ren
Är
Posts: 20
|
Post by ren on Jul 21, 2010 17:48:47 GMT 3
It's probably Yeniseian loans or substratum in Turkic. Yeniseian toponyms can be traced from the Urals to northern Mongolia. Some think the Xiongnu/Huns or part of them were Yeniseian.
|
|
ren
Är
Posts: 20
|
Post by ren on Jul 19, 2010 20:15:35 GMT 3
You seem to share a view common among racists, national socialists, some nationalists and quite a deal of environmentalists and neo-hippies. I had to stop reading for a while after this sentence. Intentionally or not, you have completely misunderstood my points. I really have no interest in debates about petty political nationalisms. Let me make my point very simple and clear. 1. I believe those Armenians and Kurds in Turkey deserve nation-states of their own. You may not like my philosophy, but it's nothing personal against Turks. 2. Turkish identity in Turkey is impractical from my third-person point of view. It doesn't mean I think you can't be Turkish. You have every right to. It doesn't mean I hate Turks. There are a lot of ethnic identities that I think are impractical. I'll give you two examples of other impractical ethnicities. 1. There are "Black" Americans who look TOTALLY White. They hate White people. It's impractical. 2. There are blond-hair, blue-eyed "Aryan" Finns who think of themselves as having more in common with Siberian Uralic reindeer herders as opposed to their Swedish neighbors. It's impractical. Such Finns will find that as soon as those Mansi from Siberia flood his entire neighborhood, he gets along better with his Swedish neighbor. In that time he will realize he is a European.
|
|
ren
Är
Posts: 20
|
Post by ren on Jul 18, 2010 21:41:25 GMT 3
I did, I read them just once, and I said nothing insulting. I guess that's just your normal way of speaking. In the very first posts you seem to have deliberately misquoted me and misrepresented the forum. 99% of our topics involving Turkic peoples don't even deal with politics/social science but stay on ethnographic documentation. I don't have time for people who deliberately create conflicts.
|
|
ren
Är
Posts: 20
|
Post by ren on Jul 18, 2010 20:54:09 GMT 3
Yeah, lets call Mongolians Manchu, since mongolic tribes lived once on nowadays Manchu Plain That's debatable. It was just a figure of speech. We don't need to debate on that if we want to be chivalrous. My general philosophy is that I support indigenous development. This means that I believe that Berber North Africans should abandon Arabic speech for Berber speech, that Taiwanese Han should give back the island to Taiwanese Aboriginal Austronesians, that the U.S. should give back as much as possible land to Native Americans. It has nothing to do with a Turkish issue in particular. But my personal opinion is that Pan-Turkic unity only works on internet forums and in a semi-academic setting. In reality, there is not much in common between Turkish villagers on the one hand and a Yakut reindeer herder on the other. As for those internet Pan-Altaic types, it's even more of a fantasy. Mongolic peoples have a hard time in Central Asian countries, without even getting into Afghanistan and beyond.
|
|
ren
Är
Posts: 20
|
Post by ren on Jul 18, 2010 20:39:35 GMT 3
This Subu'atai actually went to the trouble of badmouthing me about my topic title on a Korean forum, in a section called "Chinese takeaways" designed specifically to bash Chinese. section: forum.koreansentry.com/viewforum.php?f=44topic: forum.koreansentry.com/viewtopic.php?t=2908Subu'atai, I have some questions for you. 1. Don't you think it's ironic to accuse me of racism in a Korean forum section designed specifically to bash Chinese? 2. What does me-myself-and-I have to do with Chinese people that you have to bash Chinese people in general? 3. Are you a Mongolian nationalist, a Korean nationalist, or one of those Pan-Altaic nuts? Have you decided what you want to be yet or even who you are? Lastly, these are all rhetorical questions. I'm really uninterested in your answers. Now that I know what I'm dealing with, I'm not going to waste any more time dealing with you or the likes of you.
|
|
ren
Är
Posts: 20
|
Post by ren on Jul 17, 2010 20:23:51 GMT 3
I think you should calm down. I'm just giving an honest description of Uighur nationalism. And I doubt Uighurs can distinguish between Oirats and Mongols. I meant Mongolic people anyway.
The subjects we discussed would be interesting topics if you guys weren't so pumped up with hostility.
I'll just change my comment. What's the big deal.
If only one is Turkic then the Turkic posters here are pretty cool, laid-back people.
