Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2010 18:26:15 GMT 3
Then stop reading my posts and stop replying to me with insults. I did, I read them just once, and I said nothign insulting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 18, 2010 18:45:33 GMT 3
-Uyghurs are Turks, some have mixed with Iranics, Mongols, Tocharisn, Tungans, etc. but that doesn't mean they're anything but Turkic and it doesn't mean their Uyghur identity is artificial or that their Turkic identity is false. Show me one group of people who hasn't mixed with foreigners.
-Uyghurs don't hate Mongols, some Uyghurs and Kazaks have problems and dislike eachother but in general they don't hate eachother, you'll find this hatred only in some areas. Many don't like the Tungan but there are reasons for that. One minute the Tungan will act like a Muslim brother to an Uyghur but when they see the Chinese police coming down the street, they take off their Islamic caps and act Chinese, they can't be trusted and this is the main reason why.
-Uyghurs know who they are, they know who their ancestors were and where they came from. They know they're Turkic, they know there's been some mixing involved which is why the Uyghur physical appearance varies. They would not wet their pants if they knew where they came from because they already know this. And no, they do not think they're Indo-European or descendents of that mummy's people. Out of all of the thousands of Uyghurs I've met I only met one who thought that the ancestors of Uyghurs were European and he happens to live in Europe. He doesn't represent a whole ethnic group.
-Many Turks in Turkey can trace their roots to Turks, again, just because many mixed there deosn't mean everyone there isn't Turkic.
|
|
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 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 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.
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Jul 18, 2010 23:28:53 GMT 3
Your idea of justice for indigenous populations is not on any morally higher ground than the original offense. Doing such a thing will create the same problems and more.
One of the issues is that you seem to believe that there is a way to demarcate and define ethnic entities and fit groups of people into perfect little units, to judge who is authentic. Life doesn't work that way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2010 5:15:33 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. That's how I talk to idiots, if you feel I was insulting you then maybe you know you did something wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2010 5:19:15 GMT 3
So just because there are differences between Turks in Siberia and Turks in Anatolia Pan-Turkism doesn't seeem realistic? I've spoken to Sakha Turks who are Pan-Turkic, we're not idiots, we realize our people are spread throughout a huge area and we know that because of this that there are differences. But who cares? We're still the same people and the idea does exist, not just on the internet.
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Jul 19, 2010 7:06:42 GMT 3
Nah, don't get started about Pan-Turkism. It's just a distraction from the main discussion. It has nothing to do with calling Uighurs n****rs or saying that they're a Mongolian tribe or saying that their identity is made-up.
|
|
|
Post by Subu'atai on Jul 19, 2010 11:57:08 GMT 3
Subu'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? In the last 4 months where I've started posting there to learn about Korea, I would say many of their points in regards to Chinese nationalism is sound. There's 1.3 billion of you, but many will judge all Chinese merely by the actions of those such as yourself. As I have people I care about who are Chinese by ethnic, I don't appreciate mainland folks like you continuing to give all Chinese people worldwide a horrid name. I've always been the one trying to shiver down their fire, but how can Koreans listen to me, a foreigner of all people, to stop hating Chinese, when folks such as yourself make posts like THAT, and then refuse to apologise. The least I can do is to remind them who they are not happy with - mainland nationalists. Your behaviour is very typical of mainland nationalists. You all shout the same anti-Uyghur anti-Tibet anti-Mongol pro-China propaganda blah blah hehehe "songs", so I'm sorry that I've heard it all before. Pick anyone of your comical assumptions for at least you know very well right now that I'm not on your side.
|
|
|
Post by Kilij Arslan on Jul 19, 2010 13:07:47 GMT 3
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. For me, that’s pure fantasy. First of all, this ‘noble savage’ archetype is seriously out of date. Local doesn’t mean the best by definition, sorry. (I don’t mean that conquering other nations to ‘civilize’ them is proper, mind you.) Second, cultural and ethnic mixing is inevitable; and do you seriously think Berbers/Taiwanese/whoever would abandon their lives, culture, popculture, general outlook and hundreds years of history in the name of some totally obscure ideal..? And believe me, this would be obscure; origin would not only be uneasy to trace and define, it would also be a matter of countless quarrels and disputes among given people themselves. And now the third, most important for me. You seem to share a view common among racists, national socialists, some nationalists and quite a deal of environmentalists and neo-hippies. There was no ‘Golden Age’ in which nations/races/species were set, given to earth to be either kept untouched or lost forever. It’s perfectly normal for nations to emerge, rise, fall, be ‘artificially’ (for the lack of better words) created, divide, mix. And all these nations have their own respective ‘right’ (for the lack...) to exist, with all consequences of existance, including being conquered or destroyed. There is no artificiality in it. And also, it’s perfectly normal for nations to change, including getting ‘alien’ elements of the culture. And every ‘version’ of a nation you could note on the timeline of history has it’s ‘right’ to exist... and so on. The processes that lead to emerging nations in your supposed ‘Golden Age’ (or the versions of the nations that you would call ‘true’ and unscathed) did not stop. They lead to emerging the nations of nowadays world. And they will lead to emerging new nations in the future. And by the way, only few of this forum members think that panwhateverism is something more than fantasy/ideal on one hand; on the other hand, there is difference between totally overcivilized inhabitant of Warsaw, and a Serbian villager, but still if the two have met (particularly in some germanic state), a sense of slavonicness would be imminent, along with great amount of alcohol. Many common Poles did care about 'Kosovo is Serbian' cause. Differences do exist, but that doesn't mean similarities don't.
|
|
|
Post by hjernespiser on Jul 19, 2010 20:12:27 GMT 3
Arslan,
I think you put that very well.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Post by Kilij Arslan on Jul 20, 2010 12:17:02 GMT 3
Thanks, General I really have no interest in debates about petty political nationalisms. Ren, neither do I. I simply meant to show you where that thinking might eventually lead. And that it is characteristic for people making too much assumptions about the world they live in. My point is, that the world wasn't designed or set. World is a process, with but few basic principles (having some exceptions too), most notable for me would be impression that environment makes on culture; world has no holistic system in it, no logic, no 'practicality' per se, especially if we speak of world of human ideas, and nationalities/self consciousness belongs to that. You can't define/separate/conduct research basing only on behaviorisms. People will have whole lot more reasons of their ways of thinking and acting than just mere practicality and basic needs, their whim being not the last nor the least. Take Silesians for example, among many consider themselves a different nation than Polish. Their 'native' tongue is a mix of distorted Polish and even more distorted German; yet they do speak Polish fluently and with ease, and have Polish standards of living, and they wouldn't gain anything if they separate and form a new state. Nothing practical in their self consciousness as Silesians, not Poles. And yes, Finns have a lot in common with Swedes, particularly if we compare urbanised parts of their societies which tend to be similar all around the world. Still they might *feel* their unity with siberian reindeer herders, and they wouldn't think there's any contradiction in it. True, they might feel cultural shock if they met guys from Siberia, but thats just guessing. Especially since there actually are reindeer herders in Finland nowadays, mind you. As far as I know most Turks do consider themselves mediterranean folk (and btw I'm not Turk, I'm basically Polish , and yet many among them might *feel* they have connection with their steppe origins, and have a sense of unity with their steppe (turkic? altaic?) cousins, and despite mediterraneanness, think themselves as totally different than Greeks/Armenians/whoever. And it's perfectly natural.
|
|
|
Post by sarmat on Jul 20, 2010 19:53:11 GMT 3
Very good analysis by Kilij Arslan
|
|