Mike,

According to the brochure "The Xinjiang Problem" published by the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute,
Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at The Johns Hopkins University (
http://www.cornellcaspian.com/pub2/xinjiang_final.pdf), the "separatist plan called "Xinjiang Project" that aims at "splitting Xinjiang" is nothing more than a scholarly work conducted by the experts of the Central Asia/Xinjiang.

The result of the "project" has been published as a book "Xinjiang: China's Muslim Borderland" by M. E. Sharpe, Inc. in 2004.

Please read the following introduction to the "Xinjiang Project":

Introduction: The Xinjiang Project

This paper is a product of “The Xinjiang Project” involving eighteen of the most competent specialists on Xinjiang, who collaborated over
four years to present a three-dimensional picture of the current situation in that province. They drew on the best research available in the social sciences and humanities, including geography,
anthropology, sociology, religious studies, and economics. They also sought to elucidate the present in terms of Xinjiang’s entire relevant
past, as analyzed by modern historians.

The Xinjiang Project began in 1998, well before the events of 11 September 2001. It was instigated by Sinologist Robert Oxnam and Frederick Starr, along with Ambassador Nicholas Platt, president of
The Asia Society, and several other friends who were traveling in Xinjiang with The Asia Society, among them Mr. and Mrs. Ernest Kepper, Rajbir Malkani, Nancy Hawe, and others.

The timing could not have been better. Over the previous two decades a strong cadre of younger scholars interested in Xinjiang had emerged in the West, mainly in the United States. They know all the relevant languages, whether Uyghur, Mandarin, Russian, or more arcane tongues, modern and ancient. Moreover, they all bring solid
grounding in their disciplines, as well as considerable field experience in Xinjiang. Their research constitutes the most solid contribution of twentieth century western scholarship to the study of any part of Central Asia.

The Xinjiang Project was conceived as a two-part exercise. The first was designed to produce a single collaborate volume that would provide educated non-specialists in many countries with an
authoritative introduction to the territory and its people, past and present. That volume, entitled Xinjiang: China’s Muslim Frontier, is
being published by M.E. Sharpe as the first of the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute’s Monograph Series, in December, 2003.

The book, Xinjiang: China’s Muslim Frontier, neither makes nor implies recommendations on future policy to any government or institution.
Those tasks were carefully set aside and assigned to a second and entirely separate work that would discuss the geopolitical implications
of the research, draw conclusions, and offer policy recommendations for national governments and international bodies. These are the
goals of this monograph.

The two authors are solely responsible for the contents of this paper. While they draw on the work of their colleagues on The Xinjiang
Project, the specific use to which they put the data and the conclusions they draw from them are their own. Interested readers may want to consult Xinjiang: China’s Muslim Frontier itself for more detailed discussions of many of the issues
touched on herein. The Table of Contents is appended to this paper in lieu of a bibliography.
The Xinjiang Project would not have been possible without the steadfast support of the Henry Luce Foundation of New York. The Vice-President of that foundation and its Program Director for Asia,
Mr. Terrill E. Lautz, is himself a highly qualified student of China and his colleague, Ms. Helena Kolenda, Program Officer for Asia, also
brings years of first-hand experience in the field. Their deft guidance, intelligent advice, and notable patience helped make The Xinjiang
Project a rewarding experience for all participants. We warmly thank them both.

Graham E. Fuller
S. Frederick Starr

I can give you guys some backgroud information.

How to break China is a subject lasted for many years since 1840 Opium War. Russia encroched from Xinjiang, Mongolia and Manchuria, Japan invaded from Korea, Manchura, and Shandong Penisula, British conquired from Hong Kong, Canton, and Tibet, France moved to Vietnam and Yuanan. But either by Christian conversion, or democracy, all efforts were failed and thus the term of "China exception".

Since Soviet Union fall down, China is being considered the number one enemy of Western Civilization and biggest challenge on Liberal Democracy of West (Europe and North America) and American hegemony. Countering the West-dominated world and universalism of Western value (such as democracy and freedom, etc., like what America sells in Iraq), China's multipolarized world and alternative developing model (Beijing Consensus) are winning people over Non-Western part of world.

If you read the Oct, 2000 Pentagon report, you will understand that from Belgrade Bombing, Koizumi shrine visit, to Hainan aircraft incident are events designed for confrontation against China. Until a little guy named Bin Ladan did something called 911 took China off the hook. At 2005, some strategists tried to bring attention back to China, so there was an article called "How to beat China?" in Altantic Monthly.

Put it short, the strategy is to encycle China with hostile forces. Japan is on board, but South Korea is not. Rice went to Australia and Indonisia to form a triangle (with Japan), but was rejected by both countries. Bush's visit to Mongolia and Vietnam did yield anything. Mongols are too happy to live in Inner Mongolia and Vietnamese still remembered the War with China in 1979 (basicall China showed Soviet Union has no guts to honor its alliance agreement with Vietnam). Bush also went to India to give some nice gift, but if India allows American-backed Tibetan militaric movement (not allowed by Dalai Lama anyway), China can support seperatist movements of Sikkim, Assiam, etc. to make India crazy. Burma moved the capital inland to avoid an American intervention, and Pakistan is too dangerous for any CIA coup--things can be worse if it did.

