Are Uighurs native to Xingjiang? Re: oh fucking muslims are rioting in China too
ltlee1
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090706/ap_on_re_as/as_china_protest
"Uighurs make up the largest ethnic group in Xinjiang, but not in the
capital of Urumqi, which has attracted large numbers of Han Chinese
migrants. The city of 2.3 million is now about overwhelmingly Chinese
— a source of frustration for native Uighurs who say they are being
squeezed out."
Are Uighurs native to Xingjiang?
A quick look at hisotry should dispel this notion of Uighurs are
native to Xinjiang. Why the western press do not tell the truth?
Tienxia
Why, LTLee? The same motives that drive your friend abianchen to
always lie.
abia...@my-deja.com
you have any friends or even a bf? Go see a shrink!
=====
Original abianchen: abia...@my-deja.com since May 2000. So click
“view profile”.
Fake abianchen (by psycho Tienxia): various abianc*@*.com but they are
all fake for his own revenge against original abianchen. Tienxia =
anti-AbianchenVirus = WanLF = Chairman Mao…
anti-StupidAbianchenVirus
a "she", and that you are not a "dude"! So all this dribble about your
being "a guy from Taiwan" is just another one of your constant pack of
lies posted on all these newsgroups!
Link to sourse:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/23a9beab2fd5e5f1?hl=en
Contents of source:
Hey abianchen/Meichi! You have just openly admitted that you are a
"she" - not "a guy from Taiwan"! Bwahahahahaha!
On Jul 3, 2:12 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> Hey psycho Tienxia, kick-RSS-ass was telling you (fake abianchen) to go for a plastic dolly and leave that innocent Thai girl alone. And you should!!!
>
> On Jul 3, 5:08 pm, anti-StupidAbianchenVirus <wuso...@rocketmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Don't you even understand such a simple question, Meichi?
> > "Kick RSS ass" wrote "Get over it, dude! She threw your ugly ass out,
> > kicked you to the kerb, slammed the door in your face. Now go back to
> > your plastic dolly".
> > Which person do you identify with here, Meichi? The "dude", or "she"?
> > On Jul 3, 10:18 am, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com>
> > wrote: \- Hide quoted text -
> > > Ha, psycho Tienxia, glad people kicked your ass again! Old Chinese
> > > saying: 人先自侮，而后人侮. So keep faking abianchen's account and let's watch
> > > netters kick your face, now go for your plastic dolly. Haha!
> > > > > Get over it, dude! She threw your ugly ass out, kicked you to the kerb,
> > > > > slammed the door in your face. Now go back to your plastic dolly:http://thechive.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/hyper-realistic-fake-r...
> > On Jul 3, 2:00 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Hey psycho Tienxia, why don't we let netter Kick-RSS-ass read the
> > > following how Rusty Old Fool stole Meichi's photos to frame me as
> > > "Thai whore Meichi" and how you followed suit... Haha!
> > > "HOW TO BECOME A THIEF & LIAR" GUIDE: Thief and liar Rusty Old Fool
> > > (rst9/rst0wxyz) stole an innocent Thai girl's photos to frame Chinese
> > > guy, abianchen and his sidekick Tienxia followed suit. Enjoy!
> > > November 6, 2008 12:39 pm, Rusty Old Fool still called abianchen "he",
> > > a guy. The link:
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/fccc40f0e1bf2602...
> > > Two hours later, November 6, 2008 1:30pm, Rusty asked abianchen to
> > > post his photo. The link:
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/60f3e2acc9814dd0...
> > > Abianchen did not post his photo. 12 hours later, November 7 2008,
> > > 1:47am, Rusty for the first time posted a Thai girl's website and
> > > accused abianchen is that Thai girl with NO proof. Note that the
> > > website is no longer available. The link:
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/698c3ef315dc98e1...
> > > 6 hours later, November 7 2008, 7:33am, Rusty's no brainer sidekick
> > > Tienxia (posted as Xangdi) wasted on time and immediately followed
> > > suit. The link:
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/4c1f30432567c752...
> > > 16 hours later, November 8, 2008, 12:54am, Rusty for the first time
> > > using Thai girl's photo to harass abianchen. The link (Thai girl's
> > > photo is available in the link):
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.china/msg/6f204e14df83b82e...
> > > Rusty then stole this innocent Thai girl's photos and added them to
> > > his photo album and claimed Meichi is Filipino. Obviously, Rusty had
> > > no idea who this girl is, a Thai or a Filipino. Rusty is not only a
> > > thief but also a liar! And apparently, to Rusty, being Filipino or
> > > Thai is low class. The link:
> > >http://www.flickr.com/photos/64156901@N00
> > > From that day... these two dumb and dumber, Rusty Old Fool and Tienxia
> > > have teamed up to frame abianchen as "Thai whore Meichi" and have used
> > > this girl's photos to insult abianchen.
> > > Abianchen has been posting Chinese politics, culture in
> > > soc.culture.china for 9 years. Netters know him as a Chinese guy so
> > > how can "a Thai whore" post Chinese stuff in soc.culture.china for 9
> > > years. Rusty Old Fool and Tienxia want revenge, at least they should
> > > make convincing lies but they did not, are they out of their minds or
> > > just plain stupid?-
On Jul 6, 9:34 am, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> Psycho Tienxia, you are here in SCC 24 x 7 x 365 to harass people, do
> you have any friends or even a bf? Go see a shrink!
>
> =====
> Original abianchen: abianc...@my-deja.com since May 2000. So click
> "view profile".
>
> Fake abianchen (by psycho Tienxia): various abianc*@*.com but they are
> all fake for his own revenge against original abianchen. Tienxia =
> anti-AbianchenVirus = WanLF = Chairman Mao...
>
> On Jul 6, 9:14 am, Tienxia <xan...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 6, 7:53 am, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 6, 5:27 am, "Jignesh Bhai" <jignesh.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090706/ap_on_re_as/as_china_protest
>
> > > "Uighurs make up the largest ethnic group in Xinjiang, but not in the
> > > capital of Urumqi, which has attracted large numbers of Han Chinese
> > > migrants. The city of 2.3 million is now about overwhelmingly Chinese
> > > -- a source of frustration for native Uighurs who say they are being
> > > squeezed out."
>
> > > Are Uighurs native to Xingjiang?
> > > A quick look at hisotry should dispel this notion of Uighurs are
> > > native to Xinjiang. Why the western press do not tell the truth?
>
> > Why, LTLee? The same motives that drive your friend abianchen to
> > always lie.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
ltlee1
Sounds like you agree that the Uighurs are not native to Xinjiang. If
so, may be you can tell other netters something about Uighurs and
Xinjiang.
abia...@my-deja.com
has to google to find out what’s “Uighurs” first, he just wants to
harass you, that’s all and we know the reason.
=====
Original abianchen: abia...@my-deja.com since May 2000. So click
“view profile”.
Fake abianchen (by psycho Tienxia): various abianc*@*.com but they are
all fake for his own revenge against original abianchen. Tienxia =
anti-AbianchenVirus = WanLF = Chairman Mao…
> Xinjiang.- Hide quoted text -
Tienxia
The Western media is always eager to report on any unrest within
China. This is their staple food for decades, and they don't really
know who the Uyghur people really are. I have one Uyghur schoolmate
here doing the same research work like I do, and he considers himself
Chinese. He says that his ethnicity is Uyghur, but he is Chinese as
far as his loyalty and citizenship is concerned. Mind you, that's
because he is an educated man. A brief search in Wikipedia shows who
the Uyghurs really are/were: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_people
. China is doing the right thing to clamp down on any attempts to
separate Xinxiang from China, because the Uyghur Muslims are being
incited by Western Powers to form an alliance with the Muslims in
Afghanistan to create an Islamic threat to China, and shift the focus
away from the West. They should be granted autonomy, like Tibet and
Taiwan, but never separatism.
As for "other netters", they believe what they want to believe. No one
in Usenet groups will ever change their minds.
Tienxia
On Jul 6, 9:21 am, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> LT Lee, are you kidding? Psycho Tienxia knows little about China, he
> has to google to find out what’s “Uighurs” first, he just wants to
> harass you, that’s all and we know the reason.
>
> =====
> Original abianchen: abianc...@my-deja.com since May 2000. So click
> “view profile”.
>
> Fake abianchen (by psycho Tienxia): various abianc*@*.com but they are
> all fake for his own revenge against original abianchen. Tienxia =
> anti-AbianchenVirus = WanLF = Chairman Mao…
>
> On Jul 6, 9:56 am, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 6, 9:14 am, Tienxia <xan...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 6, 7:53 am, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 6, 5:27 am, "Jignesh Bhai" <jignesh.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090706/ap_on_re_as/as_china_protest
>
> > > > "Uighurs make up the largest ethnic group in Xinjiang, but not in the
> > > > capital of Urumqi, which has attracted large numbers of Han Chinese
> > > > migrants. The city of 2.3 million is now about overwhelmingly Chinese
> > > > — a source of frustration for native Uighurs who say they are being
> > > > squeezed out."
>
> > > > Are Uighurs native to Xingjiang?
> > > > A quick look at hisotry should dispel this notion of Uighurs are
> > > > native to Xinjiang. Why the western press do not tell the truth?
>
> > > Why, LTLee? The same motives that drive your friend abianchen to
> > > always lie.
>
> > Sounds like you agree that the Uighurs are not native to Xinjiang. If
> > so, may be you can tell other netters something about Uighurs and
> > Xinjiang.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Tak To
>
> Are Uighurs native to Xingjiang?
> A quick look at hisotry should dispel this notion of Uighurs are
> native to Xinjiang. Why the western press do not tell the truth?
How far back a history of residency does it take to
qualify as a native in your definition? What did
the Uighurs come by your account?
Tak
--
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
abia...@my-deja.com
your lie that abianchen is “Thai Whore Meichi”. You two want revenge,
at least make convincing lies.
Netters here in SCC know abianchen is Chinese guy who can read/speak/
write Chinese that’s why BYS sent me a Mandarin video clip this
morning. And you? You don’t know Chinese language and know little
about China. Even your internet translator could not help you. You are
here just to harass people. Now go see a shrink!
=====
Original abianchen: abia...@my-deja.com since May 2000. So click
“view profile”.
Fake abianchen (by psycho Tienxia): various abianc*@*.com but they are
all fake for his own revenge against original abianchen. Tienxia =
anti-AbianchenVirus = WanLF = Chairman Mao…
rst0wxyz
wrote:
> Psycho Tienxia, you are here in SCC 24 x 7 x 365 to harass people, do
> you have any friends or even a bf? Go see a shrink!
Only you, abianchen cunt aka meichi filthy smelly pussy.
rst0wxyz
wrote:
> LT Lee, are you kidding? Psycho Tienxia knows little about China, he
Look who's talking about China not know anything about China, the one
and only abianchen cunt aka meichi filthy smelly pussy, who is NOT
Chinese, NOT a guy, and NOT from Taiwan as she claimed. She's a ugly
fatso tub of lard Philippino whore living in NYC.
You are not making enough money this year. You didn't take your
annual trip back to the Philippines for 3 - 4 months as in previous
years and lying about been to Middle East.
anti-StupidAbianchenVirus
this uneducated woman?
On Jul 6, 7:21 am, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> LT Lee, are you kidding? Psycho Tienxia knows little about China, he
> has to google to find out what’s “Uighurs” first, he just wants to
> harass you, that’s all and we know the reason.
>
> =====
> Original abianchen: abianc...@my-deja.com since May 2000. So click
> “view profile”.
>
> Fake abianchen (by psycho Tienxia): various abianc*@*.com but they are
> all fake for his own revenge against original abianchen. Tienxia =
> anti-AbianchenVirus = WanLF = Chairman Mao…
>
> On Jul 6, 9:56 am, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 6, 9:14 am, Tienxia <xan...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 6, 7:53 am, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 6, 5:27 am, "Jignesh Bhai" <jignesh.b...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > >http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090706/ap_on_re_as/as_china_protest
>
> > > > "Uighurs make up the largest ethnic group in Xinjiang, but not in the
> > > > capital of Urumqi, which has attracted large numbers of Han Chinese
> > > > migrants. The city of 2.3 million is now about overwhelmingly Chinese
> > > > — a source of frustration for native Uighurs who say they are being
> > > > squeezed out."
