Uzbeks & Uyghurs: differencies & similarities

For me as an outside observer i.e. not Tajik and not Uzbek his claims are not less valid than yours. Why Tajik nationalism is worse than Uzbek nationalism?

Perhaps you missed the wiki article about Uzbeks, which gives a bunch of names and sources.

And also the analysis you just gave of Masov's article is very biased. He didn't write anything outragesous there.

Pan-turanism in the first years of the Soviet rule and Uzbekization of Tajiks in Uzbekistan, which was an artificial entity created by the Soviet Government are known facts. Nothing to be angry about.

 

Originally posted by Bulldog Furthermore, if Persian speakers became Turkified, why didn't Turks become Persianified?   There are totally isolated Turkic communities in Iran, like the Qashqai, 1-2 million Oghuz Turks, how after centuries are they still speaking Turkish, how have they retained their identity and culture.

Qizilbash are just one example of those Turkic people who became Persianfied.  Many others became Persianfied but they dont hold any special name for themselves (this process still is continuing in major Persian speaker cities in Iran. @ if you have any question about this part I can give you more information on this).

For qashqais I told you before changing language occurs in cities not between nomads who live in rural and have strong relationship and move with their relatives and tribemen from one place to another. I personally know 3 qashqai families who became totally Persianfied their grandparets where qashqai and spoke a dialect of turkic language but their children and specially young generation do not understand turkic and only speak persian language.

Originally posted by Sarmat12 They are Sarts because they fought against Tsar army?  What an interesting conclusion, and how Sart relates to the fighting against Tsar army at all?  I'm afraid you are a little lost.   Sart basically means a city dweller as opposed to the nomad. That's what it means and tsar army for better and for worse doesn't have any relation to this.   Instead of throwing into discussions words like "dams etc." You better read a several books on Central Asian history. Or may be just read this link if you don't have enough time.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarts   The process of linguisitic assimilation is natural and can be observed in different places at different historical periods. There is nothing unusual, weird etc. in the fact that Tajiks or original Iranian speaking Central Asian city dwellers were Turkicizationed. It doesn't have any relation to Russians and Russian nationalism.   However, I see a strange reaction to this fact from some members. What does it change for Uzbeks if they know that their ancestors were Iranian speakers? It changes nothing, since they still consider themselves Uzbeks and Turks, more over it makes their historical heritage more diverse and rich.   Thank you.

thanks for your notes.....

There is another reasons for correlating tsar army to "sart".... where you probably will have to take some more courses in behavioral sciences to get to the point..... Alright man... am not going to quarrel with you.... but..... i have to again to repeat my previous proposal that it can be a few of people living in the area assimilated into uzbek nationality but not in anyways, I will have to say no way, not most of them were iranic people... I don't  understand that some members find it difficult to agree with the reality.... Agree and admit that turkic (uzbek speaking) people lived in modern uzb, afg, taj, and turkmenistan areas well before 10th centuries.... and they still do.... seems like in your mind, uzbeks appeared from somewhere after saljuks and spread across the territory, and before that there were only iranic peole living there, no it is too far from reality.... there is no confirmation to prove that.... that's also something you have to know about..... if we go back to the Alexander time... there wan no iranics in that area too.... iranic (tajik)s used to live in mountain areas, also in the cities, but it should not mean that there were no uzbeks... besides uzbeks always contain the majority if we include the whole area.... the only difference uzbeks used to live in rural areas rather than in the cities..... c'mon man... just take it easy....!

Originally posted by Sarmat12 Also you perhaps don't know that Soviet Russia in the beginning was the biggest supporter of the Kemalist Turkey and viewed Pan-Turkism as a friendly movement.

i disagree. Soviets supported Turks only because they were fighting imperialist powers which also supported Whites. in fatc they prepared an invasion led by Enver Pasha who would install a Soviet-friendly government. after Mustafa Kemals sucess, he fled to Central Asia and supported the Basmachi Pan-turkism fighting in Central Asia which was put down by the Red Army. neither was Turkey Pan-turkist at that time. it was for westernizing Turks, not for supporting the Central Asian Turks struggle for independence.

Originally posted by Temujin i disagree. Soviets supported Turks only because they were fighting imperialist powers which also supported Whites. in fatc they prepared an invasion led by Enver Pasha who would install a Soviet-friendly government. after Mustafa Kemals sucess, he fled to Central Asia and supported the Basmachi Pan-turkism fighting in Central Asia which was put down by the Red Army. neither was Turkey Pan-turkist at that time. it was for westernizing Turks, not for supporting the Central Asian Turks struggle for independence.

For sure, the independence of the central asian people was not encouraged. However, in the beginning of the Soviet Rule nationalist revival and education was more than encouraged. Also the local attitudes were very confused. In Central Asia that national revival and friendly relations with Kemalist Turkey were viewed in a Pan-Turkic light. Please, check the link I posted above; the article cites a song which school childrend had to study about the war with Greece and the glory of Turks, it's very interesting.

Originally posted by Sarmat12 I also don't think that Tajikization is in any regard better than Uzbekization. But if want to have a fair discussion, we should evaluate all the points of view or at least try to be objective.   They all did bad thinks and also they did good thinks. But the objectivity and respect to the others is the key for the right understanding of the past and building of the better future.   I accept that the Russian imperialism did brought a lot of sufferings to the people of Central Asia (though it's not relevant to this discussion, but just FYI). But I don't think this negate in any way the fact that Uzbekization or Tjikization happened.

OK,
Core point what we can not agree with - you always try to say that there is always sort of turkization policy and you reflect it onto uzbeks also based on their close roots with turkish... Do you think it is fair... I understand about Turkey, it is not our topic here, maybe they do turkization policy from the period of ottoman empire, maybe they had a reason for that, in order to unite people and keep the integrity in society... let's don't judge that, BUT it no way should mean that these types of policies happened with uzbeks too, as because they are turkic...  Referring to your previous posts which was about uzbekization during stalin era, i will give you clear points.... 1.Tajiks were never forced to change their language and forget their traditions, the only thing they were asked to get uzbekistan citizenship, eventhough in their passports, they ethnicity written "tajik"....when many people did not have any passport yet.... 2. Tajiks contain very minority in Uzbekistan and these kinds of things did not occur in mass level... 3. Tajiks can have high positions as long as they are able to perform a job in government language....
Comparative analysis: What's situation in Tajikistan....
1. Total humiliation of uzbeks, in all aspects, even selling cassette recorders(in uzbek) is prohibited officially by the government.... 2. In fact, large portion of tajikistan population are uzbeks..... and not only there but, Turkmenistan, and Kirgizstan, south of Kazakstan... If you really want fair discussion about the demarcation..... and rights of citizens or anything like that, dude, you gotta make up your mind in a right way.... I am not going to say other nations can not have official government.... but carefully paying attention to all real facts, you have gotta present your Proposal !

doublepost

Edited by Bulldog - 24-Feb-2008 at 19:49

Interestingly enough, some prominent fathers of Pan-Turkistm were in fact pro-Russian, like for example Ismail Gasprini, who lamented the hostilities between Ottoman and Russian empires and called for the unity of both of them against the West.

Sarmat Interestingly enough, some prominent fathers of Pan-Turkistm were in fact pro-Russian, like for example Ismail Gasprini, who lamented the hostilities between Ottoman and Russian empires and called for the unity of both of them against the West.