Basically the design is to create two fronts in both side of China. CIA's work cut short in Uzibikstan but worked in Krigizstan. So you have US military base at least in Bishkirk to threat China's stragetic military heartland in west. The price paid is that China and Pakistan ceased the cooperation on Al Quada, so basically give them and Tabliban some breathing room, so they can cause more troubles for USA/NATO. More important, any troop movement into Afghan is restricted by Pakistan to limit any significant numbers that China doesn't like. So here is what it looks like now.

Basically the ideal situation is to build a good strong foothold in Central Asia, especially Afghan, then promote Uyghur, Tibetan militaric seperatist movement (of course, if they can get Mongols onboard, not likely) to cause chaos in west of China, then at that time, use Taiwan independant as a trigger to instigate a war against China by a combination of USA/NATO/Japan. Ultimate goal is to beat China back to delay its raise for another 50 years, or better make China likes a EU with numerous small countries.

There are two problems for this great plan:

1) USA needs free access into Central Asia. That free access is named Iran. Georgia is too easy to be shut down by Russia.

2) China has a LOT of nuclear weapons. If push becomes shave, a tiny portion of them can scare Japan and Western Europe off the bandwagon. For USA, it likes doing wars in other people's living room, and if it isn't working, USA can always wash the hands and go back to its comfortable room. But not a war against China. China will make sure few US cities become rubbles if it goes ugly. "Do my living room, I will do your living room" is China's counter strategy.

I wonder what kind of evidence chinese would bring to the world community. Do they think americans and other western scholars are stupid. At least scholarly level they know about East Turkistan.
Chinese may want try to propagate their trash history and facts, but it only works for the people who refuse to think. but again do not work for scholars.
After their invasion, Chinese have been killing , maiming , torturing local people in the last 50 years. They is the nake fact, what they still want to say?
I always believed their ability to lie and create fake things, let them continue. I believe there will be day, we will see the sunrise.

Hi Sha,
you still here. So are you threating USA with nuclear bombs?!. why you think that way my friend!, do not you know that would kill great number of people?.
Why it is so difficult for you guys to give up violence and go to democracy? . Why you need that confrontation? why you need to torture Uyghurs and Tibetans. If you happen to born as an Uyghur would you think. Man have a life, this world need peace and violence and genocide.

Correction for the post above.

Hi Sha,
you still here. So are you threating USA with nuclear bombs?!. why you think that way my friend!, do not you know that would kill great number of people?.
Why it is so difficult for you guys to give up violence and go to democracy? . Why you need that confrontation? why you need to torture Uyghurs and Tibetans. If you happen to born as an Uyghur what would you think. Man have a life, this world needs peace and NOT violence and genocide.

Correction for the post above. sorry for the mess.

Hi Sha,
you still here. So are you threating USA with nuclear bombs?!. why you think that way my friend!, do not you know that would kill great number of people?.
Why it is so difficult for you guys to give up violence and go to democracy? . Why you need that confrontation? why you need to torture Uyghurs and Tibetans. If you happen to born as an Uyghur what would you think. Man have a life, this world needs peace NOT violence and genocide.

@Heverci: well put. I've actually met some of the contributors to Starr's book and several have been denied visas since publication. They've even heard rumors that the book was condemned in meetings of the Central Party Committee. It definitely has alot of criticism for the PRC, but its in no way a "plan" to split Xinjiang.

@Sha: I think you're putting too many eggs in one basket. I'll give you that some in the American government have China on the brain when it comes to military planning - what else is Pacific Command going to do with their time anyway? And there is a bit of a Great Game redux in Central Asia. But I don't think American interest in Iran is based on some grand encirclement strategy aimed at China, and I question whether an "encirclement strategy" is being pursued at all. It's not in the US interests to carve up China like a roast. I think a great deal of Pentagon actors believe or have their reputations staked on distrusting China, and suspect that China will invade somebody as soon as you take your eye off them. But that's not the same as a master plan to break the country apart and dominate it imperially.

As for the nuclear issue, that's meaningless bravado. If China suffers invasion by foreign powers again, yes, fine, they might actually consider it. But short of that, it ain't gonna happen, and an invasion of China is so far off into speculative fiction that its absurd to think about. I will say that I think China's nuclear arsenal makes it pointless for Japan to build one; deterrence is based on mutual annihilation, and since it takes a dozen nukes to obliterate Japan but hundreds to do so to China, its just way too hard to build a fully effective deterrent.

Dave,

I agree Iran issue is not just simple aim against China. But it is inline with USA's Mid East strategy (include Israel's security) and China's strategy. The importance of US/NATO military power based in Central Asia can help them checking China from West, Russia from South, and India from North. Of course, here US/West want to kill many birds with one single stone--prevent any dominant power to challenge West's sole superpower position in the world, and control the black gold lifeblood line.

China's raise will naturally worry West about a repeat of Germany and Japan last century. Military-Indurstry interest group in USA also play a self-benefiting role in this fear. Just check the new US military budget, there are 150 new warships (currently US has about 250 now) authorized for this "challenge". Hainan aircraft incident is a milestone that forced China's acceleration on solid fuel nuclear striking ability cover as far as Miami.

I don't believe there is any master plan to invade China, but I do believe there is a plan to use Taiwan Independance as a showhand play. Breaking China apart is not for purpose of dominating it, but for purpose of weakening it enough so it cannot impose a challenge to West-dominated world. Recently, Western historians move into a direction that will not recognize Qing (Manchu) Empire as a Chinese (Han) state which more or less had similar terroritory as PRC today, but ONLY recognize Ming Empire as Chinese state. You know what that means.