>
> > > > Are Uighurs native to Xingjiang?
> > > > A quick look at hisotry should dispel this notion of Uighurs are
> > > > native to Xinjiang. Why the western press do not tell the truth?
>
> > > Why, LTLee? The same motives that drive your friend abianchen to
> > > always lie.
>
> > Sounds like you agree that the Uighurs are not native to Xinjiang. If
> > so, may be you can tell other netters something about Uighurs and
> > Xinjiang.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
anti-StupidAbianchenVirus
On Jul 6, 7:37 am, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> Psycho Tienxia, who’s “we”? You and Rusty Old Fool. Nobody believes
> your lie that abianchen is “Thai Whore Meichi”. You two want revenge,
> at least make convincing lies.
> Netters here in SCC know abianchen is Chinese guy who can read/speak/
> write Chinese that’s why BYS sent me a Mandarin video clip this
> morning. And you? You don’t know Chinese language and know little
> about China. Even your internet translator could not help you. You are
> here just to harass people. Now go see a shrink!
>
> =====
rst0wxyz
> your lie that abianchen is “Thai Whore Meichi”. You two want revenge,
> at least make convincing lies.
Well, take a look at yourself, abianchen cunt aka meichi filthy smelly
pussy:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/64156901@N00/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/meichi_cunt_aka_abianchen_filthy_smelly_pussy/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/39763545@N04/
> Netters here in SCC know abianchen is Chinese guy who can read/speak/
> write Chinese that’s why BYS sent me a Mandarin video clip this
> morning. And you? You don’t know Chinese language and know little
> about China. Even your internet translator could not help you. You are
> here just to harass people. Now go see a shrink!
>
> =====
ltlee1
> ltlee1 wrote:
>
> > Are Uighurs native to Xingjiang?
> > A quick look at hisotry should dispel this notion of Uighurs are
> > native to Xinjiang. Why the western press do not tell the truth?
>
> How far back a history of residency does it take to
> qualify as a native in your definition? What did
> the Uighurs come by your account?
Whether a people is native is not as important as whether it is
treated fairly. As I see it, there is no god decreeing what people
should have what land, to own and to hold, forever and ever.
International border is a matter of international acceptance. If
Chinese policy is bad to any particular ethnic group, it should be the
focus. However, the western presses always play up the native angle.
They, however, choose not to tell the truth about the nativeness of
the Uighur people.
According to what I know, Xinjiang was part of the Zungharian Empire
for centuries, Mongolian ethnicly speaking. The Qing government
conquered the Zungharians in the middle of the 18th century. As the
results of wars (some said genocide) and smallpox epidemic, the region
was depopulated. To repopulate the land, foreigners, including
Uighurs, were invited to take up residence in Xinjiang by the Qing
government. Of course, if one read Chiinese history, Han Chinese also
have a long history in Xinjiang.
What do you think? Are Uighur Chinese more native than Han Chinese?
What is your standard?
rst0wxyz
> ltlee1 wrote:
>
> > Are Uighurs native to Xingjiang?
> > A quick look at hisotry should dispel this notion of Uighurs are
> > native to Xinjiang. Why the western press do not tell the truth?
>
> How far back a history of residency does it take to
> qualify as a native in your definition? What did
> the Uighurs come by your account?
LT Lee doesn't know, doesn't understand. LT Lee read a lot,
understand little.
anti-StupidAbianchenVirus
> On Jul 6, 10:36 am, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > ltlee1 wrote:
>
> > > Are Uighurs native to Xingjiang?
> > > A quick look at hisotry should dispel this notion of Uighurs are
> > > native to Xinjiang. Why the western press do not tell the truth?
>
> > How far back a history of residency does it take to
> > qualify as a native in your definition? What did
> > the Uighurs come by your account?
>
> Whether a people is native is not as important as whether it is
> treated fairly. As I see it, there is no god decreeing what people
> should have what land, to own and to hold, forever and ever.
> International border is a matter of international acceptance.
Tell that to the Israelis!
> If Chinese policy is bad to any particular ethnic group, it should be the
> focus. However, the western presses always play up the native angle.
> They, however, choose not to tell the truth about the nativeness of
> the Uighur people.
>
> According to what I know, Xinjiang was part of the Zungharian Empire
> for centuries, Mongolian ethnicly speaking. The Qing government
> conquered the Zungharians in the middle of the 18th century. As the
> results of wars (some said genocide) and smallpox epidemic, the region
> was depopulated. To repopulate the land, foreigners, including
> Uighurs, were invited to take up residence in Xinjiang by the Qing
> government. Of course, if one read Chiinese history, Han Chinese also
> have a long history in Xinjiang.
>
> What do you think? Are Uighur Chinese more native than Han Chinese?
> What is your standard?
>
>
>
>
>
> > Tak
> > --
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
> > Tak To ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------^^
> > [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr- Hide quoted text -
ltlee1
wrote:
> On Jul 6, 8:13 am, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 6, 10:36 am, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > > ltlee1 wrote:
>
> > > > Are Uighurs native to Xingjiang?
> > > > A quick look at hisotry should dispel this notion of Uighurs are
> > > > native to Xinjiang. Why the western press do not tell the truth?
>
> > > How far back a history of residency does it take to
> > > qualify as a native in your definition? What did
> > > the Uighurs come by your account?
>
> > Whether a people is native is not as important as whether it is
> > treated fairly. As I see it, there is no god decreeing what people
> > should have what land, to own and to hold, forever and ever.
> > International border is a matter of international acceptance.
>
> Tell that to the Israelis!
Israel knows. But Israel is a western democracy. The leaders had
dugged themselves a big hole for short term gain. And now it is
stucked.
BTW, if Israel treated the Palastinians as China treated its
minorities,
the Palastinians would be dancing on the street. But no western press
will ever compare the two countries' minority policy. For those who
tell
the story of good and evil, China is evil. Nothing else matters.
Israel is
good and everything, including aparteid, is beyond criticism.
>
>
>
> > If Chinese policy is bad to any particular ethnic group, it should be the
> > focus. However, the western presses always play up the native angle.
> > They, however, choose not to tell the truth about the nativeness of
> > the Uighur people.
>
> > According to what I know, Xinjiang was part of the Zungharian Empire
> > for centuries, Mongolian ethnicly speaking. The Qing government
> > conquered the Zungharians in the middle of the 18th century. As the
> > results of wars (some said genocide) and smallpox epidemic, the region
> > was depopulated. To repopulate the land, foreigners, including
> > Uighurs, were invited to take up residence in Xinjiang by the Qing
> > government. Of course, if one read Chiinese history, Han Chinese also
> > have a long history in Xinjiang.
>
> > What do you think? Are Uighur Chinese more native than Han Chinese?
> > What is your standard?
>
> > > Tak
> > > --
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
> > > Tak To ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------^^
> > > [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Jesus Christ the Cunt Fucker
Uyghurs spread from Mongolia to Xin Jiang , which was called
Zungaria .
Chinese have stolen Xin Jiang East Turkishstan from the
native Uyghurs ,
just like the Chinese have stolen Singapore from the Malays .
Chinese are now trying to steal also Malaysia from the
Malays.
Chinese in Malaysia want to call themselves Chinese
as "Fake CHINESE NATIVE " of Malaysia .
because Chinese in Xin Jiang are calling themselves as
natives of Xin Jiang .
Chinese are just stealing Muslem territory ,.in Malaysia and
in East Turkishstan .
Tak To
> On Jul 6, 10:36 am, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> ltlee1 wrote:
>>
>>> Are Uighurs native to Xingjiang?
>>> A quick look at hisotry should dispel this notion of Uighurs are
>>> native to Xinjiang. Why the western press do not tell the truth?
>> How far back a history of residency does it take to
>> qualify as a native in your definition? What did
>> the Uighurs come by your account?
>
> Whether a people is native is not as important as whether it is
> treated fairly. As I see it, there is no god decreeing what people
> should have what land, to own and to hold, forever and ever.
> International border is a matter of international acceptance. If
> Chinese policy is bad to any particular ethnic group, it should be the
> focus. However, the western presses always play up the native angle.
> They, however, choose not to tell the truth about the nativeness of
> the Uighur people.
>
> According to what I know, Xinjiang was part of the Zungharian Empire
> for centuries, Mongolian ethnicly speaking. The Qing government
> conquered the Zungharians in the middle of the 18th century. As the
> results of wars (some said genocide) and smallpox epidemic, the region
> was depopulated. To repopulate the land, foreigners, including
> Uighurs, were invited to take up residence in Xinjiang by the Qing
> government.
This does not sound plausible. The Qing government went
into conflict with the Ugyhurs just a couple years after
they subjugated the Dzungars -- because the Ugyhurs failed
to recognize the overlordship of Qing.
While the Xinjiang area has been ruled by the Mongols
since Yuan, the Uyghurs have been living there longer
-- since Tang times. The Mongols ruled them but never
displace them. The agrarian culture of the Uyghurs
was more advanced than the nomadic Mongols and that
was why they survived.
The area was part of the Chagatai Khanate and later
the Eastern Chagatai Khanate. It was was controlled
at different times by the Dughlats, the Khojans,
or the Temurids (the khan was a puppet most of the
times). The Dzungars did not come in until the
1680s.
The Ugyhurs became Muslims during the Eastern Chagatai
Khanate period and began to diverge from their
Shamanist/Buddhist past[1] and merge with their
"Uzbek"[2] brethren in Temurid culture in Transoxania
(i.e., Western Chagatai). The might have been
significant population migration over the years, as well,
which might account for why the Uyghurs look more Aryan
than, say, the Kyrgyz.
[1] The old culture/people in Tang time is typically
written with a different spelling of "Uighur".
[2] The term "Uyghur" is not an autonym (or has not
been an autonym for over a millennium) and the
distinction between modern "Uyghur" and "Uzbek" is
more geo-political than ethnical.
One might want to know that some Uighurs in the
past have migrated eastward and become Mogolized.
They practized Manichaeism and Buddhism. They
survive as the Yugurs (which is also their autonym)
of today. In Chinese, they are called 裕固族 in
Chinese.
> Of course, if one read Chiinese history, Han Chinese also
> have a long history in Xinjiang.
The Hans controlled parts of Xinjiang once in a while
never migrated there in significant numbers. During
Ming the eastern part of Xinjiang around Hami was
a protectorate of Ming.
ltlee1
My previous post was based on the following:
"An energetic Manchu marshal named Chao Huei retrieved the situation.
Besieged in Urumchi during the winter of 1756, he held out until the
arrival of reinforcements from Barkol. In the spring of 1757, he
penetrated as far as the Imil in Tarbagatai, while other Chinese
columns were sent to reoccupy Kuldja. Amurana[Dzurgarian leader],
hunted down from all sides, took refuge with the Russians in Siberia
(summer of 1757).
This was the end of Dzungar independence. Dzungaria, broadly
speaking--the Kobdo district, Tarbagatai, and the Ili or Kuldja
province--was directly annexed to the Chinese Empire. Even the
population was changed. The Dzungar people, in the form of Choros and
Khoit elements (the Dorbot had suffered less of an ordeal), were
almost exterminated. The Chinese repopulated the country with
immigrants from every quarter..."
(Above quote from Rene Grousset's The EMPIRE OF THE STEPPES)
"... This was the end of the Djungar-Oirat khanate.
Djungaria was then divided administratively into Seven Circles:
Tabargatai, Ili(Kuldja), Kura-Kara Usu (present-day Ili area),
Unrumqi,
Barkul, Kabdo and Uliansutai. Militarly settlements were built and
colonists brought in from other parts of China. These include
Kazakhs,
Kirghiz, Khlkhas, Uliasutai (or Soyot) people of Tuvinsk stock and
Sibos.
Solons and Tahus (Darus) from Manchuria and Dolons, a Turkic tribe
living around Maralbashi. Many Uighur settlers were brought in as
farmers
from Kashgaria. They are called Taranchi (cultivators) in Djungaria."
(Above quote from Jack Chen's THE SINKIANG STORY)
> While the Xinjiang area has been ruled by the Mongols
> since Yuan, the Uyghurs have been living there longer
> -- since Tang times.
Yes, by taking over Tang's rebillious protectorates' land with
Tang's persmission.
