighurs and use that to pass judgment on a whole group of people as if only Uighurs are able to commit such crimes! I never said Uighurs are Mongolian, nor that Uighurs equals theives. Stop it. As for Uighur ethnicity itself, it is a totally artificial entity created by the Chinese government. The people of Xinjiang identified with their local regions while they used Uighur as a common tongue. It was more like a situation where linguistically Turkicized Tocharians and Iranic people still kept their regional identities without subscribing to a Uighur identity. But at this point if they all wanted to form a nation-state, I thoroughly support it.
|
|