If you think nuclear is a taboo word, wait to see how the debate between White House and Pentagon about "tactical nuclear bunker-buster". If that become a reality, you bet that you will see that word very often in the future. For China, it is too weak militarily and economically face a confrontation from an alliance of USA/NATO/Japan, so raise the stake with "limited" nuclear war is a solution to prevent such confrontation.

Shanghai and Los Angeles nuclear exchange is often used in such context. It is used to inform American public to prevent US Government to stir things up in Pacific. Like I said that US always mess up other people's living room, this is a strategy to just put costs of war against China up.

Hi, my Uyghur brother,

You should know my position. Here is what I support and against:

--I support the genuine autonomy of Uyghurs because it is granted in Chinese Consitituion. But I am against only use autonomy as a label for seperatist movement.

--I support preservation of Uyghur'culture but against treating it as an article in Mesume. Uyghur culture cannot be preserved in a man-made vuccum that isolating it from other culture influence. It is a living thing that should evlove with great exchange with Han Culture, Western Culture, etc. and learn from them and also pass its influence over.

--I support a seperation of political identity and a culture identity. Just like a Han who can be citizen of USA, Canada, China, etc. but he/she is still a Han culturally, I think Uyghur is in same way that he/she can be a citizen of China or USA or Turkey or Germany, but still have the culture identity of Uyghur. As a citizen of those countries, you have to take your duty as required and also enjoy the priviliges you entitled.

--I support better education for all Uyghurs not just the kind of general eduction but also special job training that can prepare them in a better position to compete with Hans and others in future job market not just in Xinjiang but also all parts of China.

--I am against a restriction on migration of Hans into Xinjiang, but would instill certain programs to ensure local Uyghurs become beneficials in this process and not marginalized by this process. Such programs including affirmative action style quoto systems for ethnic Uyghurs in state projects in new jobs, preferential loan guarantee for Uyghur-Han joint venture private business, etc. I also promote Uyghur private business who expand their operations into all part of China.

--I also support more profit sharing from energy sectors and want to see those funds used in health care and a mean to promote ethnic Uyghur small/medium size business. Take my word, if you want to see job creation, private enterprise and SME is the way to go. I am totally against using this fund to make a welfare style payment that will kill the people.

What I really against is for militaric separation movement that is not just increase relegious extremists and fundamentalists, but may become a tool on large scale global confrontation.

Well, Sha, you make some good points, but some of your points make your user name some unfortunately appropriate.

The spy plane incident was not part of any grand conspiracy to bully China. The plane was flying through international airspace, yes it was spying, but that is legal and all countries do it, when a collision occured. The collision was accidental. It is physically all but impossible for a slow, unmanoueverable converted airliner to cause a collision with a fast, manoueverable jet fighter. The spy plane landed in Hainan not as part of any grand scheme to split China into a new Warring States period, but because that was the closest airport, and when you are flying over the sea in a seriously damaged plane, the closest airport is where you want to be, even if the airport is owned by your worst enemy (which is certainly NOT meant to suggest China and US are enemies. Rivals, maybe, but not enemies). To sum up: It was an unfortunate, embarassing accident. Embarassing for both parties.

And the most 'sha' of the ideas expressed (no offence intended to you, you are obviously a very smart guy, it's this idea that I can't stand, and I love wordplay too much): China does not, by and measure, possess a lot of nuclear weapons and even if it did, the only result of nuking American cities would be the complete and total destruction of China, and probably of the entire world. Sure, China possesses a small nuclear arsenal, more than India or Pakistan, probably less than the UK or France, but America has enough nuclear weapons that it could easily erase every country it dislikes from the map and still have enough left over to destroy China. Davesgonechina points out why it would be absurd for Japan to develop a nuclear arsenal to deter China (but he seems to forget that politicians are not necessarily as rational as bystanders like us), well, if you compare the Chinese and American nuclear arsenals you can see what sort of a no-win position China is in when the talk turns to nuclear war.

Sorry, but one of the worst mistakes you can make is to get a Kiwi ranting about nuclear weapons.

An Uygur, you challenge Sha to provide evidence for China's claims to Xinjiang and accuse China of twisting history. I have to say I have never yet seen any evidence for the historical existence of any independent Uygur state. Would you care to prove your case? I'm a disinterested, unbiased bystander, present your arguments, I'll listen.

I always enjoy the analogy that Xinjiang/East Turkistan was a nirvana pre-1949..........just like Tibet was a Shangri La that had never heard a word said in anger!!!
Ha! Ha!

And of course our chest-thumping macho guys boasting that they\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'re going to turn China into rubble........hmmmm! aren\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t you these the same guys who \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"don\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'t do body counts\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"? but still crying about losing 3,000 on their own soil? How on earth could they take 30,000, 300,000 nevermind three million casualties?

But enough of that rubbish............it so gets on my goat those that can only see things from their own naieve (and propaganda induced) perspective and that the West is the global moral compass & sole harbinger of good in this planet!
Its not even a generation ago Sting sang how we\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'d wondered \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"if the Russians love their children too?\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"
Now it\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'s the same if you\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'re a Muslim or Chinese!
You\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'re really doomed if you\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\'re a Chinese Muslim then!!!

back on point
As evidenced by US policy in Aye-rack you can have the best intelligence, most informed research and well intentioned planning but if execution and decision making is left to those of suspect character and intelligence we can rest assured the findings of and views hel in the Xinjiang project will never find a forum to execute them into policy. Of couse some US senators and congressmen, like EU parliamentarians will be swayed by the exotic appeal of the cause and will find vehicles to continue funding through various channels.