> The Mongols ruled them but never
> displace them. The agrarian culture of the Uyghurs
> was more advanced than the nomadic Mongols and that
> was why they survived.
>
> The area was part of the Chagatai Khanate and later
> the Eastern Chagatai Khanate. It was was controlled
> at different times by the Dughlats, the Khojans,
> or the Temurids (the khan was a puppet most of the
> times). The Dzungars did not come in until the
> 1680s.
Xinjiang, or part of it, was the cross road. Given the large size
of today's XAR and the rapidly shifting power balance among
the various peoples in the central Asian steppes, various
peoples had ruled various parts of this region and/or called them
home. Besided the Mongols, there were the Samanids (875-999)
and the Kharakhanids (932-1165). Of course the Ouigours, Uighurs
is the modern name, had been there before and after the fall of
the Zungharian Empire. My question is more speciic: Are Uighurs
native
of today's XAR? If XAR is the Uighurs' native land, how about the
Selenga River region where they were first recognized as a people and
where they had established their independent kingdom? If "had been
there" is the sole criteria, then many peoples can easily claim large
area of land, actually the larger the easier, as their native land.
Tak To
The depletion of population above refers to the
Oirat tribes (i.e., the Dzungars/Ööled/Choros, the
Korshuts/Khoits, the Torghuts and the Dörbets), not
the general population under Dzungarian khanate's
control.
Thus the "country" is the "base" area of the
Oirats -- the grassland from the east of Lake
Balkhash 巴爾喀什湖 to the Mongolian Altai 阿爾泰山,
bounded by Tianshan 天山 and Bogeda Mtns 博格達山
in the south and extending north between the
Irtysh River 額爾齊斯河 and Katun River 卡通河.
With the Oirats depleted, the Qing government would
naturally assign the grazing rights to other tribes.
> (Above quote from Rene Grousset's The EMPIRE OF THE STEPPES)
> "... This was the end of the Djungar-Oirat khanate.
> Djungaria was then divided administratively into
> Seven Circles: Tabargatai, Ili(Kuldja), Kura-Kara
> Usu (present-day Ili area), Unrumqi, Barkul, Kabdo
> and Uliansutai.
Note that Tabargatai 塔爾巴哈台 (塔城), Ili 伊黎 (伊寧),
Kuru-Kara-Usu 庫爾喀喇烏蘇 (烏蘇, about 2/5 from Ili to
Urumqi), Urumqi 烏魯木齊 and Barkul 巴里坤 are all in
northern Xinjiang (north of Tianshan). Kabdo 科布多
(Chovd) and Uliasutai 烏里雅蘇台 (Uliastai) are in
(Outer) Mongolia.
> Militarly settlements were built and colonists brought
> in from other parts of China. These include Kazakhs,
> Kirghiz, Khlkhas, Uliasutai (or Soyot) people of
> Tuvinsk stock and Sibos. Solons and Tahus (Darus)
> from Manchuria and Dolons, a Turkic tribe living around
> Maralbashi. Many Uighur settlers were brought in as
> farmers from Kashgaria.
Kashagaria is in southern Xinjiang, on the west rim
of the Tarim Basin. This was the main area of the
Uyghurs, with many towns/oases. (Another major area
was around Turfan and Hami in the east.) This showed
that the Uyghur population was not seriously affected
by the Dzungarian Wars.
> They are called Taranchi (cultivators) in Djungaria."
> (Above quote from Jack Chen's THE SINKIANG STORY)
----- -----
>> While the Xinjiang area has been ruled by the Mongols
>> since Yuan, the Uyghurs have been living there longer
>> -- since Tang times.
>
> Yes, by taking over Tang's rebillious protectorates'
> land with Tang's persmission.
>
>> The Mongols ruled them but never
>> displace them. The agrarian culture of the Uyghurs
>> was more advanced than the nomadic Mongols and that
>> was why they survived.
>>
>> The area was part of the Chagatai Khanate and later
>> the Eastern Chagatai Khanate. It was was controlled
>> at different times by the Dughlats, the Khojans,
>> or the Temurids (the khan was a puppet most of the
>> times). The Dzungars did not come in until the
>> 1680s.
>
> Xinjiang, or part of it, was the cross road. Given the
> large size of today's XAR and the rapidly shifting
> power balance among the various peoples in the central
> Asian steppes, various peoples had ruled various parts
> of this region and/or called them home.
Again, you have to separate the nomads from the farmers.
Northern Xinjiang changed hand often because it was
settled mainly by nomads. The farmers in southern
Xinjiang did not move that much.
> Besided the Mongols, there were the Samanids (875-999)
I don't think the Samanids ever moved this east.
> and the Kharakhanids (932-1165).
They moved on west and settled in Transoxania.
> Of course the Ouigours, Uighurs is the modern name,
> had been there before and after the fall of
> the Zungharian Empire. My question is more speciic:
> Are Uighurs native of today's XAR?
Only you can answer it because no one knows what your
definition of "native" is. I asked you specifically
"How far back a history of residency does it take to
qualify as a native in your definition?" and you have
not given me a direct answer.
> If XAR is the Uighurs' native land, how about the
> Selenga River region where they were first recognized
> where they had established their independent kingdom?
I would have to ask a second question,
"How far back a history of non-residency does it take
to disqualify as a native in your definition?"
> If "had been there" is the sole criteria, then many
> peoples can easily claim large area of land, actually
> the larger the easier, as their native land.
You asked these questions. Why don't you answer them
yourself? Again, what is your stance?
----- -----
ltlee1
1. We don't know exactly what the border of the Zungaria
empire. The above circles were Qing governent's delineation
which may or may not be coterminus with original Zungarian
border in the Xinjiang region.
2. Even if we assume that the Zungarian Empire was not
coterminus with today's Xinjinag, nothing is, the quotes still
show that that a large part of Xinjiang at that time was void of
Uighurs. And they were brought in or invited to lives by the
Chinese.
>
> > Militarly settlements were built and colonists brought
> > in from other parts of China. These include Kazakhs,> Kirghiz, Khlkhas, Uliasutai (or Soyot) people of
>
> > Tuvinsk stock and Sibos. Solons and Tahus (Darus)
> > from Manchuria and Dolons, a Turkic tribe living around
> > Maralbashi. Many Uighur settlers were brought in as
>
> > farmers from Kashgaria.
>
> Kashagaria is in southern Xinjiang, on the west rim
> of the Tarim Basin. This was the main area of the
> Uyghurs, with many towns/oases. (Another major area
> was around Turfan and Hami in the east.) This showed
> that the Uyghur population was not seriously affected
> by the Dzungarian Wars.
Eslewhere, Turfan and Hami were said to be dominated
by the Zungarians.
They themselves might not move. But they were on the way of
nomads and they would have to move if invaded or expelled. In
addition, the whole region, then and now, was sparsely populated
because lives were difficult there with few exceptions. Several bad
years in a role could wipe out a lot of people. And several good
years
could enlarge some tribes and allowed them to because dominant
force of the region for a while. Unless you have statistics or some
other information, I would not make the farmer/nomad dichotomy and
assume the later would not move.
> > Besided the Mongols, there were the Samanids (875-999)
>
> I don't think the Samanids ever moved this east.
I don't imagine the Samanids moved this east until I read Jack Chen's
book. Accoriding to Chen, the Caliph of Bagdad's "brother and heir
Ismail extended their domains from Ispahan to Turfan and from the
Persian Gulf to the Capsian Sea. Under Samanid rule, Sinkiang was
gradually converted to Islam, not always peaceful."
>
> > and the Kharakhanids (932-1165).
>
> They moved on west and settled in Transoxania.
>
> > Of course the Ouigours, Uighurs is the modern name,> had been there before and after the fall of
> > the Zungharian Empire. My question is more speciic:
>
> > Are Uighurs native of today's XAR?
>
> Only you can answer it because no one knows what your
> definition of "native" is. I asked you specifically
> "How far back a history of residency does it take to
> qualify as a native in your definition?" and you have
> not given me a direct answer.
>
> > If XAR is the Uighurs' native land, how about the
> > Selenga River region where they were first recognized
> > where they had established their independent kingdom?
>
> I would have to ask a second question,
> "How far back a history of non-residency does it take
> to disqualify as a native in your definition?"
A tribe of Uighurs had moved to Hunan since the Ming dynasty
and they lived there continuously for 600 hundreds years. Does
the above make them Hunan native?
>
> > If "had been there" is the sole criteria, then many
> > peoples can easily claim large area of land, actually
> > the larger the easier, as their native land.
>
> You asked these questions. Why don't you answer them
> yourself? Again, what is your stance?
Issues:
1. If a region have many peoples coming and going all the time
during the last 2000 years, does the concept of native people
still apply?
2. If yes, what will be the criteria?
Answers? I don't have them. I did not use the term "native" to
describe people living in places such as Xinjaing. If someone
say people X is native to land Y, or people X is a minority
in his own land Y, he or she is the one who needs to answer
the question.
>
> ----- -----
>
> Tak
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
> Tak To ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
> --------------------------------------------------------------------^^
> [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
baldeagle
>
> > Are Uighurs native of today's XAR?
>
> Only you can answer it because no one knows what your
> definition of "native" is. I asked you specifically
> "How far back a history of residency does it take to
> qualify as a native in your definition?" and you have
> not given me a direct answer.
>
Migrants will remain migrants for ever....They may
become citizens of a land,..but they remain as
a migrant race.
Example: The Red Indians are the natives of the USA,..
the Whites migrated to USA will remain as migrant
people...They can become citizens...but never the native
of the USA.
So are the Uyghurs in Xing-Jiang. They are NOT native
but migrant people.... They are the citizens of China.
abian...@yahoo.com
up. You talk cock.
baldeagle
baldeagle
abian...@yahoo.com
in your mouth and shut the fuck up! You talk cock!
baldeagle
baldeagle
baldeagle
prophet Muhammud the Child Fucker
Chinese are stealin Malaysia , Thailand , Cambodia, Myanmar ,
Singapore , Indonesia , Philippines,
Chinese are stealing Xin Jiang East Turkestan .
Chinese have stolen Manchuria from the Koreans .
n Jul 7, 11:38 am, Jesus Christ the Cunt Fucker
lobert
Chinese is stealing Mainland China.. Bodoh..!!!!
"prophet Muhammud the Child Fucker" <mohamed...@gmail.com> wrote in
message
news:07857a2b-fb84-4190...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
abia...@mindless.com
Never mind. Here, look at my pictures:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/64156901@N00/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/meichi_cunt_aka_abianchen_filthy_smelly_pussy/
You like? It's the real thing! Call me at www.thailovelinks.com and
I'll personally give you a great time!
On Jul 9, 9:24 am, "lobert" <lob...@lober.com> wrote:
> Ya..Ya....Ya....
> Chinese is stealing Mainland China.. Bodoh..!!!!
>
> "prophet Muhammud the Child Fucker" <mohamedholy...@gmail.com> wrote in
> messagenews:07857a2b-fb84-4190...@b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
report2009
for revenge. You don’t even have balls be yourself. You are a coward
and freak! And stop insulting Thai and Filipino people!
Original abianchen: abia...@my-deja.com since May, 2000.
Fake abianchen (psycho Tienxia): various abianc*@*.com but they are
all fake for his own revenge against original abianchen. Tienxia =
anti-AbianchenVirus = WanLF = racist troll Chairman Mao…
On Jul 9, 9:56 am, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@mindless.com>
wrote:
> You are such a moron!
>
> Never mind. Here, look at my pictures:
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/64156901@N00/
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/meichi_cunt_aka_abianchen_filthy_smelly_...
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
ltlee1
>
>
>
> > > Are Uighurs native of today's XAR?
>
> > Only you can answer it because no one knows what your
> > definition of "native" is. I asked you specifically
> > "How far back a history of residency does it take to
> > qualify as a native in your definition?" and you have
> > not given me a direct answer.
The question cannot be answered as is.
For example, does a small tribe living in a small area of region X
for 500 years make them more native than a large tribe 50 times
the population living all over region X for 150 years?
A more meaningful question willl be: How many people had lived in
how big a region for how long to qualify being native?
>
> Migrants will remain migrants for ever....They may
> become citizens of a land,..but they remain as
> a migrant race.
Yes. This should alos be taken into consideration.
>
> Example: The Red Indians are the natives of the USA,..