|
|
ren
Är
Posts: 20
|
Post by ren on Jul 17, 2010 5:20:09 GMT 3
I don't think there is anything offensive about the Black people at all. What you're are doing however is trying to use ethnic slurs and hate nicknames saying that this is totally normal. There is just nothing in common between the Black people in America and Uighurs. And you don't need to be genious to get that... In other words you are offended by comparing Uighurs to Black people. And I already explained why I used the term, so think and say what you like. Yes, you can call me as*hole and it might be artistic metaphor. But I doubt it. That's the difference between you and me. You'd really mean it. Then you shouldn't worry about what is said of Uighurs there. Really. Stop stressing yourself out. The suffix -stan (-ston, -stān, spelled ـستان in the Perso-Arabic script) is Persian for "place of", a cognate to Pashto -tun, and the Indo-Aryan equivalent, -sthāna (pronounced [st̪ʰaːna]) (स्थान in the Devanāgarī script), a cognate Sanskrit suffix with a similar meaning. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-stanThe composite Turko-Persian tradition[1] was a variant of Islamic culture. It was Persianate in that it was centered on a lettered tradition of Iranian origin; it was Turkic insofar as it was for many generations patronized by rulers of Turkic background; it was Islamic in that Islamic notions of virtue, permanence, and excellence infused discourse about public issues as well as the religious affairs of the Muslims, who were the presiding elite. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turko-Persian_traditionIf you don't agree, then Wiki must be lying. I really don't care for this argument enough to go on with you. It is not about anything other then the fact that you are offended. Ok, maybe we should call it Mongolistan. I don't see how it's out of context. The point is calling something Uighurstan would alienate un-Persianized/un-Islamicized Uighurs of Gansu. You assuring them that their "Tengri" should be called "Allah" would also be a problem. Look, we are just repeating this discussion over and over. I think I've done enough to explain myself. And you can think whatever you like. I'm not going to waste my time with this again. Good day, sir.
|
|
ren
Är
Posts: 20
|
Post by ren on Jul 17, 2010 4:52:01 GMT 3
I don't know what history books you're reading to say that Uighurs are Mongolian, but I suggest that you find a different publisher. BTW, I don't respond to strawman arguments. The Uighurs did come from Mongolia and they looked Mongolian, just like the other original Turks. Modern Uighurs are a mix of Iranic/Tocharian peoples. When I referred to Uighurs as a Mongolian tribe, it is perfectly justified in that proper context of saying the Uighurs were a Mongolian tribe who fled into Xinjiang. That's simply history. I never said Uighurs are Mongolian without proper context. Many Uighur nationalists are misguided. Many think pure Uighurs are the Indo-European mummies that were found in Xinjiang. Some hang pictures of the "Beauty of Lolan" as inspiration, so yes, the Uighur nationalists have a very misinformed sense of nationalism. A lot of them would wet their pants if they found out the original Uighurs looked Mongolian. Uighur nationalists hate Mongols, Kazakhs, Hui, etc. as much as they hate Chinese, for the simple reason that they are Mongols, Kazakhs, Hui, etc. Another example of "misguided" Uighur nationalism is the rampage in Urumqi, which involved attacks on Mongolics. Urumqi was actually a Mongolic town, not Uighur. I don't see how giving an honest critique of Uighur nationalism is hating on Uighurs. The Turks of Turkey are basically Turkicized Armenians, Greek, etc. No offense to Ihsan and other Turkish, but my opinion is that people should get back to their roots. It has nothing to do with hating on Turks. Turkic visitors have always been welcome, but people who argue over semantics and get all bent out of shape offended can boycott it if they want. I'm not losing any sleep over you, and I suggest you be likewise. Good day sir. I think I've already addressed your complaints and entertained your sense of indignity to a satisfaction.
|
|
ren
Är
Posts: 20
|
Post by ren on Jul 17, 2010 1:11:41 GMT 3
Sure you did. You wrote, "In reality, they were just various groups ruled by the Uighur and then adopted the language of this Mongolian tribe." and, "If you are Uighur in Han China, you are either a kebab vendors or thieves, sad to say." The Uighurs were a Mongolian tribe if you know your history. So were the rest of Turks. And no, I didn't say modern Uighurs are Mongolians, unless you want to keep childishly arguing the semantics of it, which I'm uninterested in doing. I didn't use it to impress you. Yes, I would. I had been in Thailand recently, where one of Thailand's preeminent scholars had a book called Jek Pon Lao, concerning Chinese identity and social place in Thailand. "Jek" is a derogatory term for Chinese in Thailand. You can read about why he named that book the way he did, books.google.com/books?id=6f0CMvP203wC&pg=PA246&lpg=PA246&dq=jek+pon+lao&source=bl&ots=qD7qhfKr0P&sig=ul0QTbckLsy7L7EuDeOBY5l_El0&hl=en&ei=Q9dATIWvMouksQPG5LTzDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=jek%20pon%20lao&f=falseAgain, stop putting words in my mouth. I find it ironic that you describe an artifact of Communist Chinese policy as something natural. That's a totally different thing, because it was a natural historical process. If you want to be fair, you'd compare the Uighurization of Xinjiang in the last 50 years with the present problem of Uighurs who can only speak Mandarin and totally identify with Han and China. There are a lot of those around. I actually know one. She never deals with those other Uighurs. They are called "sale outs" by the nationalistic Uighurs. By your logic this Uighur woman and those like her are also legitimate Han. By this logic if China totally Sinicized Xinjiang in the next 25 years, you'd call it Uighurs naturally becoming Han. You'd be China's best spokesman. So, yes or no? If yes, these Uighurs are naturally Han, then you are consistent and there is nothing wrong with Uighurs who don't feel comfortable with other Uighurs who are too Uighur. If no, and these Uighurs are not Han, than you just showed your hypocrisy.
|
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
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
|
|
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/
|
|
ren
Är
Posts: 20
|
Post by ren on May 3, 2005 4:44:40 GMT 3
|
|
ren
Är
Posts: 20
|
Post by ren on Apr 23, 2005 7:00:13 GMT 3
ihsan, you mentioned something about pre-IE mummies at my forum. Can you elaborate? What were the racial affinities of them? Are there any sources you can provide?
|
|