It will be interesting to see how this story develops as the Taiwan threat to stability at the 2008 Olympics sems to have subsided, so we cn only hope that the loonies gullible enough to be used by the sinister forces will not be thrust onto the stage to execute shows of bravado and martyrdom.

Apologies my browser format make this look like a mess

chriswaugh_bj,

I'm not an expert in Uyghur history, but let me list a few independent Uyghur states for your information:

1. Uyghur Empire (or On Uyghur, Toquz-Oghuz Orkhon Khanate, 745 to 840 A.D.): stretched from the Caspian Sea to Manchuria with the capital Ordu Baliq in the present day Mongolia. Following a famine and civil war, this empire was defeated by Kyrgyz (Khirghiz) with help of Chinese Tang empire, resulting in the large scale migration to modern day East Turkestan and Gansu (Kangsu) province of China, and formation of three independent states (vide infra).

2. Ganju (Ganzhou) Uyghur kingdom (9-11th century, A.D.): in the modern day Gansu province of China. Eventually, they were annexed by the Tangut kingdom. Descendants of these people still live in Gansu province and are called "Yuguzu （裕固族）" in Chinese and "Sériq Uyghur (Sari Uygur)" in Uyghur.

3. Karakhoja Uyghur kingdom (lasted until 1209 A.D.): based around the cities of Turfan (吐鲁番）and Qomul（哈密) of modern day East Turkestan. They eventually submitted to the rising Mongol empire as a vassal state.

4. Kara-Khanid Khanate (990-1212): the most famous of the three and ruled the western part of modern day East Turkistan and Maveraunnehr (modern day Central Asian "stans"). Kasghar (喀什) was its capital. This empire constitutes the most glorious part of Uyghur history, when such famous works as "Kutadgu Bilig (The Wisdom which brings Happiness)", "Diwanu Lughat at-Turk (comprehensive dictionary of Turkic languages)" were written in Uyghur language. This empire was eventually fell under the KharaKhitans, then Mongols.

5. Yarkend Khanate: was an independent Uyghur kingdom formed by the turkified descendants of Cengizhan, after the Chaghatay rule in the area ended. Its capital was Yarkend (莎车). Its area was extended to include Turfan and Qomul during the 15th century. It eventually fell under Jungar Mongols then Manchu Qing empire in the 18th century.

6. Kashgaria (1863-1877): an independent Uyghur state ruled by Kokand advanturer, Yaqub Beg (阿古博）, by combining the city states formed after the ~1860 rebellion against Qing rule in the Tarim Basin. It was re-conquered by the Qing army led by Zuo Zongtang (左宗棠）.

7. The First East Turkestan Republic: a short-lived state that existed from 1933 to 1934 in the area surrounding Kashgar.

8. The Second East Turkestan Republic: existed from 1944 until the Communist Party of China's People's Liberation Army annexed the area in 1949. The capital was Ghulja (Khulja, Yining 伊宁）. It controlled the whole northern East Turkestan, before fell prey to Chinese/Russian conspiracy.

heverci,

Your account is pretty accurate. Karaoja (Gaochan) was ruled by KharaKhitan (West Liao 西辽) before Mongol took over.

Also Yaqub Beg spend as many time fighting local Uyghurs as others.

About 2nd ETR, it already reach an agreement with Nationalist before Communist came. Of course, without Russian's help, it cannot survive at all. And that airplane crash killing all its leaders did look fishy but still unproven. There were no fighting for Communist to take over.

Or if you look back to 1910 Chinese Revolution, every provinces beside those near Beijing declared Independance. Tibet and Mongolia did too, but not Xinjiang.

Chris,

You should read the Oct, 2000 Pentagon report about 7 countries US should do pre-emptive strikes against them. It includes China and Russia on the list. Talking about crazy.

Hainan Incident had to put in the surrounding background. Spy mission in the area existed for decades and both parties had their red lines to be respected. One certain party escalted the situation and crossed the red line, that kind of accident occured. Remember, China (the weaker side) wasn't look a fight. The only reason you don't see the escaltion of confrontation further thanks to Bin Ladan who diverted US's attention and priority.

Nuclear War is not what China seeks, but a possiblity of "limit" nuclear strikes will REDUCE a war waged against China. That is the purpose of Deterrance. China doesn't have the numbers as USA and Russia, but more than UK and France. More important, China has enough to level 200 cities in USA for three times and still have enough to total wipe off Japan and some European countries. And it can upgrade their numbers within a very short time span.

You have to understand what China posed to West is not about military power and economy. It is more about "soft power". There are two things West doesn't like to hear:

1) Western value system (Liberial Democracy) is ONLY Western value and NOT universial. (I refer Bush's Democracy as Democrazy.) Non-Western world can reject such imposed value upon themself.

2) There are an alternative development model out of Western perscription. What happen in East Asia is more attribute to Asian value system, NOT Western value system. If Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Singapore are not so convincing, then China and Vietnam will prove it.