> the Whites migrated to USA will remain as migrant
> people...They can become citizens...but never the native
> of the USA.
>
> So are the Uyghurs in Xing-Jiang. They are NOT native
> but migrant people.... They are the citizens of China.
Yes. They are. But western press and Chinese basher don't
care about this kind of fact. They just want to bash China
and Han Chinese.
baldeagle
> > Example: The Red Indians are the natives of the USA,..
> > the Whites migrated to USA will remain as migrant
> > people...They can become citizens...but never the native
> > of the USA.
>
> > So are the Uyghurs in Xing-Jiang. They are NOT native
> > but migrant people.... They are the citizens of China.
>
> Yes. They are. But western press and Chinese basher don't
> care about this kind of fact. They just want to bash China
> and Han Chinese.
> > Example: The Red Indians are the natives of the USA,..
> > the Whites who migrated to USA will remain as migrant
> > people...They can become citizens...but never the native
> > of the USA.
>
> > So are the Uyghurs in Xing-Jiang. They are NOT native
> > but migrant people.... They are the citizens of China.
>
> Yes. They are. But western press and Chinese basher
> don't care about this kind of fact. They just want to bash
> China and Han Chinese.
Western media have their hidden agenda...They cannot face
the truth...or they are dishonest people who are good at
touting half truth...and are master at indoctrination techniques.
The China bashers are mostly simple minded people who
cannot think for themselves. Like most brainwashed
masses...in Hitler's Germany, in Mao's China, and in the
current USA....they simply repeat propaganda (called
spins in the USA) like robot.
Hindu Yoni fucks Shiva
because Chinese in Malaysia want to be the New Bumi of
Malaysia .
Jul 9, 12:24 pm, prophet Muhammud the Child Fucker
Tak To
Why does the exact border matter? The point is that
the Uyghurs were not decimated.
The above shows where the Qing government thought politcal
reorganization was needed. Kashgaria was not on the list
list because the Qing army has not yet gained control from
the rebellious Uyghurs.
> 2. Even if we assume that the Zungarian Empire was not
> coterminus with today's Xinjinag, nothing is, the quotes
> still show that that a large part of Xinjiang at that
> time was void of Uighurs.
No, it merely showed that Xinjiang (and the rest of
the Qing Empire) is largely devoid of Dzungars
(Ööled/Choros) and Korshuts. The Dörbets were
depleted too.
> And they were brought in or invited to lives by the
> Chinese.
From where?
>>> Militarly settlements were built and colonists brought
>>> in from other parts of China. These include Kazakhs,
>>> irghiz, Khlkhas, Uliasutai (or Soyot) people of
>>> Tuvinsk stock and Sibos. Solons and Tahus (Darus)
>>> from Manchuria and Dolons, a Turkic tribe living around
>>> Maralbashi. Many Uighur settlers were brought in as
>>> farmers from Kashgaria.
>>
>> Kashagaria is in southern Xinjiang, on the west rim
>> of the Tarim Basin. This was the main area of the
>> Uyghurs, with many towns/oases. (Another major area
>> was around Turfan and Hami in the east.) This showed
>> that the Uyghur population was not seriously affected
>> by the Dzungarian Wars.
>
> Eslewhere, Turfan and Hami were said to be dominated
> by the Zungarians.
I think Qing took Hami in 1690. Turfan might be later,
in 1696.
----- -----
The nomads had no reason to expel the farmers and city
dwellers. Typically, they installed a garrison to ensure
the collection of taxes and then left.
> In addition, the whole region, then and now, was
> sparsely populated because lives were difficult there
> with few exceptions. Several bad years in a role
> could wipe out a lot of people. And several good
> years could enlarge some tribes and allowed them to
> because dominant force of the region for a while.
But the oases in southern Xinjiang were fairly good
farm lands. The climate was stable and they have lots
of river for irrigation. These were not slash and burn
farmers.
> Unless you have statistics or some other information,
> I would not make the farmer/nomad dichotomy and
> assume the later would not move.
You are overstating the interchangeability of the
two types of livelihood.
----- -----
>>> Besided the Mongols, there were the Samanids (875-999)
>>
>> I don't think the Samanids ever moved this east.
>
> I don't imagine the Samanids moved this east until I read Jack Chen's
> book. Accoriding to Chen, the Caliph of Bagdad's "brother and heir
> Ismail extended their domains from Ispahan to Turfan and from the
> Persian Gulf to the Capsian Sea. Under Samanid rule, Sinkiang was
> gradually converted to Islam, not always peaceful."
This is contradictory to the history books and web sites
that I have come across. (See the Wikipedia article, for
example).
----- ----
>>> [...] My question is more speciic:
>>> Are Uighurs native of today's XAR?
>>
>> Only you can answer it because no one knows what your
>> definition of "native" is. I asked you specifically
>> "How far back a history of residency does it take to
>> qualify as a native in your definition?" and you have
>> not given me a direct answer.
>>
>>> If XAR is the Uighurs' native land, how about the
>>> Selenga River region where they were first recognized
>>> where they had established their independent kingdom?
>>
>> I would have to ask a second question,
>> "How far back a history of non-residency does it take
>> to disqualify as a native in your definition?"
>
> A tribe of Uighurs had moved to Hunan since the Ming dynasty
> and they lived there continuously for 600 hundreds years.
> Does the above make them Hunan native?
Could you provide the requisite definitions to
your own questions before starting yet another
question?
>>> If "had been there" is the sole criteria, then many
>>> peoples can easily claim large area of land, actually
>>> the larger the easier, as their native land.
>>
>> You asked these questions. Why don't you answer them
>> yourself? Again, what is your stance?
>
> Issues:
> 1. If a region have many peoples coming and going all the time
> during the last 2000 years, does the concept of native people
> still apply?
>
> 2. If yes, what will be the criteria?
>
> Answers? I don't have them. I did not use the term "native" to
> describe people living in places such as Xinjaing. If someone
> say people X is native to land Y, or people X is a minority
> in his own land Y, he or she is the one who needs to answer
> the question.
I don't use the term native either. So as far as I
am concerned your questions are unanswerable because
the key term is undefined.
If you do not agree with somebody's claim that
Uyghur are natives to Xinjiang, state your definition
of "native" and why Uyghurs in Xinjiang do not fit
the definition. There is no point of posting rhetoric
questions that nobody can answer.
baldeagle
wrote:
>
> Chinese call Indians in Malaysia as Fake Bumi.
>
Indians are fake bumi in Malaysia.
Malays are fake bumi in Malaysia.
The real bumi are Sakai and Chinese.
baldeagle
>
> Why does the exact border matter? The point is that
> the Uyghurs were not decimated.
Yes. the historical borders of China or any nation,
cannot be used by some of its citizen to justify its
call for independence.
The present border of any nation (including China) is
the final claim...it can only be changed by an invasion
of a stronger power,...or by a nation breaking up (like
the Soviet Union)..or by referendum (like joining the EU)
> The above shows where the Qing government thought politcal
> reorganization was needed.
Whatever the the Qing government has done...cannot change
the reality now...the Uyghur cannot use it to justify the breakup
of Xing Jiang from China.
Jesus Christ the Cunt Fucker
Xin Jiang .
Chinese are foreigners in Malaysia ,
that is why Chinese want to become Bumi in Malaysia,
because Chinese know they Chinese are migrant foreigners in
Malaysia
Chinese in Malaysia want to change their Chinese Identity into
BUMI .
Tak To
> On Jul 11, 5:22 am, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>> Why does the exact border matter? The point is that
>> the Uyghurs were not decimated.
>
> Yes. the historical borders of China or any nation,
> cannot be used by some of its citizen to justify its
> call for independence.
I was _not_ discussing the Uyghurs's political logic.
I was discussing the historical facts of how the
Uyghur population in Xinjiang was affected by the
Dzungarian Wars.
In this context, the exact border of the Dzungarian
Empire was irrelevant. The historical border (any
nation) may or may not be relevant in other contexts.
> The present border of any nation (including China) is
> the final claim...it can only be changed by an invasion
> of a stronger power,...or by a nation breaking up (like
> the Soviet Union)..or by referendum (like joining the EU)
I was _not_ discussing that.
>> The above shows where the Qing government thought politcal
>> reorganization was needed.
>
> Whatever the the Qing government has done...cannot change
> the reality now...the Uyghur cannot use it to justify the breakup
> of Xing Jiang from China.
Again, I was _not_ discussing that.
baldeagle
> baldeagle wrote:
> > On Jul 11, 5:22 am, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> >> Why does the exact border matter? The point is that
> >> the Uyghurs were not decimated.
>
> > Yes. the historical borders of China or any nation,
> > cannot be used by some of its citizen to justify its
> > call for independence.
>
> I was _not_ discussing the Uyghurs's political logic.
> I was discussing the historical facts of how the
> Uyghur population in Xinjiang was affected by the
> Dzungarian Wars.
The subject of discussion was about current affair...
the riot in Xing jiang...how the Uyghurs (claiming to
be native) was behind the rioting...not about history.
Tak To
Again, that was not I was discussing.
ltlee1
Do you really believe that thre Qing solider given the order to
kill the civilians would care about the ethnicity?
Or the smallpox epidemic would recongnize ethnicity?
If the Oriants were depleted, so were all other ethnicies under
them.
>
> >>> (Above quote from Rene Grousset's The EMPIRE OF THE STEPPES)
> >>> "... This was the end of the Djungar-Oirat khanate.
> >>> Djungaria was then divided administratively into
> >> > Seven Circles: Tabargatai, Ili(Kuldja), Kura-Kara
> >> > Usu (present-day Ili area), Unrumqi, Barkul, Kabdo
> >> > and Uliansutai.
>
> >> Note that Tabargatai 塔爾巴哈台 (塔城), Ili 伊黎 (伊寧),
> >> Kuru-Kara-Usu 庫爾喀喇烏蘇 (烏蘇, about 2/5 from Ili to
> >> Urumqi), Urumqi 烏魯木齊 and Barkul 巴里坤 are all in
> >> northern Xinjiang (north of Tianshan). Kabdo 科布多
> >> (Chovd) and Uliasutai 烏里雅蘇台 (Uliastai) are in
> >> (Outer) Mongolia.
>
> > 1. We don't know exactly what the border of the Zungaria
> > empire. The above circles were Qing governent's delineation
> > which may or may not be coterminus with original Zungarian
> > border in the Xinjiang region.
>
> Why does the exact border matter? The point is that
> the Uyghurs were not decimated.
You seems to harbor the idea that Kashgaria were involved in the
Djungarian struggle against the Qing army. That was not the
case.
From Chen's book,
"Amuransa meanwhile tried to rally Kashgaria against his enemies..."
Complicated plot of alliance and betrayal in between. Result: Qing
defeated them and took over Kucha, Kashgar, Khotan, and Yarkand.
Before the fall of the Djungarian empire.
> The above shows where the Qing government thought politcal
> reorganization was needed. Kashgaria was not on the list
> list because the Qing army has not yet gained control from
> the rebellious Uyghurs.
>
> > 2. Even if we assume that the Zungarian Empire was not
> > coterminus with today's Xinjinag, nothing is, the quotes
> > still show that that a large part of Xinjiang at that
> > time was void of Uighurs.
>
> No, it merely showed that Xinjiang (and the rest of
> the Qing Empire) is largely devoid of Dzungars
> (Ööled/Choros) and Korshuts. The Dörbets were
> depleted too.
>
> > And they were brought in or invited to lives by the
> > Chinese.
>
> From where?
Elsewhere. Did I not explain to you the origin of the Uighurs
which is currently part of Mongolia?
1. If the farmers did not resist.
2. If the nomads did not want pasture land.
Otherwise, all the 'western region' should be full of Han Chinese
who were also farmers.
>
> > In addition, the whole region, then and now, was
> > sparsely populated because lives were difficult there
> > with few exceptions. Several bad years in a role
> > could wipe out a lot of people. And several good
> > years could enlarge some tribes and allowed them to
> > because dominant force of the region for a while.
>
> But the oases in southern Xinjiang were fairly good
> farm lands. The climate was stable and they have lots
> of river for irrigation. These were not slash and burn
> farmers.
>
> > Unless you have statistics or some other information,
> > I would not make the farmer/nomad dichotomy and
> > assume the later would not move.
