|
Post by hjernespiser on Jul 17, 2010 0:51:36 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."
Do you think that the Chinese in Japan, the Irish in America, and the Eastern Europeans would be any less impressed with your application of the word n****r to them than we are? Would you expect to read a scholarly article entitled in such a way?
And why would you care about racial "authenticity" between Uighurs and Yugurs? What are you trying to say about a natural process of cultural and ethnic evolution? Do you also look at the southern Chinese and say how unauthentic Han they are because they're just assimilated regional dwellers who adopted the language of their rulers?
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Jul 17, 2010 1:42:36 GMT 3
I'm not putting words into your mouth. It's what you wrote. Our reaction to it is precisely how your writing comes across to others. You want to say one thing but your choice in language says another thing.
"I think the Uighur separatists have a very vaque sense of what is Uighur/Yugur. Their world will fall apart if they found out that Yugurs are more authentic Uighurs than they are."
Or how about this one? "Well, my own opinion is that the Turks should start relearning their mother tongue, Greek."
You want Turkic people to come to your forum yet you certainly won't get any that way.
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.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jul 17, 2010 1:46:12 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? 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... 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. Ok, how about I call you "as**ole" and then say, it was just "an artistic metaphor" not really in line with my taste if I wanted to insult you... Certain terms are just insulting per se whether you intend them to be such or not... 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. That's why your forum is of a very low quality. Do you have some sources to verify this? It's actually a common scientific knowledge. "Stan" is an ancient Iranic and Indoeuropean word that was adobted by Turks a very long time before the Islamization. It's everwhere... You want a very scholar like source. Check the historical-linguistic dictionary of Ossetian language by Abaev, volume 3. 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. You seem to have some comprehension problems. "Stan" is not related to Islamicization/Persianization. I explained it very clear to you several times. Moreover, this word was also adobted not only into Turkic, but also into Mongolic languages as well. In Mongolian it's "yastan" which means "tribe/clan" and it also come from that ancient "stan" root with the meaning "camp."In western Mongolic dialects like Kalmyk there is a word "tangch" that comes from "stan" and has the same meaning. The situation is analogous to a situation where "Allah" simply becomes a generic word for God without any specific equivalence to Islam. Your "example" is totally out of context, but for your information. "Allah" is the only name for God among the Arab speaking Christians as well as some other people, like Orthodox Christian Tatars in Russia and there are no any problems in that.
|
|
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 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.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jul 17, 2010 6:05:08 GMT 3
Hmm... How one can really know in which context you use n***r or a***l ? Smart people and, specially, those who are engaged in serious discussion simply don't use at all... It's obvious. I wonder how would someone look at you if you say in a historical conference "I believe that Uighurs are n***rs"... Second point, are you always proving your arguments by wiki articles? May be you're writing them yourself as well? Nevertheless, even your wiki article showed that "stan" is a very ancient word far predating the Islam. And how "Turko-Iranian tradition" is involved there I don't see any clue, it says nothing about "stan" at all? I don't understand why stubbornly proving something that is not there. Ok, you had a mistaken impression that "stan" is related to Islam, now it's obvious that it's not. So, what exactly is your problem? I think you behave like a n***r, I mean in a strictly "figurative" meaning, I mean you understand what I mean that I didn't mean it when I mean it. And please, don't feel offended, it's a common scientific term used by the famous professor from Thailand... Peace, my regards to other n***s in yo hood (sorry forum). Yo...
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Jul 17, 2010 8:11:25 GMT 3
No need to respond much. I think ren made things clearer.
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Jul 17, 2010 16:49:06 GMT 3
Mongolia is ALREADY called Mongolistan in Turkey, what you on about?
And you get this information about Uyghurs from where? I have family in the motherland and I was actually THERE early last year. As much as those I met despise the Han and were rather easily rabble-roused (by an Oirat of all people even) -> hating on my people WTF? We're not even bloody significant enough in numbers there to even be noticed of all things.
As for your new post on that thread:
The ironic thing is only 1 out of all 4 of us speaking out against you are even Turkic.
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Jul 17, 2010 16:54:43 GMT 3
And Sarmat... ROFL!!!
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Jul 18, 2010 4:04:04 GMT 3
ren,
To call Uighurs "Mongolian" because the area where they came from is called "Mongolia" today is a mistake of methodology (or revisionism). You confuse instead of inform when you say that Uighurs are a Mongolian tribe. For example, when people want to know about Byzantine history, it would be confusing to refer to the capital as Istanbul instead of using its former name Constantinople, just as it would be confusing to write Pakistan when writing about the Mughal Empire. Yet that's what you're doing when you call Uighurs a Mongolian tribe.
Look, I don't really care much about how you write and I'm certainly not indignant about your post on the Uighurs. If you noticed, I didn't even respond to this thread until you posted. I just hope for you to realize that the quality of your writing reflects upon yourself.
BTW, Greeks are not the original population of Anatolia either.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jul 18, 2010 5:43:28 GMT 3
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. Well, this is nonsense, because 1) there even were no any "Mongolians" when the name "Uighur" first appeared in history, 2) ancient Uighurs and their ancestors i.e. Tiele were Turkic speakers.
|
|
|
Post by Kilij Arslan on Jul 18, 2010 11:56:50 GMT 3
Yeah, lets call Mongolians Manchu, since mongolic tribes lived once on nowadays Manchu Plain And as for Turks being turkicised Greeks and Armenians - sure they (partially of course) are that way! And they are Turks at the same time. All nomadic peoples were (are?) extremely exogamic, its visible at times of peace, and particularly when conquering lands/people. Its directly connected to increased polygamy in these conditions (more plundering = more wives & concubines you can uphold, and of course you take local women for these). And thats also the reason why turkic peoples dont look alike. Being turkic means speaking turkic language, regardless the 'ethnic' origins. It's all about culture, not genes. And this fact was acknowledged by scholars and nomadic people a long time ago.
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Jul 18, 2010 13:44:47 GMT 3
Your 'honest' description of Uyghur nationalism: - Uyghurs are to be 'rightly called' the "n****s of China" - Uyghurs are to be called Mongolians even if they are Turkic people. - False exaggeration of Uyghur hostility against Han by falsely propagating Uyghurs hating on Oirats.
Sad thing is that this is not the first time I've heard of such views. In fact, it's actually very common among the mainland Han Chinese I found. Interestingly, mostly it came from Chinese nationalists. If you don't count yourself among that number, you will have to be more careful with your speech.
|
|