Since reject Western value means wars (Iraq), economic sanctions, IMF and World Bank manipulations, no wonder why Africans, South Americans, South-Eastern Asians and Muslims will naturally look on China as a source of inspiration and support. Not because what in China's offer is so much better, but they need anything to reject West.

That is the problem why we see anti-China sentiment in West.

China's military power is more about ensuring its terrority integrity. Taiwan looks stable now, but it is still hard to say. An assisnation of Nationalist Chairman Ma may just plunge it into total choas, and China has no choice but intervene.

Hi Chriswaugh_bj,
As Heverci mentioned above, Uyghurs had long history of independence and statehood. Although not very successful in recent history, but only a few nation states in modern age have great history of continued nationhood like Uyghur turks.
Just give you a few examples:
It is safe to say even Ancient Hun and Gokturks empires are estublished by Uyghur ancestors. for this part of history, chinese claims that Uyghur tribe only included in the empire, but existed as a different "ethnic group" inside the empire. For them a tribe of one people become different ethnic group. Even Uyghur shared same origin, language, culture and religion with the ruling tribe. This is one way of them to deprive your history.

Another example: Recently everybody is talking about cocasion tarim mummies. Chinese government's official history describes these people have nothing to do with Uyghurs. Even most Uyghurs around Tarim basin are racially cocasion and bears close resemblance to the mummies found around their homes. Modern DNA analysis also strengthens my argument( Read mito and Y DNA finddings).

Chinese claims Uyghurs came to East Turkistan around 9th century. before that time chinese was already settled , and east turkistan was part of china.Even we already know huns, tocharians, gokturks were there before 5 AD. 11th century Uyghur scholar Kashgarli mahmut did not mention anything about chinese existance in East Turkistan, and until 1950's we did not single village in chinese name .

Chriswaugh_bj, if you really interested in this part of history, please do not just read chinese history books published in recent years. Read what ancient chinese, persion and turks said about Uyghur turks.

Sha,
Yes, Karahoja payed taxis to KharaKhitan (West Liao 西辽) before Mongol took over. But it existed as independent Vassal county. When Chengizhan send his envoy to Karahoja, he accepted mongol rule and married chengizhan's only doughter.
Chengizhan really liked that Uyghur king, he called his his fifth son. Uyghurs existed as second important race in the Mongol empire. Most of the counselors and advisors of the empire was Uyghur.

Sha,

I know that both Khara-Khanids and Kharakhoja were ruled briefly by KharaKhitans before the rise of Cengizhan. There were written accounts of brutal rule of these guys over Uyghurs and that was one of the reason why Uyghurs willingly submitted to Cingizhan's advanced army and fought with them against the Kharakhitans. When I said "eventually", it doesn't mean I was neglecting this period.

No matter where he was from, or how he fought with local Uyghur rules (I said "combined" to include these fightings), Yaqub Beg was able to rule the Tarim basin and parts of eastern East Turkestan as an independent state.

Although the 2nd ETR reached an agreement （" 十一条和平协定", "11 Maddiliq Tichliq Bétimi") with KMT before the Communists came, it still remained as a separate state with their own currency and military forces and as I said, still controlled the whole northern East Turkestan. There were no fighting, because it was believed that there was a secret agreement with the CCP to keep the ET as a self-governing republic (自治共和国) of some sort (I had relative who worked in XUAR Party Committee and saw such a document with his own eyes). The ETR army was kept as seperate entity, before its eventual dissolution. Some ETR generals (Akhunov)formed underground party (East Turkestan People's Revolutionary Party, "Sherqiy Turkistan Xelq Inqilawi Partiyesi") to fight against the CCP rule and they did fight with the overwhelming communist forces before being martyred (Auguts 23, 1969 in the Jungles of Qarajul, in Atush [阿图什] county).

Although not able to overthrow the brutal regime of General Yang Zengxin (杨增新), Uyghurs did fight against his rule during the 1910, the people of Qomul (哈密) under the leadership of Tomur Khalipe being the most famous. They were able to defeat Yang's army several times and forced him to come to the negotiation table. An agreement was reached , Tomur was given a position in the provincial government before being killed in Yang's secret prison. His tomb still stands in the suburbs of Urumchi and regularly visited by Uyghurs.

An Uighur,

Glad to see you matured a lot and learned to make a proper argument instead of just randomly throwing groundless accusations. You people ARE capable of rational thinking (well, to some extent). I was wrong on you people and for that i apologize.

However you definition of 'Uighurs' is rather loose. You basically use that term to encopass any tribes or ethnicities who inhabited in today's Xinjiang. Based on this then of course Uighur has a continuous history and they are always the residents of Xinjiang. You can't lose this way, right? I think you should consult the diffirent parties such as Mongols, Huns, Turks etc if they consider themselves Uighurs. Of course many of these tribes are gone forever and you are very safe to claim them as your ancestors. To my best knowledge actually Uighur is a quite new identity. In the time as near as early 20th century people in Xinjiang primarily identified with the tribes not the later concocted 'uighurs'.

And are Uighurs and Turks the same people? The few Turks from Turkey I have known are very Caucasian people while most Uighurs are not. The physical appearance difference is quite obvious like the height, skin color (the repellent ordor (狐臭 or Hu Chou) is the same though). I don't think Uighurs are real Turks. But considering that Uighurs have the habit of randomly and mistakenly claiming certain group(s) as ancestors, and their strong desire to be seen as white people, should I really be surprised here?