>
> You are overstating the interchangeability of the
> two types of livelihood.
I am not saying the lifestyles are interchangeable. I am saying
wheher you were a farmer or a nomad made no difference. If
the nomads were on the move, either farmers had to resist
successfully or to move. In genral farmers were no match
against the nomads. And they would have to move. China bulit
the Great Wall such that the Chinese inside the wall did not
have to mvoe.
>
> ----- -----
>
> >>> Besided the Mongols, there were the Samanids (875-999)
>
> >> I don't think the Samanids ever moved this east.
>
> > I don't imagine the Samanids moved this east until I read Jack Chen's
> > book. Accoriding to Chen, the Caliph of Bagdad's "brother and heir
> > Ismail extended their domains from Ispahan to Turfan and from the
> > Persian Gulf to the Capsian Sea. Under Samanid rule, Sinkiang was
> > gradually converted to Islam, not always peaceful."
>
> This is contradictory to the history books and web sites
> that I have come across. (See the Wikipedia article, for
> example).
Wikipedia is not considered valid source.
On whose say so?
If one says X is Y, he is the one who needs to say
what Y is. He is the one who needs to explain why X is
Y. In this case, I challenge all who say Uighurs are Xinjang
native to explain why Uighurs should be considered native
to Xinjiang and not other peoples. As far as I know, Xinjiang
was the cross road where many poeples came and went.
Consequently, all peoples are immigrants.
If you really want me to define immigrant, I will gladly do that.
ltlee1
Should be "You seem to harbor the idea that Kashgari were not
involved..."
wakalukong
Chinese migrants are stealing native lands in Malaysia .
Chinese migrants are stealing all over ASEAN.
n Jul 11, 8:55 am, Jesus Christ the Cunt Fucker
abian...@yahoo.com
monkey from Cambodia. Have you also been stuffing your asshole with
rotten bananas like he does? ;-)
> > > The real bumi are Sakai and Chinese.- Hide quoted text -
wakalukong
[Shit]
Now say thank you.
Wakalukong
---------
baldeagle
>
> Chinesee migrants are stealing native lands in Xin Jiang.
>
> Chinese migrants are stealing native lands in Malaysia .
>
> Chinese migrants are stealing all over ASEAN.
>
Chinese are native of Xing Jiang...the land belong to the
Chinese.
Chinese are natives of Malaysia, ...Malaysia belong to
the Chinese.
Chinese are natives of ASEAN...ASEAN belong to the
Chinese.
Now you understand...or are you still mixed up. Never
mind...take your time...slowly, slowly you will understand..
may be ...you will take another 3 to 5 years.
Monster
and Chinese migrants in Malaysia became Chinese Natives of
Malaysia ,
Bald Eagle says Chinese migrants came to Xin jiang
from China which is East of Xin Jiang,
and Chinese migrants in Xin jiang became Chinese natives of
Xin Jiang .
Bald Eagle says Chinese are natives of ASEAN .
Bald Eagle is looking forward to seeing
Chinese migrants becoming natives of USA.
Bald eagle is looking forward to seeing
Chinese migrants becoming natives of Australia.
Bald eagle is looking forward to seeing Chinese migrants
becoming natives of South Africa.
Bald Eagle is looking forward to seeing
Chinese migrants becoming Japs.
Chinese migrants can become Japs, Africans, Australians,
Tibetans, Thai, Malaysians , Burmese .
Unfortunately Malays are only borned as Malays , and nothing
else.
Whereas Chinese borned in Malaysia can be Chinese or be fake
Malaysians.
Komin the almighy fucking failure analyst from Cambodia
solution for fucking failure Jap.Fucking young prostitute is only
temporary solution to you lifetime problem, failure to earn real money
in Hong Kong.
> > may be ...you will take another 3 to 5 years.- Hide quoted text -
baldeagle
> Bald eagle says Chinese migrants came from China into Malaysia,
> and Chinese migrants in Malaysia became Chinese Natives of
> Malaysia ,
>
You are still very mixed up...and confused.
The Malays came from Indonesia...they are migrants.
If they can claim to be natives of Malaysian.....so can
the Chinese who migrated from China.
I see nothing wrong with their claims....
Can you see what's wrong with the claims of the
Malays and the Chinese ?
beautiful Fucking Yoni , the Hindu Sex Goddess
Malays , Khmers, Indonesians , Real Filipino,
Chams , they are of the same people.
they were all Hindu before converting to islam .
these above mentioned people were
dark skin original natives of SE Asia ,
these above mentioned people have
been inter-married for a long time already .
so when Khmers went to live in North Malaysia ,
and Southern Thailand more than 1000 years ago,
they inter- married with the Malays ,
when Indonesians came over to Malay penisula ,
Indonesians inter-married with
people on the Malay penisula..
but Chinese are new comers into SE Asia ,
Chinese are light yellow skkin colour,
and Chinese hate the dark skin natives of SE Asia.,
so how could you say Chinese are native s of, SE ASIA .
you can say Chinese in ASEAN are Fake native of ASEAN .
but Chinese are never natives of ASEAN ,
Chinese have never been a native people of ASEAN.
Bald Eagle , there is something wrong with your brain .
your assumptions that the Chinese are
natives of ASEAN is a fraud .
You Chinese from China want to become
Natives of SE Asia,
so you Chinese pretend to be natives of S.E Asia.
Just like you Chinese pretend to be Malaysians with Malay 's
passports
while your Chinese Loyalty is to China Motherland ,
not to the Malay Islam nation .
Chinese in SE Asia are imposters , pretending
to be Thai, Malaysians , Indonesians,
Burmese , Laos,
Cambodians and even Vietnamese .
Chinese are not natives of SE Asia,
Chinese have been a native people of ASEAN .
Even when Lee Kuan Yew said Lee Kuan Yew was
a Singaporean , not a Chinese in Singapore .
But every body knows Lee Kuan yew is a Chink ,
a Hakka Chink is SE Asia.
.
.
Komin the almighy fucking failure analyst from Cambodia
Javanese,Filipinos, Cham are race/tribes living in the mountain of
Yunnan South of China before they came down to SEA. The real people
who stayed in SEA are the Orang Asli, namely Dayak, Iban, Negritoes,
etc.
On Jul 15, 12:23 pm, "beautiful Fucking Yoni , the Hindu Sex
> > Malays and the Chinese ?- Hide quoted text -
wakalukong
Fraudster Komin is actually a robot. It runs on shit.
Wakalukong
baldeagle
Goddess" <indoshi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Malays , Khmers, Indonesians , Real Filipino,
> Chams , they are of the same people.
>
They are NOT the same race.... NOT the same people.
> they were all Hindu ...................
The Indians are also Hindu...are they Malays or Indonesian.
You talk twat.
abia...@mindless.com
your mouth.
baldeagle
Khitanian
> On Jul 14, 6:53嚙緘m, Monster <monsteroooodk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Bald 嚙箴agle 嚙編ays 嚙瘠hinese migrants came 嚙篆rom China 嚙箠nto 嚙瞎alaysia,
>> and 嚙瘠hinese 嚙練igrants in 嚙瞎alaysia 嚙箭ecame 嚙瘠hinese Natives 嚙緻f
>> Malaysia ,
>>
>
> You are still very mixed up...and confused.
>
> The Malays came from Indonesia...they are migrants.
> If they can claim to be natives of Malaysian.....so can
> the Chinese who migrated from China.
>
> I see nothing wrong with their claims....
> Can you see what's wrong with the claims of the
> Malays and the Chinese ?
>
>
So migrants do not have claims to the land. But then where do you draw
the line ? Every race has been a migrant at some time, unless they
grew out of the ground.
--
Oderint dum Metuant
baldeagle
>
> So migrants do not have claims to the land...
This is NOT true.
White Americans were ALL migrant from Europe.
Who say they do not have claims to the land ??
Only idiot said so !!
abia...@mail.com
baldeagle
baldeagle
abian...@yahoo.com
report2009
a year for revenge. You don’t even have balls be yourself. You are a
coward and freak! And stop insulting Thai and Filipino people!
Beware: This psycho Tienxia is using stolen Thai girl’s photos to
frame Chinese guy, abianchen because original abianchen exposed psycho
Tienxia’s racist act in 2007.
Original abianchen: abia...@my-deja.com since May, 2000.
Fake abianchen (psycho Tienxia): various abianc*@*.com but they are
all fake for his own revenge against original abianchen. Tienxia =
anti-AbianchenVirus = WanLF = racist troll Chairman Mao…
On Jul 15, 6:58 am, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abian_ch...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> Looks like your mouth is full of Nigger dick, Stupid Bird! Ha-ha!
>
> On Jul 15, 6:49 am, baldeagle <botakea...@yahoo.com.sg> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 15, 6:46 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@mail.com>
> > wrote:- Hide quoted text -
anti-StupidAbianchenVirus
you, Ugly Thai Whore Meichi?
Everyone knows by now that you are nothing but a pathological LIAR,
whether you use the ID of "abianchen" or "report2009". Have you done
all your cleaning work in Corona?
On Jul 15, 6:31 am, report2009 <repost20...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Psycho Tienxia (WanLF), you have been faking abianchen’s account over
> a year for revenge. You don’t even have balls be yourself. You are a
> coward and freak! And stop insulting Thai and Filipino people!
>
> Beware: This psycho Tienxia is using stolen Thai girl’s photos to
> frame Chinese guy, abianchen because original abianchen exposed psycho
> Tienxia’s racist act in 2007.
>
> Original abianchen: abianc...@my-deja.com since May, 2000.
>
> Fake abianchen (psycho Tienxia): various abianc*@*.com but they are
> all fake for his own revenge against original abianchen. Tienxia =
> anti-AbianchenVirus = WanLF = racist troll Chairman Mao…
>
> On Jul 15, 6:58 am, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abian_ch...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Looks like your mouth is full of Nigger dick, Stupid Bird! Ha-ha!
>
> > On Jul 15, 6:49 am, baldeagle <botakea...@yahoo.com.sg> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 15, 6:46 pm, "abianc...@my-deja.com" <abianc...@mail.com>
> > > wrote:- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Tak To
How do you know that the order was to kill all civilians,
not just Oirats civilians? Remember, the civilians were
also nomads; the different ethnic groups did not live
together.
>> Or the smallpox epidemic would
>> recongnize ethnicity? If the Oriants were depleted,
>> so were all other ethnicies under them.
Of course other ethnic groups were affected, but that does
not mean that the proportional population loss should be
similar across the different groups!
According to an impressionistic estimation made by Weiyuan
魏源 (which is probably where Grousset got his data), 40%
of the Oirats died in battles, 30% fled to Russia, and
20% died of small pox. Thus, other ethnics groups who
did not joined in the battles and did not need to flee
from the revenge of the Qing army would have a lot more
of their population remaining after the wars.
----- -----
>>>>>> (Above quote from Rene Grousset's The EMPIRE OF THE STEPPES)
>>>>>> "... This was the end of the Djungar-Oirat khanate.
>>>>>> Djungaria was then divided administratively into
>>>>>> Seven Circles: Tabargatai, Ili(Kuldja), Kura-Kara
>>>>>> Usu (present-day Ili area), Unrumqi, Barkul, Kabdo
>>>>>> and Uliansutai.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that Tabargatai 塔爾巴哈台 (塔城), Ili 伊黎 (伊寧),
>>>>> Kuru-Kara-Usu 庫爾喀喇烏蘇 (烏蘇, about 2/5 from Ili to
>>>>> Urumqi), Urumqi 烏魯木齊 and Barkul 巴里坤 are all in
>>>>> northern Xinjiang (north of Tianshan). Kabdo 科布多
>>>>> (Chovd) and Uliasutai 烏里雅蘇台 (Uliastai) are in
>>>>> (Outer) Mongolia.
>>>>
>>>> 1. We don't know exactly what the border of the Zungaria
>>>> empire. The above circles were Qing governent's delineation
>>>> which may or may not be coterminus with original Zungarian
>>>> border in the Xinjiang region.
>>>
>>> Why does the exact border matter? The point is that
>>> the Uyghurs were not decimated.
>>
>> You seems to harbor the idea that Kashgaria were
>> involved in the Djungarian struggle against the
>> Qing army. That was not the case.
>
> Should be "You seem to harbor the idea that Kashgari
> were not involved..."
The Dzungars levied heavily on the Uyghurs and
imprisoned their leaders. The Uyghurs were not in
league with the Dzungars.
There was no major battle in Kashgaria. The heavy
ones were in northern Xinjiang and in (Outer)
Mongolia.
>> From Chen's book,
>> "Amuransa meanwhile tried to rally Kashgaria against his enemies..."
>> Complicated plot of alliance and betrayal in between. Result: Qing
>> defeated them and took over Kucha, Kashgar, Khotan, and Yarkand.
>> Before the fall of the Djungarian empire.
See above. The Qing troop reported that the Uyghurs
surrendered to Qing soon as the news of Dawaachi
having been captured spread to Kashgaria.
----- -----
>>>> 2. Even if we assume that the Zungarian Empire was not
>>>> coterminus with today's Xinjinag, nothing is, the quotes
>>>> still show that that a large part of Xinjiang at that
>>>> time was void of Uighurs.
>>>
>>> No, it merely showed that Xinjiang (and the rest of
>>> the Qing Empire) is largely devoid of Dzungars
>>> (Ööled/Choros) and Korshuts. The Dörbets were
>>> depleted too.
>>>>
>>>> And they were brought in or invited to lives by the
>>>> Chinese.
>>>
>>> From where?
>>
>> Elsewhere. Did I not explain to you the origin of the Uighurs
>> which is currently part of Mongolia?
That that were people descending from the Tang Uighurs
living elsewhere in China is irrelevant. Qing only
moved Uyghurs from southern Xinjiang (Kashgaria) to
northern Xinjiang.
----- -----
>>>>>> Xinjiang, or part of it, was the cross road. Given the
>>>>>> large size of today's XAR and the rapidly shifting
>>>>>> power balance among the various peoples in the central
>>>>>> Asian steppes, various peoples had ruled various parts
>>>>>> of this region and/or called them home.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, you have to separate the nomads from the farmers.
>>>>> Northern Xinjiang changed hand often because it was
>>>>> settled mainly by nomads. The farmers in southern
>>>>> Xinjiang did not move that much.
>>>>
>>>> They themselves might not move. But they were on the way of
>>>> nomads and they would have to move if invaded or expelled.
>>>
>>> The nomads had no reason to expel the farmers and city
>>> dwellers. Typically, they installed a garrison to ensure
>>> the collection of taxes and then left.
>>
>> 1. If the farmers did not resist.
>> 2. If the nomads did not want pasture land.
The Dzungars found collecting tax from the Uyghurs far
more profitable than killing them or expelling them.
Revolts have to be suppressed, but in generally there
is no need to commit genocide.
>> Otherwise, all the 'western region' should be full of
>> Han Chinese who were also farmers.
I don't follow your logic of "otherwise".
----- -----
>>>> In addition, the whole region, then and now, was
>>>> sparsely populated because lives were difficult there
>>>> with few exceptions. Several bad years in a role
>>>> could wipe out a lot of people. And several good
>>>> years could enlarge some tribes and allowed them to
>>>> because dominant force of the region for a while.
>>>
>>> But the oases in southern Xinjiang were fairly good
>>> farm lands. The climate was stable and they have lots
>>> of river for irrigation. These were not slash and burn
>>> farmers.
>>>
>>>> Unless you have statistics or some other information,
>>>> I would not make the farmer/nomad dichotomy and
>>>> assume the later would not move.
>>>
>>> You are overstating the interchangeability of the
>>> two types of livelihood.
>>
>> I am not saying the lifestyles are interchangeable.
>> I am saying whether you were a farmer or a nomad made
>> no difference. If the nomads were on the move,
>> either farmers had to resist successfully or to move.
A false dichotomy. Farmers can simply surrender. With
luck, their new lord might even treat them better than
the old one! OTOH, the nomads in general have no use
of the farm land themselves. They would rather get
what they want through the farmers (and weavers and
artisans, etc).
>> In genral farmers were no match
>> against the nomads. And they would have to move.
Not necessarily. A trained army of farmers can be
quite effective, especially at defense.
>> China bulit the Great Wall such that the
>> Chinese inside the wall did not
>> have to mvoe.
Throughout history, Han farmers farmed under the Huns,
the Xianbei's, the Turks, Khitans, the Jurchens,
the Tanguts, as well as the Manchus. They did not
migrate every time there was a political change.
----- -----
>>>>>> Besided the Mongols, there were the Samanids (875-999)
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think the Samanids ever moved this east.
>>>>
>>>> I don't imagine the Samanids moved this east until I read Jack Chen's
>>>> book. Accoriding to Chen, the Caliph of Bagdad's "brother and heir
>>>> Ismail extended their domains from Ispahan to Turfan and from the
>>>> Persian Gulf to the Capsian Sea. Under Samanid rule, Sinkiang was
>>>> gradually converted to Islam, not always peaceful."
>>>
>>> This is contradictory to the history books and web sites
>>> that I have come across. (See the Wikipedia article, for
>>> example).
>>
>> Wikipedia is not considered valid source.
It is true that the quality of the Wiki articles (or
materials on the net in general) varies and it is always
"caveat lector". However, if a large number of them
(with different authors) agree with one another on a
subject matter, then that would likely to be valid.
----- -----
If your concern is the definition of Y, then your post
should have been: "What makes X a Y (and Z not)?" Instead,
you asked "Is X (really) a Y?" This showed more disagreement
then bewilderment. It implied that you have your own
definition of Y and do not agree on the validity of "X is
Y".
Moreover, you then proceed to make a case that X is not a Y.
This was plain and simple disagreement; and one cannot
disagree on Y without having a definite notion of what Y
meant.
Thus, when I asked you what your notion of Y is, you
should simply answer it rather than shifting to a different
topic.
>> In this case, I challenge all who say Uighurs are Xinjang
>> native to explain why Uighurs should be considered native
>> to Xinjiang and not other peoples.
If I understand you correctly, what you are against is
the political idea that Hans should not migrate to
Xinjiang. Thus, you should _not_ challenge those who
says that Uyghurs are Xinjiang natives. You should _not_
challenge the subset who says Uyghurs are natives and Hans
are not either. Instead, you should simply challenge
directly those who says Hans should not migrate to
Xinjiang.
As far as I am concerned, since there is no consensus as
to how the right to migrate is tied to the "native"
appellation, it is absolutely pointless in debating on
whether Uyghurs are natives at all. My posts in this
thread so far have been about dispelling your notion that
most of the Xinjiang Uyghur population migrated there
after the Dzungarian Wars.
>> As far as I know, Xinjiang
>> was the cross road where many poeples came and went.
>> Consequently, all peoples are immigrants. If you
>> really want me to define immigrant, I will gladly do that.
I have no interest in that.
ltlee1
I think both of us got side-tracked. I raised the issue that Uighurs
are not Xinjiang natives. You objected my raising the question
because I failed to define "native". So I rephrased. They were
immigrant and/or descendants of immigrants.
According to Jack Chen's book, Ouighours were originally nomads
from region "along the Selenga River, southwest of Lake Baikal and
on the upper reaches of the Yensei."
If you think they are Xinjiang natives, please make your case.
> what ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Tak To
> I think both of us got side-tracked. I raised the issue that Uighurs
> are not Xinjiang natives. You objected my raising the question
> because I failed to define "native". So I rephrased. They were
> immigrant and/or descendants of immigrants.
So, what is your definition of "immigrant"?
Since it has been shown that all humans came from Africa,
are all Europeans, Asians and Americans immigrants?
> According to Jack Chen's book, Ouighours were originally nomads
> from region "along the Selenga River, southwest of Lake Baikal and
> on the upper reaches of the Yensei."
>
> If you think they are Xinjiang natives, please make your case.
The Uyghurs, as an ethnic people, have been in southern
Xinjiang since the Chagatai Khanate. (The Dzungarian
Wars did not affect the population that much.) If one
takes religion off as a criterion in defining ethnicity,
then we had the Uighur Khanate there in Tang times.
Whether this fits your definition of "native" and/or
"immigrant" does not really matter.
ltlee1
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > I think both of us got side-tracked. I raised the issue that Uighurs
> > are not Xinjiang natives. You objected my raising the question
> > because I failed to define "native". So I rephrased. They were
> > immigrant and/or descendants of immigrants.
>
> So, what is your definition of "immigrant"?
>
> Since it has been shown that all humans came from Africa,
> are all Europeans, Asians and Americans immigrants?
>
> > According to Jack Chen's book, Ouighours were originally nomads
> > from region "along the Selenga River, southwest of Lake Baikal and
> > on the upper reaches of the Yensei."
>
> > If you think they are Xinjiang natives, please make your case.
>
> The Uyghurs, as an ethnic people, have been in southern
> Xinjiang since the Chagatai Khanate. (The Dzungarian
> Wars did not affect the population that much.) If one
> takes religion off as a criterion in defining ethnicity,
> then we had the Uighur Khanate there in Tang times.
Wether religion can be talken away is debatable. But I
will accept that for the time being.
>
> Whether this fits your definition of "native" and/or
> "immigrant" does not really matter.
I see that you are avoding the question.
Were they not moved from somewhere else to today's Xinjiang?
Did they enter the region while it was uninhabited by any other
tribe?
My answer to both questions are "NO" and "NO". Hence they
are immigrants. If you want to argue that they are native of
Xinjiang,
say it outright and efend your positoin.
Tak To
> On Jul 16, 12:54 pm, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>> ltlee1 wrote:
>>> I think both of us got side-tracked. I raised the issue that Uighurs
>>> are not Xinjiang natives. You objected my raising the question
>>> because I failed to define "native". So I rephrased. They were
>>> immigrant and/or descendants of immigrants.
>>
>> So, what is your definition of "immigrant"?
>>
>> Since it has been shown that all humans came from Africa,
>> are all Europeans, Asians and Americans immigrants?
>>
>>> According to Jack Chen's book, Ouighours were originally nomads
>>> from region "along the Selenga River, southwest of Lake Baikal and
>>> on the upper reaches of the Yensei."
>>> If you think they are Xinjiang natives, please make your case.
>>
>> The Uyghurs, as an ethnic people, have been in southern
>> Xinjiang since the Chagatai Khanate. (The Dzungarian
>> Wars did not affect the population that much.) If one
>> takes religion off as a criterion in defining ethnicity,
>> then we had the Uighur Khanate there in Tang times.
>
> will accept that for the time being.
>
>> Whether this fits your definition of "native" and/or
>> "immigrant" does not really matter.
>
> I see that you are avoding the question.
> Were they not moved from somewhere else to today's Xinjiang?
> Did they enter the region while it was uninhabited by any other
> tribe?
I am not aware that you are asking me a question.
And if you are to ask me whether the Uyghurs are
immigrants, you need to define "immigrant" for me
first.
In particular, please answer my question whether
all Asians, Europeans and (native) Americans are
"immigrants".
> My answer to both questions are "NO" and "NO". Hence
> they are immigrants.
Please remind me what these two questions are.
> If you want to argue that they
> are native of Xinjiang,
> say it outright and efend your positoin.
I have no interest in argument anything regarding "native"
or "immigrants" before the definitions of these keywords
are laid down.
As always, I am more interested in presenting facts
than arguing about political stands. The fact is that
Uyghurs have been in souther Xinjiang since Yuan.
ltlee1
Read the title of the subthread. It is in the form of a question.
I did modified it because you think I should not ask the question.
But the issue is the same. Are Xighurs natives immigrants or
natives?
Well, see the above question.
>
> In particular, please answer my question whether
> all Asians, Europeans and (native) Americans are
> "immigrants".
>
See the above two criteria which I had framed as questions.
Apply them and reach your own concludion. If you don't
agree with my criteria. Please provide your definition and
explain your view.
> > My answer to both questions are "NO" and "NO". Hence
> > they are immigrants.
>
> Please remind me what these two questions are.
Question concerning Uighurs and Xinjiang cut and paste for your
convenience:
"Were they not moved from somewhere else to today's Xinjiang?
Did they enter the region while it was uninhabited by any other
tribe?"
>
> > If you want to argue that they
> > are native of Xinjiang,
> > say it outright and efend your positoin.
>
> I have no interest in argument anything regarding "native"
> or "immigrants" before the definitions of these keywords
> are laid down.