Huaxia,

Yes, we ARE capable of rational thinking as a proud member of the human race in the 21st century.

Our definition of Uyghur is not as loose as you suspected. Modern day Uyghurs are bound together by common linguistic, cultural, behavioural, and religious traditions, and follows any definition of "ethnicity (民族)". As it is common for any other ethnicity, Uyghurs have assimilated various ethnicites/groups during the course of its history (Soghdians, Tokharians, Mongols, to name a few), which is similar as Han being a melting pot as Sha mentioned before. But we're not encompassing the some other present day inhabitants of ET, such as Mongols, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Han and others (although Kazakh and Kyrgyz are linguistically much closer to us).

We never said modern day Uyghurs and Turks are the same people. But we admit that we have common linguistic, cultural and religous traditions, although they may not be sufficient enough to classify us as the same ethnicity. But it is an interesting fact that while a Han person from Northern China can't undertstand Cantonese or Fukianese, we can understand Uzbek 90%, Kazakh/Kyrgyz 80%, Turkish 60% and so on.

We're proud of what we're. We don't claim to be seen as white people or an Eastern Asian for that matter. I'm surprised to find out that some of us also identify YOU guys with the 'repellent odor', just as you did.

Good argument, haverci. If we have more Uighures like you instead of the thieves and pickpockets working in various Chinese cities or the violent type who will show his knife in the first 5 seconds of an argument, you people will have more respect from others.

You are right in that Uighurs absorbed genes from different tribes and you are not encompassing the present tribes like Mongols or Kazakhs into your big Uighur family. That's quite generous for those tribes, isn't it? However you claim of the independent Uighur states are still questionable because some of the present day groups have the same right if not even more to claim those old tribes as their ancestors. Uighurs inheritated something from thos bygone tribes but that doesn't make Uighurs their sole heir and it doesn't make those ancient tribes Uighurs either. I still stand by the notion that the concept of Uighur is a quite recent and man-made concept. I don't think those state founders consider themselves Uighurs.

About the 'repellent body ordor' (狐臭） we talked about, we all know who has that. I played basketball all these years and the only times I smelt the ordor was when i played with Uighurs from Xinjiang. Actually the word 狐臭 is a variant of the word 胡臭, which literally translates into English as 'the barbarin ordor' because that ordor was a new thing to the ancient Han people when they encountered the 'barbarians' which may included the various ancestors of today's Uighurs and hence the name. Do some research and you will know what I am talking about.

Ethnicity is very abtrary to me. I have a friend from Xinjing who is a Han, but looking physically, his face and his body is very similar with Yugu of Gansu. If we just use the "look", it is hard to understand Uyghurs in Xinjiang, Uyghurs in Hunnan, and Yugu are some people.

Lingusitcally speaking, you have language converge and diverge. It is natural people living in same life style--like Nomads with easy access--like grassland, the language will be more converging. People lives in acccess-difficult terrains would have more diverging language. That is why Fujian province alone probably have 5 major languages, and most of Northern China people can understand each other. One interesting part is Tibetans in Tibet and Qinghai may have problem to talk with their native tongue, and for them, it is much easier to speack Mandarin for communication.

I guess Uyghur lived in Oasis that is not isolate enough to have some divergence, but can they talk with Yugu today?

My understanding of history that today's Uyghur has multiple blood origins but the core group we can attribute to Yuanhe (袁纥), Huihe (回纥),or Huigu(回鹘). Which itself is part of a broad group--Dingling (丁零), Gaoche (高车), Tele (铁勒), Chile (敕勒). After moving to Tarim Basin, they mixed and assimilated local people, who themself a mix of many different people, like Yuezi (月支), Qiang (羌), and other non-specific Turkic groups. Later on, Uyghurs also converted and assimlated some numbers of Mongols and Hans living in the area.

Basically, I consider Uyghurs participation in XiongNu (Hun) Empire and Turk (Gokturks) Empire are similar like today's citizen in a nation. For example, Uyghurs in Xinjiang today is citizen of China (so a Chinese in broad sense), but not Han (Chinese in narrow sense). So we can say that Uyghurs were citizen of XiongNu or Turk Nations, but not calling them Huns and Turks. Uyghurs were well understood and distigushed in ancient world, and only non-specific ethnic groups being generally gave a Turkic-alike label. Also one example is the so-called one branch of Turk tribe who was Northern European like, was being identifed as Sadr only very later when they contributed some famous Tang generals named Li keyong (李克用) and Li Cunmao (李存勖).

uyghur turk emes!
uyghurlar hitaydin ohxaydu.

Sha,
Are you saying Uyghur (Toqquz Oghuz On Uyghur-ancient name for Uyghur) is not Turkic?
Go check your ancient chinese history, read scholarly work done by Russians , Japenese , Turkish and Germans, then come talk to me. Search two key words associated with the name of Uyghur: Uyghur , Oghuz.

I agree with you that the name Uyghur is relatively man-made concept. The Lenin and Stalin are the inventors. Before, people in Turkistan called themselves Turk or muslim. They also identified themselves by city name. 100 years ago, ozbek and Uyghur did not consider themselves separate ethnic group. They were artificially devided by the outsiders.

Huaxia,
You are a mean , raciest , aggressive person. Unfortunate reality is that china is full of your kind of people. So only option left for Uyghur is independence from Chinese yoke. So we can free from your kind.

The usage of the name Uyghur stopped about 500 years ago. Current usage started about 100 years ago. Uyghur and Uzbek names are used for agricultural Turkic people.

An Uighur,

You are right I am a racist. It's all because i know you people too well. Please kindly point out which part of my posts is not true. You can go point by point. There are no Uighur thieves and pickpockets in Chinese cities? You are not violent? And you don't eminate the repulsive 狐臭ordor? Let's talk abou t facts, OK? Facts should be neutral an not recist. Add

And you are nt exactly exempt of being racist. Go back and chek your previous posts and you will find plenyt racism against Han Chinese. Stop trying to be a holy man here, OK? Let's sy racism is a two-way street.

Finally I applaud your effort to get independence. You can lead your people and leave Xinjiang and go whichever country who are willing to accept you, be it Central Asian Stans, Turk or Germany. I think they many welcome you and even give you a piece of land to build your independent Uighur state out of brothers' love. Without you we will build a even better and more prosperous Xinjiang. And I can assure you that you will hardly be missed.

Huaxia,

I must point out some nonesense in your last post.

1. There are cirtain circumstances making people criminal, and nobody are born delinquent. There are quite a few Ughurs who have decent jobs around China outside Xinjing. You should not put the whole ethnic group into one lot. You should not even evoke such an impression.

2. Human is violent. The question is only who is more. There are violent peaceful Ughur dissidnets and nationalists as well as peaceful ones, and there are criminal and non-nationalist Ughurs and law-abediant ones. You should not antagonize the whole group.

3. I think body odor is a personal affair, and it has nothing to do with the discussions here. There are multiple factors such as scarcity of water and a lack of western hygienic standards, but it is not an issue that can be judged ethically.

Pick such questions already evoke an impression of gross labelling and personal attack, no matter if they are factual. There are a thousand ways to argue otherwise, why must you raise these points?

@An Uyghur,

What I am saying that by anticipation (or subjects, more correctly) in XiongNu Empire and Gokturk Empire don't mean Uyghurs are Huns and Turks. The world Turkic is used to identify those tribes the historians were not too familar with. Just like an ancient European may just call everyone from East a Mongol without knowing the details. In that case, you can call Uyghurs Turkic (Turk-alike), but the reason I will call Uyghurs by its own name because its history is very distingushed and the historians in the past had very good understanding the difference between Uyghurs and Turks.

Same case for Tuoba (拓跋). Westerners who don't know better, may also call Tuoba a "Turkic" tribe. But the fact was Tuoba united Northern China, and choosing Turk and boost them up on the fight against Rouran (柔然). Both Sui and Tang Dynasties out of Sinification of Tuoba Empire. Historical records showed that Tang Taizong Li Shimin (唐太宗李世民) talked wtih Turk Khans in their native languages. So the Tuoba language probably is much same as Turk language. But today we don't simply call Touba a Turkic group. Same case for Uyghur.

Sha,

I don't agree with your statement " ... The world Turkic is used to identify those tribes the historians were not too familar with ...". Turkic people (or tribes) are so called, because they, as I said before, have common LINGUISTIC, cultural and, to a lesser degree, religious traditions that bind them together (exception for the religion are YUGUZU in China [Tibetan Buddhism], Tuva people in Russian Altay region [Tibetan Buddhism], Chuvash [Christian] in Russia and the Gagauz [Christian] in Moldova, etc.). As its clear, these people don't live in one country, or don't belong to the same ethnicity, but they have something in common, most importantly the language. That's why these people are called 'Turkic' people.

The reason why you and others in China are so sensitive to this 'Turkic' term is that you easily connect it to Panturkism, which is a historical 'no, no' in China for obvious reasons; another reason is that you guys always hold tight to the historical term '突厥' and argue that since Uighurs were subjects of '突厥' empire (some of you even go on to say that we were the '突厥人的奴隶'), how come we can call us 'Turkic'? Well, the term 'Turkic' has been evolved to indicate not only the historical Turkic Empire, but also current inhabitants of the world that belong to the same Turkic language family.

I don't think anybody calls "Tuoba" a Turkic people. In fact, they are belong to Xianbei people and called "Tabghach" in Orhun inscriptions of Bilge Khan (毗伽可汗), during the GokTurk Empire.

Heverci,

I took your argument at using Turkic as a word to describe the broad culture affiliation to describe all people in Central Asia who shared the same linguistic and cultural traditions.

Panturkism is also not my concern on the issue. It maybe a good way in West to undermine Russia/Soviet grasp of Central Asia, but I don't feel it is such strong sentiment that a new unified nation from Turkey to Xinjiang is on the horizon. Frankly, nations formed and divided during real wars and not on the paper, and I doubt there is enough unified will power on all labeled "Turkic" people on such ambition. If there is one, I guess that we would have a Turkic Nation here already.

I do agree Turk is a term very strict defined in Chinese history we maybe use it in different context as Turkic implies today. But I would still treat the kind of claims like "An Uyghur" about how Uyghurs created Huns Empire and Turk Empore as non-serious historic matters.