>
> As always, I am more interested in presenting facts
> than arguing about political stands. The fact is that
> Uyghurs have been in souther Xinjiang since Yuan.
1. Is the above fact?
May be you should be more precise.How many Uighurs
occupying how large an area of Xinjing? How big was their
population relative to the total populaiton Xinjuang?
2. So what? What is the significance of this so called fact?
Some Uighurs had dwelled in Hunan for 600+ years. So what?
Are tjhey native to Hunan?
>
> Tak
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
> Tak To ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
> --------------------------------------------------------------------^^
> [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr- Hide quoted text -
Tak To
OK, I see the question, but the criteria were not clear
until now.
>> In particular, please answer my question whether
>> all Asians, Europeans and (native) Americans are
>> "immigrants".
>>
> See the above two criteria which I had framed as questions.
> Apply them and reach your own concludion. If you don't
> agree with my criteria. Please provide your definition and
> explain your view.
OK, according to your definition, the Uighurs (non Muslim)
were immigrants, but the Uyghurs (Muslim) were not.
Muslim Uyghurs existed nowhere else before.
Also, all Europeans, Asians, and (native) Americans are
immigrants.
----- ----
>>> My answer to both questions are "NO" and "NO". Hence
>>> they are immigrants.
>> Please remind me what these two questions are.
>
> Question concerning Uighurs and Xinjiang cut and paste for your
> convenience:
>
> "Were they not moved from somewhere else to today's Xinjiang?
> Did they enter the region while it was uninhabited by any other
> tribe?"
See above.
----- ------
>>> If you want to argue that they
>>> are native of Xinjiang,
>>> say it outright and efend your positoin.
>>
>> I have no interest in argument anything regarding "native"
>> or "immigrants" before the definitions of these keywords
>> are laid down.
>>
>> As always, I am more interested in presenting facts
>> than arguing about political stands. The fact is that
>> Uyghurs have been in souther Xinjiang since Yuan.
>
> 1. Is the above fact?
> May be you should be more precise.How many Uighurs
> occupying how large an area of Xinjing? How big was their
> population relative to the total populaiton Xinjuang?
I don't think the relative population, or the relative size
of the occupied area matter in this context.
> 2. So what? What is the significance of this so called fact?
This fact counters your claim that most of (the ancestors
of) the current Uyghurs in Xinjiang moved there after
the Dzungarian Wars.
> Some Uighurs had dwelled in Hunan for 600+ years. So what?
> Are tjhey native to Hunan?
Again, what is your definition of "native"?
Assuming that your "native" is the strict opposite of
your "immigrant", then Uighurs at the point of immigrating
to Hunan were not natives, but their Sinicized descendants
are.
ltlee1
Your argument is absurd. Poeple either move or do not move. It
has nothing to do with religion. Are you saying that ethnnic
Chinese are native Americans if they take up Christianity while
in America?
> Also, all Europeans, Asians, and (native) Americans are
> immigrants.
>
I did not say that. Neither will my criteria lead to the above
conclusion.
For instance, I will not called the "native Americans" (native as part
of a
propler noun) immigrants because they were not known to have
established themselves elsewehre as a people. The same applies to
native Australians or the Taiwan Mountain poeple.
Can we say the same about the Uighurs? Not at all. Let me quote Jack
Chen again:
"In 840, Quighour power on the nother steppes begin to decline.
Devastating
blizzards and pestilence killed off much of their livestock. There
were attacked
by the wild Kirghiz of the Upper Yenisei. With their capital sacked
and their khan
slain, the Ouighour tribes took to flight. Though seperated into two
groups, they
maintain their identity. Fifteen clans migrates westward to seek the
protection
of the Karluks and Yagma, the Turki tribes which pastured north of hte
Tienshan
in the Ili area. Fifteen more clan fled south. Some sought refuge with
the Tufan.
Some took to rading Shansi Province, ... ".
Quighours was known as a people by themselves and by outsiders before
they
had moved to the Xinjiang region. They maintained their tribal
identity while
settling. Similarly we can say English and Irish had migrated from
Engand and
Irland to America. In contrast, Europeans and Asians are racial
description. While
Indians and Han Chinese are all Asians, the opposite is not true.
> ----- ----
>
> >>> My answer to both questions are "NO" and "NO". Hence
> >>> they are immigrants.
> >> Please remind me what these two questions are.
>
> > Question concerning Uighurs and Xinjiang cut and paste for your
> > convenience:
>
> > "Were they not moved from somewhere else to today's Xinjiang?
> > Did they enter the region while it was uninhabited by any other
> > tribe?"
>
> See above.
See what?
> ----- ------
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> If you want to argue that they
> >>> are native of Xinjiang,
> >>> say it outright and efend your positoin.
>
> >> I have no interest in argument anything regarding "native"
> >> or "immigrants" before the definitions of these keywords
> >> are laid down.
>
> >> As always, I am more interested in presenting facts
> >> than arguing about political stands. The fact is that
> >> Uyghurs have been in souther Xinjiang since Yuan.
>
> > 1. Is the above fact?
> > May be you should be more precise.How many Uighurs
> > occupying how large an area of Xinjing? How big was their
> > population relative to the total populaiton Xinjuang?
>
> I don't think the relative population, or the relative size
> of the occupied area matter in this context.
Is it fair to say that you don't have the fact?
No, relative population size and distribution is important. Native,
as in "the Uighurs are Xinjiang native" is a political claim. Without
information on population and distribution, one cannot evaluate
such claim objectively.
>
> > 2. So what? What is the significance of this so called fact?
>
> This fact counters your claim that most of (the ancestors
> of) the current Uyghurs in Xinjiang moved there after
> the Dzungarian Wars.
Most of today's Xinjiang had no Uighurs immediately after the fall
of the Dzungaira empire. Counter this if you want.
>
> > Some Uighurs had dwelled in Hunan for 600+ years. So what?
> > Are tjhey native to Hunan?
>
> Again, what is your definition of "native"?
>
> Assuming that your "native" is the strict opposite of
> your "immigrant", then Uighurs at the point of immigrating
> to Hunan were not natives, but their Sinicized descendants
> are.
All right, my question should be "Are they the descendant
of immigrants?"
>
> Tak
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
> Tak To ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
> --------------------------------------------------------------------^^
> [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Day Brown
> If you do not agree with somebody's claim that
> Uyghur are natives to Xinjiang, state your definition
> of "native" and why Uyghurs in Xinjiang do not fit
> the definition. There is no point of posting rhetoric
> questions that nobody can answer.
how far back they go. Uighers have been robbing Tocharian graves and
desecrating priceless Buddhist art that was created by the true 'natives'.
The Han respect this Buddhist cultural heritage. I have a copy of the
Maitreyasamiti texts in Tocharian A, which was found by Taoist monks
cleaning a BUDDHIST temple. It dates from the 5th century. The Uighers
would have destroyed it as "infidel".
We saw what the Taliban did to the priceless monumental Buddhas in
Afghanistan. We do not want to see Uigher zealots in power to do the same.
prophet Muhammud the Child Fucker
the Uyghurs have been in Xin Jiang since 804 AD , after
the Girgyz from the Yenesei defeated the Uyghurs
in Mongolia , the KirGyz chased the Uyghurs
and pushed the Uyghurs west into Xin Jiang ,
out of Mongolia .
Uyghurs were Budhists in north Xin Jiang ,
and Uyghurs in South Xin Jiang were converted to Islam .
prophet Muhammud the Child Fucker
in North Xin Jiang ,
see Kizil Budhist caves 5th century AD , and
Bazeklik Budhist caves 6th century AD .
the Uyghurs in South Xin Jiang were converted
to Islam in South Xin Jiang .
prophet Muhammud the Child Fucker
Jul 17, 12:15 pm, prophet Muhammud the Child Fucker
prophet Muhammud the Child Fucker
n Jul 17, 12:36 pm, prophet Muhammud the Child Fucker
ltlee1
<mohamedholy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Tak-To ,
> the Uyghurs have been in Xin Jiang since 804 AD , after
> the Girgyz from the Yenesei defeated the Uyghurs
> in Mongolia , the KirGyz chased the Uyghurs
> and pushed the Uyghurs west into Xin Jiang ,
> out of Mongolia .
About 200 years too late. Sui army had first fought and conquered the
Tufans in 608 AD. Beginning at Tang had established several cities
and
administrative districts in Xinjiang.
Uihurs stole Chinse land in 840 AD. .
> > [taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr- Hide quoted text -
wakalukong
into Xin Jiang around 600 AD, Uyghurs
were spreading west into Tian Shan , that is
why you have Budhist Caves in Kizil dating 5th century,
and Budhist caves in Bezelik dating 6th century .
Uyghurs eventually migrated in massive number
after the KirGyz defeated the Uyghurs in
Mongolia.
I have not read any history about
the Sui 's power extending their
Chinese power into Xin Jiang .
Tang emperors only established military outposts in Xinjiang
along the silk road,
Tang emperors did not control Xin Jiang,
Tang military only safe guard the Route for silk
transport, only the route , nothing apart from the route.
even before the KirGyz entered Mongolia .
I understood the Tang emperor had friendly
Alliance with KaoChang Budhist Kingdom in Turpan .,
but I did not Sui emperor had conquered Turpan militarilly .
.
wakalukong
ltlee1
> I thought the Uyghurs started to migrate
> into Xin Jiang around 600 AD, Uyghurs
> were spreading west into Tian Shan , that is
> why you have Budhist Caves in Kizil dating 5th century,
> and Budhist caves in Bezelik dating 6th century .
>
> Uyghurs eventually migrated in massive number
> after the KirGyz defeated the Uyghurs in
> Mongolia.
>
> I have not read any history about
> the Sui 's power extending their
> Chinese power into Xin Jiang .
Well, Tufan attacked China, Sui raised a large army and
it finally conquered Tufan. Tang continued with Sui's expansion,
it absorbed some smaller nations in Xinjiang and as I had posted,
established several cities and administrative district.
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
wakalukong
around the 5th century AD, you can see
Uyghur' s Budhist Kizil caves
dating back to 5 th century AD in Tian Shan .
Uyghurs migrated massively in 840AD
after KirGyz defeated Uyhgurs in Mongolia .
n Jul 17, 7:40 pm, wakalukong <wakaluko...@gmail.com> wrote:
Day Brown
> the Uyghurs were originally Budhists in Mongolia and
> in North Xin Jiang ,
>
>
> see Kizil Budhist caves 5th century AD , and
> Bazeklik Budhist caves 6th century AD .
>
> the Uyghurs in South Xin Jiang were converted
> to Islam in South Xin Jiang .
and desecrate their holy places. The Uighers do.
Monster
here below is a map of Sui Dynasty .
Xin Jiang was not includedd into Sui Dynasty's territory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sui_Dynasty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_Dynasty
Itlee is lying about history of SUI and Tang
Monster
see the history of the Shatuo Turks and compare
with your statement
that Sui conquered Xin Jiang which was not true .
Itlee , yuo falisfied history of SUI dynasty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shatuo_Turks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur_Empire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordu_Baliq
Itlee . you falsified Chinese history.
.
n Jul 17, 5:34 pm, ltlee1 <ltl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Monster
bear in Mind that the Tang emperors did not control Xin Jiang,
the Tang emperors only controlled the narrow strip of
Silk Route inside
Xin Jiang .
The Uyghurs and the Shatuo Turks controlled Xin Jiang.
Tang emperors employed the Turks and the Uyghurs to fight
for
Tang military, because Tang emperors had XianBee blood line ,
because of the marriage of Lee Imperial family
with the daughters of Yang emperor of Sui Dynasty .
Yang emperor of Sui had XianBee wives.
So the Lee Imperial family of Tang Dyansty
was of white skin, and thus not pure Chinese .
That was why Uyghurs and Shatuo Turks served in the Tang army.
Tang emperors and Uyghurs were related through Xian Bee
bloodline.
.
.
Tak To
People can get assimilated; or they can absorb
foreign elements (language, religion, inter-marriage,
etc) that change their ethnicity so ddrastically
that a new name is warranted.
> Are you saying that ethnnic Chinese are native
> Americans if they take up Christianity while
> in America?
I am not talking about individuals, I am talking
about an entire people, and over generations. It
also depends on the impact on the culture brought
on by the religion. E.g., the culture of pre-Islam
Egyptians was quite distinct from current one, to
the extend that people henceforth identified
themselves as Arabs rather than Egyptians. Both
Croats and Serbs see themselves as two different
people, etc.
Note that in the case of the Pre-Islam Uighur vs
post-Chagatai Uyghurs, religion is not the only
difference. The racial make up have changed a
great deal and many Turkic tribes that were in
Xinjian were assimilated. The ethnicity of the
Karakhanids is a controversial matter, but most
Chinese historians classify them as Uyghura rather
than Kalmuks or Yagmas.
In any case, whether Uighur/Ugyhur were one
ethnic people or two is debatable. And that's
why I left it as an open issue.
----- -----
>> Also, all Europeans, Asians, and (native) Americans
>> are immigrants.
>
> I did not say that. Neither will my criteria lead to
> the above conclusion. For instance, I will not called
> the "native Americans" (native as part of a propler
> noun) immigrants because they were not known to have
> established themselves elsewehre as a people.
Of course they had. It is just that they were not
described in the history books. This is like saying
that because nothing is known about one's ancestors
30 generation ago one must not have any ancestors going
back that far.
> The same applies to native Australians or the Taiwan
> Mountain poeple.
See above.
----- -----
> Can we say the same about the Uighurs? Not at all. Let
> me quote Jack Chen again:
> [...]
I have no problem calling Uighurs of Tang times
immigrants to Xinjiang.
> In contrast, Europeans and Asians are racial
> description. [...]
It is true that Asians, Europeans and native Americans
in the context are genetic groups rather than ethnic
groups. However, it does not follow that your previous
criteria cannot be applied to them. To wit: (1) they
(i.e., their genetic ancestors) moved from Africa.
(2) There were human species in Asia, Europe and the
Americas before their arrival.
> While Indians and Han Chinese are all Asians,
> the opposite is not true.
----- -----
>>>>> My answer to both questions are "NO" and "NO". Hence
>>>>> they are immigrants.
>>>>
>>>> Please remind me what these two questions are.
>>>
>>> Question concerning Uighurs and Xinjiang cut and paste for your
>>> convenience:
>>> "Were they not moved from somewhere else to today's Xinjiang?
>>> Did they enter the region while it was uninhabited by any other
>>> tribe?"
>>
>> See above.
>
> See what?
My answers that occurred earlier in that post.
----- -----
>>>>> If you want to argue that they
>>>>> are native of Xinjiang,
>>>>> say it outright and efend your positoin.
>>>>
>>>> I have no interest in argument anything regarding "native"
>>>> or "immigrants" before the definitions of these keywords
>>>> are laid down.
>>>> As always, I am more interested in presenting facts
>>>> than arguing about political stands. The fact is that
>>>> Uyghurs have been in souther Xinjiang since Yuan.
>>>
>>> 1. Is the above fact?
>>> May be you should be more precise.How many Uighurs
>>> occupying how large an area of Xinjing? How big was their
>>> population relative to the total populaiton Xinjuang?
>>
>> I don't think the relative population, or the relative size
>> of the occupied area matter in this context.
>
> Is it fair to say that you don't have the fact?
I do not have the relative population data. However, as I
said before, the relative population data do not change
that fact whether Uyghurs were in Xinjiang since Yuan.
Same for the relative size of the occupied area.
> No, relative population size and distribution is important.
> Native, as in "the Uighurs are Xinjiang native" is a
> political claim. Without information on population and
> distribution, one cannot evaluate such claim objectively.
Once again: I am not talking about the claim. Please
read the exact words of my statements.
----- -----
>>> 2. So what? What is the significance of this so called fact?
>>
>> This fact counters your claim that most of (the ancestors
>> of) the current Uyghurs in Xinjiang moved there after
>> the Dzungarian Wars.
>
> Most of today's Xinjiang had no Uighurs immediately after
> the fall of the Dzungaira empire. Counter this if you want.
You have changed your wording.
Here is your original statement in
<424a9513-e69b-46d3...@g7g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
"As the results of wars (some said genocide) and smallpox
epidemic, the region was depopulated. To repopulate the land,
foreigners, including Uighurs, were invited to take up
residence in Xinjiang by the Qing government."
In the old post you referred to Xinjiang; now you qualify
it as "most of Xinjiang".
----- -----
>>> Some Uighurs had dwelled in Hunan for 600+ years. So what?
>>> Are tjhey native to Hunan?
>>
>> Again, what is your definition of "native"?
>>
>> Assuming that your "native" is the strict opposite of
>> your "immigrant", then Uighurs at the point of immigrating
>> to Hunan were not natives, but their Sinicized descendants
>> are.
>
> All right, my question should be "Are they the descendant
> of immigrants?"
All Europeans, Asians, and (native) Americans are descendants
of immigrants.
Jesus Christ the Cunt Fucker
arrived Chang An ?
Nestorians ought to have beatten the Shit out
of the Budhists in Kizil .
ltlee1
May be you can give more thought to the issues involved.
What makes a poeple a people is that it can be identified internally
and externally as a people distinct from other poeples. Given that
living cultures are changing cultures, adopting a new religion per se
does not necessarily make a group of humans a new people. To the
extend that it can be identified as an older people, it is the same
older people. In addition, to the extend that it can be identified as
a
people, it always entails a certain claim different from other
peoples'
claim.
Implications:
1. Chinese taking up Christianity in America does not make them
native
Americans because they are still identified as Chinese.
2. Uighurs taking up a different faith does nto make them native or a
new
people as long as they were and are identified internally and
externally as
the same people of earlier time.
3. Euorpeans and Asians are not immigrants from Africans because they
are not identified as Africans. Native Americans are not identified as
Asians
although they travelled to America from ASia bu crossing the Bering
sTrait.
>
> ----- -----
>
> >>> 2. So what? What is the significance of this so called fact?
>
> >> This fact counters your claim that most of (the ancestors
> >> of) the current Uyghurs in Xinjiang moved there after
> >> the Dzungarian Wars.
>
> > Most of today's Xinjiang had no Uighurs immediately after
> > the fall of the Dzungaira empire. Counter this if you want.
>
> You have changed your wording.
>
> Here is your original statement in
> <424a9513-e69b-46d3-809a-e88d98367...@g7g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
> "As the results of wars (some said genocide) and smallpox
> epidemic, the region was depopulated. To repopulate the land,
> foreigners, including Uighurs, were invited to take up
> residence in Xinjiang by the Qing government."
>
> In the old post you referred to Xinjiang; now you qualify
> it as "most of Xinjiang".
Xinjian or most of Xinjiang depends on the map. I saw at least one
map
showing the Djungaria Empire encomprising more or less the whole of
today's Xinjiang. Others don't. This is why I mention the exact border
of
the Zungharia Empire as relevant in one of my earlier post.
Nevertheless, the number of people in Uighurs regions is relatively
small.
According to Jach Chen's book, Greater Kashgaris only had 16000
households in comparison with Xinjiang's 2.5 million perople, 1.6
million
in the northern part of Xinjiang, at 1850.
>
> ----- -----
>
> >>> Some Uighurs had dwelled in Hunan for 600+ years. So what?
> >>> Are tjhey native to Hunan?
>
> >> Again, what is your definition of "native"?
>
> >> Assuming that your "native" is the strict opposite of
> >> your "immigrant", then Uighurs at the point of immigrating
> >> to Hunan were not natives, but their Sinicized descendants
> >> are.
>
> > All right, my question should be "Are they the descendant
> > of immigrants?"
>
> All Europeans, Asians, and (native) Americans are descendants
> of immigrants.
>
> Tak
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
> Tak To ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
> --------------------------------------------------------------------^^
CPC - Communist Party of China
you have forgotten to mention that there were
thousands of Russians in Xin Jiang in 1850 .
especially in North Xin Jiang .
some Russians agreed to leave Xin Jiang after
the 1881 St . Petersbrug Treaty .
many Russians continued to live in North Xin Jiang
until now .
> According to Jach Chen's book, Greater Kashgaris only had 16000 ...
>
> read more »
wakalukong
Fraudster Komin, you thought of having more shit shoved down your
throat? OK, open your mouth.
[Shit]
Say thank you.
Wakalukong
wakalukong
did become Nestorian Christians .
wakalukong
> actually the Western Mongol who called themselves as Oirat
> did become Nestorian Christians .
---------
And Fraudster Komin did become a shit eater.
Wakalukong
Tak To
> [...]
> May be you can give more thought to the issues involved.
> What makes a poeple a people is that it can be identified internally
> and externally as a people distinct from other poeples. Given that
> living cultures are changing cultures, adopting a new religion per se
> does not necessarily make a group of humans a new people.
Agree on the "per se" part.
> To the extend that it can be identified as an older people,
> extend that it can be identified as an older people,
> it is the same older people.
The issue is thus on whether the Uyghurs of Chagatai Khanate
were identifiable with the old Uighurs. As I said, the issue
is debatable. I have also mentioned that at Chagatai Khanate's
time, Uyghur was not an autonym.
And "external identification" is not always truthful.
Russians once thought Hans and Khitanians were the same
people.
> In addition, to the extend that it can be identified as
> a people, it always entails a certain claim different
> from other peoples' claim.
This is neither here nor there.
> Implications:
> 1. Chinese taking up Christianity in America does not make
> them native Americans because they are still identified
> as Chinese.
>
> 2. Uighurs taking up a different faith does nto make them a
> new people as long as they were and are identified internally
> and externally as the same people of earlier time.
See above.
----- -----
> 3. Euorpeans and Asians are not immigrants from Africans
> because they are not identified as Africans. Native
> Americans are not identified as Asians although they travelled
> to America from ASia bu crossing the Bering sTrait.
Let me repeat the following paragraph from my
previous post:
It is true that Asians, Europeans and native Americans
in the context are genetic groups rather than ethnic
groups. However, it does not follow that your previous
criteria cannot be applied to them. To wit: (1) they
(i.e., their genetic ancestors) moved from Africa.
(2) There were human species in Asia, Europe and the
Americas before their arrival.
----- -----
>>> Most of today's Xinjiang had no Uighurs immediately after
>>> the fall of the Dzungaira empire. Counter this if you want.
>>
>> You have changed your wording.
>>
>> Here is your original statement in
>> <424a9513-e69b-46d3-809a-e88d98367...@g7g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
>> "As the results of wars (some said genocide) and smallpox
>> epidemic, the region was depopulated. To repopulate the land,
>> foreigners, including Uighurs, were invited to take up
>> residence in Xinjiang by the Qing government."
>>
>> In the old post you referred to Xinjiang; now you qualify
>> it as "most of Xinjiang".
>
> Xinjian or most of Xinjiang depends on the map. I saw at
> least one map showing the Djungaria Empire encomprising
> more or less the whole of today's Xinjiang. Others don't.
> This is why I mention the exact border of the Zungharia
> Empire as relevant in one of my earlier post.
No. Your original question was whether the Uyghurs
were natives to the land defined by the border of
_today's_ Xinjiang. The borders of historical Xinjiang
or the Dzungarian Empire have no bearing on the
question.
> Nevertheless, the number of people in Uighurs regions
> relatively small.
It does not matter as long as the the majority of them
did not arrived from outside (today's) Xinjiang after
the Dzungarian wars.
> According to Jach Chen's book, Greater Kashgaris
> only had 16000 households in comparison with Xinjiang's
> 2.5 million perople, 1.6 million in the northern
> part of Xinjiang, at 1850.
I doubt the 16000 household figure. Nonetheless, again,
it does not matter.
Tak To
>
> Jul 17, 12:15 pm, prophet Muhammud the Child Fucker
> <mohamedholy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Tak-To ,
>> the Uyghurs have been in Xin Jiang since 804 AD , after
>> the Girgyz from the Yenesei defeated the Uyghurs
>> in Mongolia , the KirGyz chased the Uyghurs
>> and pushed the Uyghurs west into Xin Jiang ,
>> out of Mongolia .
>>
>> Uyghurs were Budhists in north Xin Jiang ,
>> and Uyghurs in South Xin Jiang were converted to Islam .
>
> typing mistake , 840 , instead of 804 AD .
Yes, there was a big migration back than.
I am not sure what your disagrement is (if any). I have
always said that Uighurs were in Xinjiang since the Tang
Dynasty (618-907 AD).
Tak
--
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr
)