There are two schools arguing on what Tuoba is. One refers them to Xianbei and one (especially from Europe) refers them a close relationship with Turk. I am leaning on the latter one. Some interesting fact are 1) when Tuoba Wai Dynasty looks for someone as partner against Rouran, they choosed Turk which is not a strong tribe at the time; 2) The marriage relationship between Tuoba and Turk was very extensive--such as Queens of China must from Turk and Queens of Turk must from Tuoba, etc; 3) Li Shimin's troop had more than half consisting by West Turks, led by 3rd ranked person in Turk Khan family Ashana Dalai (史大奈). Of course, the fact that Li Shimin is so good with the language, all point to a fact there are enough of similarity in the language between Tuoba and Turk.

@Everybody: Wow! This has turned into quite a discussion. Thanks for all the information, really, my knowledge of Central Asian history is seriously limited.

@Huaxia: The only thing you have managed to do with your comments is bring shame on yourself, your people, and your country.

@Sha: Sorry, but I did warn you that arguing about nukes with a Kiwi was a serious mistake. I don't believe in the possibility of a limited nuclear war. Cold War-style Mutually Assured Destruction worked precisely because everybody knew that to launch their nukes would be suicide and the entire world would be destroyed. The launch of one single nuke headed towards a relatively unimportant destination as a warning would trigger the launch of another nuke or two headed to less unimportant destinations as a warning not to escalate the conflict and then the conflict would escalate until we were all killed.

Alright, I know the spyplane should be seen in context. But it was still a mishap within that context. In and of itself it does not indicate US bullying of China. The context does certainly indicate US mistrust and suspicion of China, at the very least, and, in the more extreme sectors of American society, it certainly does represent a desire to keep China "in its place". I don't think you can extrapolate from here to blaming the whole of the "West". My homeland is "Western", yes, but it is an example of a "Western" country with an entirely independent approach to the world. Having said that, you make some very good points and I think you may be surprised by how much we agree.

I will now bow out of this discussion, because the main theme has been taken to levels way beyond my understanding.

I'll second Chriswaugh_bj's "wow". Sha and Heverci, I'd like to compliment you two on carrying on a respectable and informed conversation on a topic that often devolves into name calling. See "huaxia" for reference.

An Uyghur, you're alright too. I'd suggest ignoring "huaxia" though. He's just wasting your time and energy.

@Chris: LOL. It is indeed a mistake to mention Taboo word "nuke" with a Kiwi, a Canuck, or a Aussie.

Bush Admin in recent year was trying hard to break your "Mutually Assured Destruction" principle. USA seriously upgraded its ICBMs with advanced technology and also work on Missile Defense System (joint venture with Japan) to make sure other people's old ICBMs not working. That will increase the danger of one side nuke strikes. One reason why you heard so much "tactic nuke bunker blaster" is not longer a nuke argument. One way to restore this equlibrium is to upgrade everyone's old ICBMs thus a nuclear arm race (Bush already started one by giving India all free nuclear gifts to get them on anti-China wagon, and China counterattacked by giving Pakistan same stuff and who knows Pakistan will give that to someone else), or shake the whole foundation of this new concept. Fortunately, last week China tested its ASAT (anti-satellite weapon) to show that it has ability to take out all US military and intelligent satellites to make sure Missile Defense System is USELESS. This new concept of weaponary also threatens the whole US modern warfare doctrine--such as integrate command, GPS guided precision attack (smart missiles and bombs), inter-branch coordination, battlefield awareness, etc. which depends on a secure and reliable communciation link. Very interesting development.

chris from beijing, please jsut fukk off. You are right your knowledge is limited and there is no place for you here. You choice of shut up and learn is a wise move.

Which is the biggest joke of 21st century: Islam is 'the religion of peace' or whites from the west serve as morality judge?

Hua Xia,
You're so pathetic and pathetic you are ! Trust me. If you thought this place is for practising your English, you were so wrong...

hi everyone, the argument seems spirled out of hand at one point when the objective was blurred and shifted to verbal abuses. (not by all though, i have to admit) the positive outcame, to me atleast, it has mirrored the reality in the Uighur-Han argument,especially, on the historical issues. i enjoyed it, and it shall be more fun if everyone manages to stay calm and rational in the future.

Heveci,
Tuoba from the Tang dynasty was neither Turkic nor Xianbei, they were Tibetans who lived in Southern and eastern part of Xinjiang.

@huaxia

you are truly a disgrace to chinese culture and unworthy of your screen name.

@everyone else

thanks for the stimulating discussion. i would like to add that ethnicity is based on culture and language, not genetics. Tribal or cultural identities may disappear from history or evolve over time, but no 'people' truly disappears out of existence at the genetic level. Therefore I find it superfluous to split hairs over the historical definitions of 'Turk' Uyghur, etc...the important thing is to acknowledge the multiethnic nature of Xinjiang today and try to find a common way forward that respects the aspirations of all its peoples.

If the western powers had not surpressed the Taiping rebellion for the Qing, China would have been broken and fractured long ago.

I wholly support the Xinjiang Project and the efforts in Afganistan, kazakstan and Pakistan to support it. It isn't just the US, Russia also supports the Uyghurs to break the back of Bad China and defend Siberia from conquest and ruin by the CCP's dirty hands.

Support your local Uyghur. It was only a matter of time before I found this website.

wnpghoei http://llajibwf.com aynsltgs veyoxbne bqdaupzh [URL=http://tccknkta.com]yolqkwlv[/URL]

jgyjbgef http://jkvpqqjp.com dpulxhnw eojwkidt [URL=http://syoevfir.com]qoaoirlx[/URL] lpditlfm